Académique Documents
Professionnel Documents
Culture Documents
1.
Court of Appeals
Facts: Petitioner applied with the Office of the City Mayor of Iligan
for a business permit. After consideration of petitioner's application
and the opposition interposed thereto by local optometrists,
respondent City Mayor issued Business Permit No. 5342 subject to
the following conditions: (1) Since it is a corporation, Acebedo
cannot put up an optical clinic but only a commercial store; (2) It
cannot examine and/or prescribe reading and similar optical
glasses for patients, because these are functions of optical clinics;
(3) It cannot sell reading and similar eyeglasses without a
prescription having first been made by an independent optometrist
or independent optical clinic. Acebedo can only sell directly to the
public, without need of a prescription, Ray-Ban and similar
eyeglasses; (4) It cannot advertise optical lenses and eyeglasses,
but can advertise Ray-Ban and similar glasses and frames; (5) It is
allowed to grind lenses but only upon the prescription of an
independent optometrist.
On December 5, 1988, private respondent Samahan ng Optometrist
Sa Pilipinas (SOPI lodged a complaint against the petitioner alleging
that Acebedo had violated the conditions set forth in its business
permit and requesting the cancellation and/or revocation of such
permit. On July 19, 1989, the City Mayor sent petitioner a Notice of
Resolution and Cancellation of Business Permit effective as of said
date and giving petitioner three (3) months to wind up its affairs.
Issue: Whether the City Mayor has the authority to impose special
conditions, as a valid exercise of police power, in the grant of
business permits
Page 1 of 4
2.
FACTS: Lim Tong Lim requested Peter Yao and Antonio Chuato
engage in commercial fishing with him. The three agreed to
purchase two fishing boats but since they do not have the money
they borrowed from one Jesus Lim the brother of Lim Tong Lim.
Subsequently, they again borrowed money for the purchase of
fishing nets and other fishing equipments. Yao and Chua
represented themselves as acting in behalf of Ocean Quest Fishing
Corporation (OQFC) and they contracted with Philippine Fishing
.Gear Industries (PFGI) for the purchase of fishing nets amounting
to more than P500k. However, they were unable to pay PFGI and
hence were sued in their own names as Ocean Quest Fishing
Corporation is a non-existent corporation. Chua admitted his
liability while Lim Tong Lim refused such liability alleging that Chua
and Yao acted without his knowledge and consent in representing
themselves as a corporation.
HELD: Yes. It is apparent from the factual milieu that the three
decided to engage in a fishing business. Moreover, their
Compromise Agreement had revealed their intention to pay the
loan with the proceeds of the sale and to divide equally among
them the excess or loss. The boats and equipment used for their
business entails their common fund. The contribution to such fund
need not be cash or fixed assets; it could be an intangible like
credit or industry. That the parties agreed that any loss or profit
from the sale and operation of the boats would be divided equally
among them also shows that they had indeed formed a
partnership. The principle of corporation by estoppel cannot apply
in the case as Lim Tong Lim also benefited from the use of the nets
in the boat, which was an asset of the partnership. Under the law
on estoppel, those acting in behalf of a corporation and those
benefited by it, knowing it to be without valid existence are held
liable as general partners. Hence, the question as to whether such
was legally formed for unknown reasons is immaterial to the case.
3.
Gatchalian vs CIR
Page 2 of 4
4.
Ona vs CIR
FACTS:
On December 15, 1934, the plaintiffs, all 15 of them, each
contributed in order to buy a sweepstakes ticket worth Php 2.00.
ISSUE:
Whether the plaintiffs formed a partnership, thus not exempted
from paying income tax
HELD:
Page 3 of 4
ISSUE:
5.
RULING:
FACTS: Petitioners sold the lots they inherited from their father and
derived a total profit of P33,584 for each of them. They treated the
profit as capital gain and paid an income tax thereof. The CIR
required petitioners to pay corporate income tax on their shares, .
20% tax fraud surcharge and 42% accumulated interest. Deficiency
tax was assessed on the theory that they had formed an
unregistered partnership or joint venture.
Art 1769 the sharing of gross returns does not of itself establish a
partnership, whether or not the persons sharing them have a joint
or common right or interest in any property from which the returns
are derived. There must be an unmistakable intention to form
partnership or joint venture.
Page 4 of 4