Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

CARLOS SUPERDRUG CORP. v. DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL WELFARE

This case has been cited 6 times or more.

	GR No. 197676 2014-02-04	REMMAN ENTERPRISES v. PROFESSIONAL REGULATORY BOARD OF REAL ESTATE SERVICE VILLARAMA, JR., J.
Police power as an attribute to promote the common good would be diluted considerably if on the mere plea of petitioners that they will suffer loss of earnings and capital, the questioned provision is invalidated. Moreover, in the absence of evidence demonstrating the alleged confiscatory effect of the provision in question, there is no basis for its nullification in view of the presumption of validity which every law has in its favor.[23] (Emphasis supplied.)
	GR No. 177807 2011-10-11	EMILIO GANCAYCO v. CITY GOVERNMENT OF QUEZON CITY SERENO, J.
In Carlos Superdrug v. Department of Social Welfare and Development,[27] we also held: For this reason, when the conditions so demand as determined by the legislature, property rights must bow to the primacy of police power because property rights, though sheltered by due process, must yield to general welfare.
	GR No. 166471 2011-03-22	TAWANG MULTI-PURPOSE COOPERATIVE v. LA TRINIDAD WATER DISTRICT CARPIO, J.
In Metropolitan Manila Development Authority v. Viron Transportation Co., Inc.,[45] the Court held that, "Police power is the plenary power vested in the legislature to make, ordain, and establish wholesome and reasonable laws, statutes and ordinances, not repugnant to the Constitution."[46] In Carlos Superdrug Corp. v. Department of Social Welfare and Development,[47] the Court held that, police power "is `the power vested in the legislature by the constitution to make, ordain, and establish all manner of wholesome and reasonable laws, statutes, and ordinances x x x not repugnant to the constitution.'"[48] In Metropolitan Manila Development Authority v. Garin,[49] the Court held that, "police power, as an inherent attribute of sovereignty, is the power vested by the Constitution in the legislature to make, ordain, and establish all manner of wholesome and reasonable laws, statutes and ordinances x x x not repugnant to the Constitution."[50]
	GR No. 159610 2008-06-12	CIR v. CENTRAL LUZON DRUG CORPORATION CARPIO, J.
On 26 February 2004, RA 9257, otherwise known as the "Expanded Senior Citizens Act of 2003," was signed into law and became effective on 21 March 2004.[31]
	GR No. 160193 2008-03-03	M.E. HOLDING CORPORATION v. CA VELASCO JR., J.
The establishment may claim the discounts granted under (a), (f), (g) and (h) as tax deduction based on the net cost of the goods sold or services rendered: Provided, That the cost of the discount shall be allowed as deduction from gross income for the same taxable year that the discount is granted. Provided, further, That the total amount of the claimed tax deduction net of value added tax if applicable, shall be included in their gross sales receipts for tax purposes and shall be subject to proper documentation and to the provisions of the National Internal Revenue Code, as amended. (Emphasis supplied.) Conformably, starting taxable year 2004, the 20% sales discount granted by establishments to qualified senior citizens is to be treated as tax deduction, no longer as tax credit.[14]