This case has been cited 4 times or more.
|
2010-07-28 |
PEREZ, J. |
||||
| Once a case has been decided one way, the rule is settled that any other case involving exactly the same point at issue should be decided in the same manner[64] under the principle stare decisis et non quieta movere. Fealty to the same principle impels us to discount merit from respondent's reliance on the Liability Clause at the dorsal portion of the TCCs which provides that both the transferor and the transferee shall be jointly and severally liable for any fraudulent act or violation of the pertinent laws, rules and regulations relating to the transfer of the TCC. Expounding on the practical and legal significance of said Liability Clause in the Pilipinas Shell case, this Court ruled as follows: The above clause to our mind clearly provides only for the solidary liability relative to the transfer of the TCCs from the original grantee to a transferee. There is nothing in the above clause that provides for the liability of the transferee in the event that the validity of the TCC issued to the original grantee by the Center is impugned or where the TCC is declared to have been fraudulently procured by the said original grantee. Thus, the solidary liability, if any, applies only to the sale of the TCC to the transferee by the original grantee. Any fraud or breach of law or rule relating to the issuance of the TCC by the Center to the transferor or the original grantee is the latter's responsibility and liability. The transferee in good faith and for value may not be unjustly prejudiced by the fraud committed by the claimant or transferor in the procurement or issuance of the TCC from the Center. It is not only unjust but well-nigh violative of the constitutional right not to be deprived of one's property without due process of law. Thus, a re-assessment of tax liabilities previously paid through TCCs by a transferee in good faith and for value is utterly confiscatory, more so when surcharges and interests are likewise assessed. | |||||
|
2010-02-25 |
LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J. |
||||
| This calls for the application of the doctrine, stare decisis et non quieta movere. Follow past precedents and do not disturb what has been settled. Once a case has been decided one way, any other case involving exactly the same point at issue, as in the case at bar, should be decided in the same manner.[26] | |||||
|
2009-02-12 |
AZCUNA, J. |
||||
| Again, in Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Trustworthy Pawnshop, Inc.,[32] this Court reiterated its ruling in Lhuillier that pawnshops are not included in the term lending investors for the purpose of imposing the 5% percentage tax. | |||||
|
2006-12-06 |
CHICO-NAZARIO, J. |
||||
| [10] Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Trustworthy Pawnshop, Inc., G.R. No. 149834, 2 May 2006, 488 SCRA 538, 545. | |||||