This case has been cited 3 times or more.
|
2013-10-17 |
PERLAS-BERNABE, J. |
||||
| Refund or tax credit of unutilized excess input VAT has been allowed as early as in the Original VAT Law EO 273.[22] This was later amended by RA 7716[23] and RA 8424, and further amended by RA 9337[24] which took effect on November 1, 2005.[25] Since GST's claims for refund covered the periods before the effectivity of RA 9337, the old provision on VAT refund, specifically Section 112, as amended by RA 8424, shall apply.[26] It reads: Section 112. Refunds or Tax Credits of Input Tax. | |||||
|
2006-11-22 |
CALLEJO, SR., J. |
||||
| In its Decision[25] dated December 9, 1997, the NLRC had ordered the case remanded to the Labor Arbiter precisely so that the questioned documents purportedly signed/executed by respondent could be subjected to calligraphy examination by experts. It is precisely where a judgment or ruling fails to make findings of fact that the case may be remanded to the lower tribunal to enable it to determine them.[26] However, instead of referring the questioned documents to the NBI or the PNP as mandated by the Commission's ruling, Labor Arbiter Portillo proceeded to rule in favor of petitioner, concluding that respondent's signatures were not forged, and as such, respondent's separation from employment was purely voluntary. In fine, then, the Labor Arbiter gravely abused his discretion when he ruled in favor of petitioner without abiding by the Commission's directive. | |||||
|
2005-09-21 |
|||||
| In Miguel vs. JCT Group, Inc.,[4] we held:"The test for determining an employer-employee relationship hinges on resolving who has the power to select employees, who pays for their wages, who has the power to dismiss them, and who exercises control in the methods and the results by which the work is accomplished." | |||||