Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

CITY GOVERNMENT OF QUEZON CITY v. BAYAN TELECOMMUNICATIONS

This case has been cited 4 times or more.

	GR No.156040 2008-12-11	CITY GOVERNMENT OF BATANG CARPIO, J.
In City Government of Quezon City v. Bayan Telecommunications, Inc.,[63] this Court's Second Division held that "all realties which are actually, directly and exclusively used in the operation of its franchise are `exempted' from any property tax." The Second Division added that Bayantel's franchise being national in character, the "exemption" granted applies to all its real and personal properties found anywhere within the Philippines. The Second Division reasoned in this wise:The legislative intent expressed in the phrase `exclusive of this franchise' cannot be construed other than distinguishing between two (2) sets of properties, be they real or personal, owned by the franchisee, namely, (a) those actually, directly and exclusively used in its radio or telecommunications business, and (b) those properties which are not so used. It is worthy to note that the properties subject of the present controversy are only those which are admittedly falling under the first category.
	GR No. 166408 2008-10-06	QUEZON CITY v. ABS-CBN BROADCASTING CORPORATION REYES, R.T., J.
Such taxing power by the local government, however, is limited in the sense that Congress can enact legislation granting exemptions. This principle was upheld in City Government of Quezon City, et al. v. Bayan Telecommunications, Inc.[22] Said this Court:This thus raises the question of whether or not the City's Revenue Code pursuant to which the city treasurer of Quezon City levied real property taxes against Bayantel's real properties located within the City effectively withdrew the tax exemption enjoyed by Bayantel under its franchise, as amended.
	GR NO. 152534 2007-02-23	DIGITAL TELECOMMUNICATIONS PHILIPPINES v. PROVINCE OF PANGASINAN CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
The present issue actually boils down to a dispute between the inherent taxing power of Congress and the delegated authority to tax of the local government borne by the 1987 Constitution. In the afore-quoted case of PLDT v. City of Davao, we already sustained the power of Congress to grant exemptions over and above the power of the local government's delegated taxing authority notwithstanding the source of such power. And fairly recently, in the case of The City Government of Quezon City v. Bayan Telecommunications, Inc.,[24] we again had the opportunity to echo the ponencia of Mr. Justice Vicente V. Mendoza that:Indeed, the grant of taxing powers to local government units under the Constitution and the LGC does not affect the power of Congress to grant exemptions to certain persons, pursuant to a declared national policy. The legal effect of the constitutional grant to local governments simply means that in interpreting statutory provisions on municipal taxing powers, doubts must be resolved in favor of municipal corporations. [Emphasis supplied.]
	GR NO. 162716 2006-09-27	SECRETARY EMILIA T. BONCODIN OF DEPARTMENT OF BUDGET v. NATIONAL POWER CORPORATION EMPLOYEES CONSOLIDATED UNION PANGANIBAN, CJ
Moreover, respondent's immediate resort to judicial action is justified because only legal issues are to be resolved, which are the validity of the step increments and the authority of the DBM vis-á-vis the questioned Napocor Circular and Resolution.[13]