Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

CIR v. CA

This case has been cited 7 times or more.

	GR No. 149548 2010-12-14	ROXAS v. DAMBA-NFSW CARPIO MORALES, J.
Interpretative rule x x x x is promulgated by the administrative agency to interpret, clarify or explain statutory regulations under which the administrative body operates. The purpose or objective of an interpretative rule is merely to construe the statute being administered. It purports to do no more than interpret the statute. Simply, the rules tries to say what the statute means. Generally, it refers to no single person or party in particular but concerns all those belonging to the same class which may be covered by the said interpretative rule. It need not be published and neither is a hearing required since it is issued by the administrative body as an incident of its power to enforce the law and is intended merely to clarify statutory provisions for proper observance by the people. x x x x.[3] (Emphasis and underscoring supplied)
	GR No. 141309 2008-12-23	LIWAYWAY VINZONS-CHATO v. FORTUNE TOBACCO CORPORATION NACHURA, J.
In the instant case, what is involved is a public officer's duty owing to the public in general. The petitioner, as the then Commissioner of the Bureau of Internal Revenue, is being taken to task for Revenue Memorandum Circular (RMC) No. 37-93 which she issued without the requisite notice, hearing and publication, and which, in Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Court of Appeals,[24] we declared as having "fallen short of a valid and effective administrative issuance."[25] A public officer, such as the petitioner, vested with quasi-legislative or rule-making power, owes a duty to the public to promulgate rules which are compliant with the requirements of valid administrative regulations. But it is a duty owed not to the respondent alone, but to the entire body politic who would be affected, directly or indirectly, by the administrative rule.
	GR No. 141309 2008-12-23	LIWAYWAY VINZONS-CHATO v. FORTUNE TOBACCO CORPORATION NACHURA, J.
The complaint in this case does not impute bad faith on the petitioner. Without any allegation of bad faith, the cause of action in the respondent's complaint (specifically, paragraph 2.02 thereof) for damages under Article 32 of the Civil Code would be premised on the findings of this Court in Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Court of Appeals (CIR v. CA),[33] where we ruled that RMC No. 37-93, issued by petitioner in her capacity as Commissioner of Internal Revenue, had "fallen short of a valid and effective administrative issuance." This is a logical inference. Without the decision in CIR v. CA, the bare allegations in the complaint that respondent's rights to due process of law and to equal protection of the laws were violated by the petitioner's administrative issuance would be conclusions of law, hence not hypothetically admitted by petitioner in her motion to dismiss.
	GR No. 141309 2008-12-23	LIWAYWAY VINZONS-CHATO v. FORTUNE TOBACCO CORPORATION NACHURA, J.
On 03 August 1993, Fortune Tobacco filed a petition for review with the CTA.[35]
	GR No. 166211 2008-07-14	ASIAN TERMINALS v. NEPTHALLY B. SALLAO QUISUMBING, J.
For review on certiorari are the Decision[1] dated January 13, 2004, and the Resolution[2] dated November 12, 2004, of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 68457. The appellate court had affirmed the Decision[3] dated July 31, 2000, of the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) in CA No. 020887-99, which reversed the Decision [4] dated June 30, 1999, of the Labor Arbiter in NLRC Case No. RAB-III-12-9645-98.
	GR No. 168056 2005-09-01	CONSTITUTIONALITY OF THE VALUE ADDED TAX LAW AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.
Article VI, Section 28(1) of the Constitution reads: The rule of taxation shall be uniform and equitable. The Congress shall evolve a progressive system of taxation. Uniformity in taxation means that all taxable articles or kinds of property of the same class shall be taxed at the same rate. Different articles may be taxed at different amounts provided that the rate is uniform on the same class everywhere with all people at all times.[86]
	GR No. 151908 2003-08-12	SMART COMMUNICATIONS v. NATIONAL TELECOMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.
Not to be confused with the quasi-legislative or rule-making power of an administrative agency is its quasi-judicial or administrative adjudicatory power. This is the power to hear and determine questions of fact to which the legislative policy is to apply and to decide in accordance with the standards laid down by the law itself in enforcing and administering the same law. The administrative body exercises its quasi-judicial power when it performs in a judicial manner an act which is essentially of an executive or administrative nature, where the power to act in such manner is incidental to or reasonably necessary for the performance of the executive or administrative duty entrusted to it. In carrying out their quasi-judicial functions, the administrative officers or bodies are required to investigate facts or ascertain the existence of facts, hold hearings, weigh evidence, and draw conclusions from them as basis for their official action and exercise of discretion in a judicial nature.[19]