Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

STATE INVESTMENT HOUSE v. CA

This case has been cited 4 times or more.

	GR No. 202789 2015-06-22	CIR v. PUREGOLD DUTY FREE VELASCO JR., J.
At bar is a petition for review under Rule 45 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure assailing the May 9, 2012 Decision and July 18, 2012 Resolution of the Court of Tax Appeals (CTA) en banc in CTA EB No. 723 (CTA Case No. 7812). The CTA en banc upheld the November 25, 2010 and January 20, 2011 Resolutions of the CTA Second Division stating that herein respondent Puregold Duty Free, Inc. (Puregold) is entitled to, and properly availed of, the tax amnesty under Republic Act No. (RA) 9399[1] and so is no longer liable for deficiency value-added tax (VAT) and excise tax for its importation of distilled spirits, wines, and cigarettes from January 1998 to May 2004.
	GR No. 179115 2012-09-26	ASIA INTERNATIONAL AUCTIONEERS v. CIR PERLAS-BERNABE, J.
The CIR also argues that AIA, being an accredited investor/taxpayer situated at the Subic Special Economic Zone, should have availed of the tax amnesty granted under RA 9399[29] and not under RA 9480. This is also untenable.
	GR No. 174189 2007-10-05	ALBAY ELECTRIC COOPERATIVE v. SECURITY PACIFIC ASSURANCE CORPORATION GARCIA, J.
Before the trial court could act on the request for approval of the counter-bond, Galvez, purportedly upon authority of the SPAC Board, filed on November 28, 2001 a Manifestation[5] therein serving notice of the cancellation, effective as of said date, of SPAC BOND No. 01163/2001. She further manifested that SPAC effected the cancellation with Tuazon's prior conformity to enable him to secure the requisite bond from another surety acceptable to all parties concerned.
	GR No. 159118 2004-06-28	VICTOR B. CUÑADA v. RAY ALAN T. DRILON AS PRESIDING JUDGE OF RTC TINGA, J.
Indeed, even if petitioners were to complete their evidence, still they could not legitimately expect a change in the decision of the trial court. Petitioners' only defense is that the law does not allow deficiency judgment in extrajudicial foreclosure of mortgage. This argument must fail, as the lower court correctly held, since it is now well-settled that the creditor is allowed to recover the deficiency from the sale of the property. In a number of cases, this Court held that where the proceeds of the sale are insufficient to cover the debt in an extrajudicial foreclosure of mortgage, the mortgagee is entitled to claim the deficiency from the debtor.[13] While Act No. 3135, as amended, does not discuss the mortgagee's right to recover the deficiency, neither does it contain any provision expressly or impliedly prohibiting recovery. If the legislature had intended to deny the creditor the right to sue for any deficiency resulting from the foreclosure of a security given to guarantee an obligation, the law would expressly so provide. Absent such a provision in Act. No. 3135, as amended, the creditor is not precluded from taking action to recover any unpaid balance on the principal obligation simply because he chose to extrajudicially foreclose the real estate mortgage.[14]