CIR VS CA

FACTS:

1. Tax assessment - On July 8, 1983, IPC (Ateneo auxiliary unit or branch) received a tax assessment from CIR for the
deficiency contractor’s tax of P 174K and income tac of P 1.1M for fiscal year March 31, 1978.
2. Letter Protest - IPC sent a letter-protest and subsequently filed a memorandum contesting the validity of the
assessments.
3. Revised Tax assessment - On March 17, 1988, CIR rendered a letter-decision canceling the assessment for
deficiency income tax but modifying the assessment for deficiency contractor’s tax by increasing to P 193K.
4. Filed petition for review - IPC requested for a reconsideration or reinvestigation of the modified assessment. At
the same time, it filed petition for review of the said letter-decision before CTA.
5. Final Tax Assessment - While the petition was pending, CIR issued a final decision dated Aug 3, 1988 reducing the
assessment for deficiency contractor’ tax to P 46K exclusive of surcharge and interest.
6. CTA decision - On July 12, 1993 the respondent court rendered a question decision cancelling the assessment of
P 46K. Funds received were not fees but gift or donations which are tax exempt.
7. CIR – IPC falls under the “independent contractor” since it is not included in the enumerated exceptions in Sec
205 and Ateneo has the burden to proof to show its exemption
8. CA decision – Affirmed CTA.

ISSUES:

1. WON IPC falls under the purview of independent contractor pursuant to Sec 205 of the tax code
2. WON IPC is subj t 3% contractor’s tax under Sec 205 of the tax code

RULING:

1. CIR erred in applying the principles of tax exemption without first applying the well-settled doctrine of strict
interpretation in the imposition of taxes.
2. To qualify as independent contractor, it should be engaged in the business of selling its services.
3. Ateneo (IPC) did not sold its services for a fee or was engaged in business apart from and independently of the
academic purpose. Sponsorship received for IPC projects is incidental to its academic purpose.

DOCTRINE:

1. Hornbook Doctrine in the interpretation of tax laws – Statute will not be construed as imposing a tax unless it does
so clearly, expressly, and unambiguously. A tax cannot be imposed without clear and express words for that
purpose

MCIAA VS MARCOS
FACTS:

1. Tax Exemption – MCIAA created by RA 6958, enjoys tax exemption on realty taxes based on Sec 14 of RA 6958.
2. Demand for payment of Realty taxes – Officer-in-Charge of office of the Treasurer of the City of the Cebu
demanded payment of realty taxes on several parcels of land of MCIAA.
3. Objection of MCIAA – MCIAA exempt as it is a government instrumentality performing governmental functions,
Sec 133 Local Govt code of 1991.
4. Refusal to withdraw – City Treasurer said that MCIAA is govt controlled corp whose tax exemption has been
withdrawn by Secs 193 and 234 of Lovel Govt code of 1992.
5. Petition for Declaratory Relief to RTC – MCIAA was compelled to pay its tax account under protest in view of the
warrant of levy to be issued and file this to RTC Cebu.
6. RTC Dismissed the petition – RA 7160 or the New Local Govt Code of 1991 repealed RA 6958. MCIAA must pay
taxes. MCIAA filed a motion for reconsideration but was denied.
 7. Petition for review - MCIAA although a GOCC but mandated to perform functions in the same category as an
instrumentality of Natl govt thus City of Cebu has no power no authority to impose taxes in acc with Sec 133 of
the LGC.

ISSUES:

1. RTC erred in placing MCIAA in the same category as a instrumentality or agency of the govt
2. TRC erred in ruling that MCIAA is liable to pay realty taxes

RULING:

1. MCIAA is a “taxable person” under its Charter (RA 6958), and was only exempted from the payment of real
property taxes. The grant of the privilege only in respect of this tax is conclusive proof of the legislative intent to
make it a taxable person subject to all taxes, except real property tax.
2. MCIAA basis for tax exemption RA 6528 was repealed by RA 7160, then MCIAA should pay.

DOCTRINE:

1. Taxation is the rule, exemption is the exception.

SERFINO VS CA
FACTS:

1. Homestead Patent – Registered by Casamayor on Aug 1927

2. Sale by Casamayor –Sold to Baltazar on Dec 1945
3. Lost of title and reissuance – Baltazar lost the title in the war, filed petition to the Court of First Instance of Negros
Occidental then issue new title
4. Sale by Baltazar – Sold to Lopez Sugar Central on Aug 25 1951 who did not register until Dec 1974
5. Auction Sale by Provincial Treasurer Negros – Oct 1956 notice of sale sent to Casamayor none to Baltazar. No
bidders so issued to Province of Negros Occidental
6. Serfino acquired the land – Serfino paid the delinquent taxes and the land was issued to him. Filed a petition for
the reconsititution of the title to Casamayor , upon the allegation that said title was lost. Then Serfino petitioned
for the confirmation that the land was purchased by him in the auction which was granted on Nov 1964.
7. Mortgage of Land – Serfino mortgaged the land to PNB on Nov 1964. Then Lopez Sugar register which then they
filed the complaint to court.
8. Lower court – TCT of Serfino to be cancelled. TCT to be issued to Baltazar then to Lopez Sugar. Lopez Sugar to pay
PNB on the mortgage. Serfino to vacate the land.
9. CA – Both parties appeled to CA which affirmed lower court with modification. Mortgage null and void since
Serfino is not the owner. Lopez Sugar not to pay PNB.

ISSUE:

1. Whether the auction sale of the disputed property was null and void.

RULING:

1. Sale of land of Province of Negros Occidental to Serfinos was void since it was not the real owner.
2. Inability to notify the actual owner was partly Lopez fault for not registering the land for several years.
3. PNB (not in fault) should be paid by Lopez.

DOCTRINE:

1. Strict adherence to the statutes governing tax sales is imperative.

COSICO VS NLRC
FACTS:

1. Abolition of position – Cosico’s position was abolished by Eva Airways due to unfavorable result of the business
effective after 15 days. Eva offered separation pay and other compensation.
2. Filing of illegal dismissal – Cosico rejected Eva’s offer and filed a complaint.
3. Labor Arbiter Decision – Dismissal illegal and without justifiable cause order Eva to reinstate the position of Cosico
with damages.
4. Appeal Memorandum to NLRC – Filed by Eva while Cosico filed a motion to dismiss.
5. NLRC Decision – Motion dismissed, appeal given due course setting aside Arbiter decision but Eva to pay Cosico
full separation benefits. Cosico move for reconsideration but was denied.

ISSUES:

1. NLRC gravely abused discretion by granting Eva the appeal (failure to post correct bond)
2. NLRC gravely abused discretion when it held that Cosico was not illegally dismissed
3. NLRC gravely abused discretion when it held that the position was abolished and Cosico not entitled to damages

RULING:

1. No, bond on appeals involving monetary awards must be given liberal interpretation in line with the desired
objective of resolving controversies.
2. No, the abolition of position was not done with malice and arbitrariness constituting bad fautg on the part of the
mgt but due to its cost-effective measure. Thus, this is valid management prerogative.
3. NLRC affirmed.

BUSTAMANTE VS NLRC
FACTS:

1. Dismissal of petitioners – Employees was terminated due to poor performance 1 month prior to end of their
contract. The said employees has been employed previously for the same position.
2. Complaint to Regional Arbitration – Employees filed a complaint for illegal dismissal.
3. Regional Arbitration Decision - Dismissal illegal ordering Evergreen Farm to reinstate their position and paying 6
months backwages. If reinstatement not possible an additional 1 month salary as form of separation pay. But
claims for underpayment of wages was dismissed for lack of merit.
4. Appeal and motion for reconsideration of Evergreen – NLRC dismissed appeal for lack of merit. A reconsideration
was filed then NLRC delete the award for backwages due to absence of bad faith of Evergreen.

ISSUE:

1. Did NLRC committed grave abused of direction in removing the award for backwages?

RULING:

1. Illegally dismissed. Per Art 280 of Labor Code, those who rendered one year of service whether continuous or
broken, are considered regular employees. The hiring and rehiring of Evergreen constitutes bad faith as it just
elude on making these employees regular to avoid the additional benefits attached to it.
2. Employees entitled to backwages and other separation benefits since there is no valid cause for their dismissal.
NLRC decision modified to reinstate the backwages. Labor Abiter affirmed.
MANAHAN VS ECC
FACTS:

1. Filed claim with Govt Service Insurance – Manahan, widow of an employee who died in enteric fever while
employed as classroom teacher filed a claim for death benefit under PD 626.
2. Denied claim – Typhoid fever not an occupational disease.
3. Motion for reconsideration – The deceased was in perfect health when admitted to service, that the ailment was
attributable to his employment.
4. Denial Affirmed – Ailment produced by Salmonella organisms.
5. Appeal to ECC – Affirmed the Govt Service Insurance, ailment not induced or aggravated by the nature of duties
as a teacher

ISSUE:

1. Does the deceased entitled to death benefits?

RULING:

1. Yes, the deceased may have contracted the illness due to its working condition.
2. In case of doubt, resolved in favor of labor.
3. Govt Service Insurance to pay death benefits, reimbursement of medical expenses, atty’s fees and administrative
fees.

VILLAVERT vs ECC
FACTS:

1. Filing of claim Govt Service Insurance System - Villavert son, Marcelino, an employee of Phil Constabulary, died in acute
hemorrhagic pancreatis.

2. Govt Service Insurance System and ECC - denied as this is not an occupational disease related to being a code verifier

ISSUE:

1. Can the heir claim death benefit on the ground that the disease was aggravated by the strenous workload of the
deceased?

RULING:

1. Yes, the death was directly cause or a least aggravated by his employment.

DOCTRINE:

1. Art 4 Labor Code “All doubts in the implementation and interpretation including IRR shall be resolved un favor of labor.

DEL ROSARIO VS ECC

FACTS:

1. Contract of services - Del Rosario entered into a contract of services with Calinar Security Agency for the supply of
security guards.
2. Complaint filed to Labor Arbiter - Employees filed complaint against Agency and Del Rosario for underpayment of salary
and non payment of living allowances and 13th month pay. Del Rosario response was no cause of action against them due
to absence of employee-employer relp and agency denied liability due to inadequancy of payments by Del Rosario which
cannot meet the payments required by labor laws.

3. Labor Arbiter Decision- Only Agency to pay the employees. Del Rosario not liable due to absence of emloyee-employer
relp.

4. Appeal to NLRC - Agency filed an appreal. Agency and Del rosario jointly and severally liable in accordance with Art 106
and 107 of Labor Code. Motion for reconsideration of Del Rosario was denied.

ISSUE:

1. Whether the absence of employee-employer relp can extinguished its liability

RULING:

1. Art 106 and 107 contractor is liable jointly and severally on non payment of wages.