Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

NESTLE PHILIPPINES v. CA

This case has been cited 5 times or more.

	GR No. 182722 2010-01-22	DUMAGUETE CATHEDRAL CREDIT COOPERATIVE v. CIR DEL CASTILLO, J.
It bears stressing that interpretations of administrative agencies in charge of enforcing a law are entitled to great weight and consideration by the courts, unless such interpretations are in a sharp conflict with the governing statute or the Constitution and other laws.[29] In this case, BIR Ruling No. 551-888 and BIR Ruling [DA-591-2006] are in perfect harmony with the Constitution and the laws they seek to implement. Accordingly, the interpretation in BIR Ruling No. 551-888 that cooperatives are not required to withhold the corresponding tax on the interest from savings and time deposits of their members, which was reiterated in BIR Ruling [DA-591-2006], applies to the instant case.
	GR No. 167330 2009-09-18	PHILIPPINE HEALTH CARE PROVIDERS v. CIR CORONA, J.
Lastly, it is significant that petitioner, as an HMO, is not part of the insurance industry. This is evident from the fact that it is not supervised by the Insurance Commission but by the Department of Health.[33] In fact, in a letter dated September 3, 2000, the Insurance Commissioner confirmed that petitioner is not engaged in the insurance business. This determination of the commissioner must be accorded great weight. It is well-settled that the interpretation of an administrative agency which is tasked to implement a statute is accorded great respect and ordinarily controls the interpretation of laws by the courts. The reason behind this rule was explained in Nestle Philippines, Inc. v. Court of Appeals:[34]
	GR No. 158071 2009-04-02	JOSE SANTOS v. COMMITTEE ON CLAIMS SETTLEMENT LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.
It is well settled that the construction given to a statute by an administrative agency charged with the interpretation and application of that statute is entitled to great respect and should be accorded great weight by the courts.[14] In the case at bar, this Court finds that the GSIS' ruling as to which retirement law is applicable to petitioner deserves full faith and credit. Petitioner fails to convince us that there are justifiable reasons to depart from the GSIS' decision in his case.
	GR NO. 171815 2007-08-07	CEMCO HOLDINGS v. NATIONAL LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY OF PHILIPPINES CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
The rule in this jurisdiction is that the construction given to a statute by an administrative agency charged with the interpretation and application of that statute is entitled to great weight by the courts, unless such construction is clearly shown to be in sharp contrast with the governing law or statute.[18] The rationale for this rule relates not only to the emergence of the multifarious needs of a modern or modernizing society and the establishment of diverse administrative agencies for addressing and satisfying those needs; it also relates to accumulation of experience and growth of specialized capabilities by the administrative agency charged with implementing a particular statute.[19]
	GR No. 113079 2001-04-20	ENERGY REGULATORY BOARD v. CA YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.
Generally, the interpretation of an administrative government agency, which is tasked to implement a statute, is accorded great respect and ordinarily controls the construction of the courts.[10] The reason behind this rule was explained in Nestle Philippines, Inc. vs. Court of Appeals,[11] in this wise: `The rationale for this rule relates not only to the emergence of the multifarious needs of a modern or modernizing society and the establishment of diverse administrative agencies for addressing and satisfying those needs; it also relates to the accumulation of experience and growth of specialized capabilities by the administrative agency charged with implementing a particular statute. In Asturias Sugar Central, Inc. v. Commissioner of Customs,[12] the Court stressed that executive officials are presumed to have familiarized themselves with all the considerations pertinent to the meaning and purpose of the law, and to have formed an independent, conscientious and competent expert opinion thereon. The courts give much weight to the government agency or officials charged with the implementation of the law, their competence, expertness, experience and informed judgment, and the fact that they frequently are drafters of the law they interpret."