Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

AB LEASING v. CIR

This case has been cited 3 times or more.

	GR NO. 157285 2007-02-16	WOODRIDGE SCHOOL v. ARB CONSTRUCTION CO. CORONA, J.
The Civil Code categorically provides for the measure by which the proper indemnity may be computed: value of the land occupied plus the amount of the damage caused to the servient estate. Settled is the rule in statutory construction that "when the law is clear, the function of the courts is simple application."[23] Thus, to award the indemnity using factors different from that given by the law is a complete disregard of these clear statutory provisions and is evidently arbitrary. This the Court cannot countenance. The Civil Code has clearly laid down the parameters and we cannot depart from them. Verba legis non est recedendum.
	GR No. 119286 2004-10-13	PASEO REALTY v. CA TINGA, J,
In the recent case of AB Leasing and Finance Corporation v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue,[29] where the Court declared that "[T]he carrying forward of any excess or overpaid income tax for a given taxable year then is limited to the succeeding taxable year only," we ruled that since the case involved a claim for refund of overpaid taxes for 1993, petitioner could only have applied the 1993 excess tax credits to its 1994 income tax liabilities. To further carry-over to 1995 the 1993 excess tax credits is violative of Section 69 of the NIRC.
	GR No. 133841 2003-08-15	CAROLINA P. RAMIREZ v. CA CARPIO MORALES, J.
GRAVE ABUSE OF DISCRETION . . . IN NOT DISMISSING THE COMPLAINT FOR LACK OF CAUSE OF ACTION. CONSIDERING (1) THAT PRIOR TO REDEMPTION THE REGISTERED OWNERS OF THE PROPERTY WAS THE LATE FRANCISCO RAMIREZ, JR. AND PETITIONER CAROLINA RAMIREZ WHO WERE ENTITLED TO THE FRUITS AND (2) THAT THE CLAIMS OF PRIVATE RESPONDENTS, IF ANY, SHOULD BE FILED IN THE SPECIAL PROCEEDINGS FOR THE SETTLEMENT OF THE ESTATE OF THE LATE FRANCISCO RAMIREZ, JR., AND NOT IN AN ORDINARY CIVIL ACTION FOR DAMAGES AGAINST HIS HEIRS BECAUSE THE LIABILITY FOR DAMAGES MAY NOT BE PASSED ON TO THE HEIRS BY INHERITANCE.[22] (Underscoring supplied) At the outset, it must be stressed that only questions of law may be raised in petitions for review before this Court under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court.[23] It was thus error for petitioners to ascribe to the appellate court grave abuse of discretion. This procedural lapse notwithstanding, in the interest of justice, this Court shall treat the issues as cases of reversible error.[24]