38 SUPREME COURTREPORTS ANNOTATED ity Labor, na. . Dontigo IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING, the decision appenled trom is rovorsed, and the application dlsnisted, Coste against applanntappales, Bongzon, C.., Padilla, Boetta Angelo, Labrador, Concepelen, Paredes, Disrn, Regala aad Mokointat, J Barrera, Jy took no part Decision reveracd and appicaten dismissed. Notes.—Seo Ton v. Republic, 122077, Feb. 18, 1981, 19 SCRA S67 and Lim Ching Tiax v. Republi, 112001, Feb 28, 1961, 1 SCRA 822 ‘Se also the onnatations,“Charaxter Witnesses, Lucrative ‘Trade or Occupetion and Statement of Former Places of Residences” 19 SCRA 871-373, and “Character Wit- ness" 1 SCRA 624-628, No. E1861). Sanvasy 90, 3964 ‘Tue Cry LONBEE, INC, petitioner, om, Tae Hox. Mnux- ‘io R. Dowinco, Commissiorer of internal Revense Bae i Gone oF Da Ata rsed lon Inorme tans No deciction sled for wnre- ported fire la cd tetany a ok eperng {he alleged fire Tow i ls hon af secount of in hi ines fax rotor proves that sid alleged ls bad pot been uttered Some: Seme: Unzeportet income; Crah ert tolonce not considered a fovnWhora the alleged tonnes the. tx Beyer cles to be the eat eroit haan, not snow fn he ‘oak of aenunt and nether erg any rospts av other eidense Produced lo show that aid qvomestau's ina tuted yao Etepaper, or tint a loan wes cre soured Hdd’ Ghat thy fe Tondent court did not xr ia hat sidering tie cree cu Felson en lm anne by petra, Same; Same; Comisuoner of Internat Rovense exnaot negate pacer to nme iol settenast The Comistanes Sf tern Rovende cal. deegte the power oo make 2 ‘nal anenment tie eabordnst and esnocgneny despite Ervorter of and ‘Commissoner ising. Regional Dieters Sighoty (© dose tax che aald ener is apmcable to bit fotornnte offices aniy and etl fo bind day Commision mac whe has been entrees by law to mike taal mer. VoL. 20, JANUARY 30, 1964 38 Gite Taster, Fae ve Dom REVIEW of a dovsion of the Court of Tax Appeal, "The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court, Medina & Medina for petitioner Soliitor Generel for eespondents amaaon, J Petitioner stoke the reviow of a decision of the Coust of ‘Tax Appatis, upholding #m_ assesment hy respendent on fn additional ‘Income of P16.5T868.roprermting. minor ‘ladtions from the alleged expeness, om ndlelored en plrwood, nail snd Gr shoste amounting to P7,90207, tnd on a cash credit balance of P7,896.80, Peltier cnims that the respondent court ead ia not holding that the Piswood and Gl sheste were actually lost In a fire our tga the ey and in 08 conldering tho eel cash bal- ‘On the first issue: pestoner IMTOOuGHT ar a Wines in his favor the Chief of Polls of the City of Dumaguste to testify on the existence of a fire in the city by reason of which the sore of petitioner we looted of ply\tood nd bogs of nals, But nid witneos doclared that they vocovered nly 100 pices of plywood and 5 kegs of mall, but that these Were returned to petitioner. The Court below, how ver, rejected the alleged las of plywood beeware sald oss ‘ras never reported in the loka of petitioner; and neither ‘was aul loss reported in the inoome tax return of pti Uoner for the year, submitted some monthe after the al- lego oss. ‘We hold that the conduct of petitioner in not reporting sald lose in his book of account or in his income tax re ‘im proves thut the iaged loss had uot been suffered, putitoner elas fo be the eaah credit balasce appenting in fis boole of account, petitioner's book af account feet to show sich a oan alto. Nelther were nny receips or other bridence produced to show that sald amount was «loan Secuted by petitioner, of that loan Waa ever secured. In lew of thete We find that the respondent court did not ‘commit the error ehsrged. "Te thing ever a the alleged vieation of an order of the Commissioner granting Regione! Directors authority40 SUPREME COURT REPORTS AN NOTATED ‘Supleo tw Manila Oceanla Lines, Ine ‘lose tax cates Involving deficiency saseatments not ex: ‘otding 710,000.00 in taxes and. penalties for i eppears ‘that after a investigation of the tax Liability of petition. x by the eorreponding regional rector the later review. fe the ease and reduced the asesement from P5(028.00 to 16.00. The order In question (Memorandin Order No. 84 dated July 8, 1956) was applicable only to subor- Alnate officers of the Bureno of Internal Revere and cond aot bind the Commissioner nimeel, who has been en- trusted’ by Yay to make final assexments, The Commis: mer cannot delegate this power to make « final egest- ‘ment to his subordinate. Delegatue non potest delegere; the person to whom an office or duty is delegated cannot Inwfally devotye the duty on another. ‘The existence of the alleged erzor is, therefore, denied. WHBREFORB, the decision is hereby affirmed, with cms, So ordered. Padilla, Bantsto Angelo, Concepeion, Barvers, Pare es, Dizon, Regnla and Meinl, dd, conc Bengzon, Cl and Reyes, Jl, took 20 part Decision affirmed. No, LasiT8 Sensory 80, 1964 ‘Unano SAPIC0, ot Alm, pleintfteppeliss, os. MANIA Ockanic Lanes, INC, Br aL, defendants, MANILA OCB ‘Io LINES, ING, defendant-appellant, nena; Je Arcont lened_ by ony of seer! perils fonct one compet. Seeraines Sotedtatee of irt-Detevanntanpetant contended fhe if he tla sean Slated be ttdct trong the severe Cttets the cae of ‘ch votld ot seach the Jolaetion of the Gets of Fit Fhetanm, Sot ft appeared at one ef tad Chimonte demand inthe compels #10000 ay desces, on the tears of hit el ge a hei than eds St ‘li "wthinhe Soroletioa of the ‘Gout of Fist clone, fa witout see fase APPEAL from decision of the Coutt of Firat Tastance of Mails ‘The facts are stated In the opinion of the Court Rettrar & Leeson for paintittesppeliees, hs se for defendant-appeliat, VOL. 10, JANUARY 30, 1964 a —“Waniis Ratirond Co. vn Workmen's Conponation — ‘Commisnion LameaboR, J. ‘This is an appeal from a deciion of the Court of Fiat Instance of Manila sentencing defendants to pay plaintiffs 24,870.76 ae unpaid wagse and 5,000.00 ss. attorny's ‘ees, for the officers and erew of # vessel to bo brought from Hongkong to Manila for the account of defendants. ‘The complaint filed in the case contained $ causes of action, (1) to collect P24,570.6 representing unpald wages ‘as per contrat, (2) moral damages atthe rate of P10,00.00 {or the Master, and 5,000.00 esch for each marine officer, Including radio officer, 2,000.00 for each crew members oF f total of 11,000.00, and. (8) 5,000.00 attorney's foes. ts contended on the appat that if the amount claimed to- talling P140,51076 be divided among the 38 members and btficers of the crew, each would be demanding only F8,- '90.28-1/18, which claim does not reach the jurisaition tf the Court of First Instance where the action wes brought. ‘But the second eaure of action of the complaint alleged that ‘the captain demanded 10,000.00 as damages, plus the ‘mount of his pay. ‘The claim, therefore, thatthe case does fot fall within tho juvidiction of the Court of Fist Tn ‘tapes, is without merit. WHEREFORE, the decision sppesld from is affirmed, swith conte, So ordered, Bengeon, C1, and Reyes, EBLe, J took no past, Reyes, HBL, Barrore, Paredee, Dion. Repnin and Maka Wintel, JZ, ener. Decision offre No. L9sr7. Yanuary 80, 2964 ase Ransoan Conran, petitioner, vs. WoRRm's (ConerEssATioN COMDEBSION, BD Ain, Tespondents Workmen's comanantions Compenseity of claims; Dente from picemonis cotrected in the sours of employrent — {lie Rit Tew we ehar pneumoniae dirty eateed by the ‘irs ino so poesoreors, anda such tot eapeonal ‘dora Rowerce inthe same at bar dhe aicenee Which breast {hp deccul to bis grave wan contracted In the are of a ‘Speynen an here hy te fact tat elle Werking and per ‘SUD onder the Dent of the sun Ie was soto oertaken