Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

PILIPINAS KAO v. CA

This case has been cited 8 times or more.

	GR No. 168646 2011-01-21	LUZON DEVELOPMENT BANK v. ANGELES CATHERINE ENRIQUEZ DEL CASTILLO, J.
The protection afforded to a subdivision lot buyer under Presidential Decree (PD) No. 957 or The Subdivision and Condominium Buyer's Protective Decree will not be defeated by someone who is not an innocent purchaser for value. The lofty aspirations of PD 957 should be read in every provision of the statute, in every contract that undermines its objects, in every transaction which threatens its fruition. "For a statute derives its vitality from the purpose for which it is enacted and to construe it in a manner that disregards or defeats such purpose is to nullify or destroy the law."[1]
	GR Nos. 179431-32 2010-06-22	LUIS K. LOKIN v. COMELEC BERSAMIN, J.
As earlier said, the delegated authority must be properly exercised. This simply means that the resulting IRRs must not be ultra vires as to be issued beyond the limits of the authority conferred. It is basic that an administrative agency cannot amend an act of Congress,[32] for administrative IRRs are solely intended to carry out, not to supplant or to modify, the law. The administrative agency issuing the IRRs may not enlarge, alter, or restrict the provisions of the law it administers and enforces, and cannot engraft additional non-contradictory requirements not contemplated by the Legislature.[33]
	GR NO. 135687 2007-07-24	PRESIDENTIAL AD HOC FACT-FINDING COMMITTEE ON BEHEST LOANS v. OMBUDSMAN ANIANO DESIERTO AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.
It is a requirement of due process that the parties to a litigation be informed of how it was decided, with an explanation of the factual and legal reasons that led to the conclusions of the court.[15] This Court has held that the constitutional and statutory mandate that no decision shall be rendered by any court of record without expressing therein clearly and distinctly the facts and the law on which it is based applies as well to dispositions by quasi-judicial and administrative bodies.[16] In fact, Section 18 of R.A. No. 6770, otherwise known as the Ombudsman Act of 1989, makes the Rules of Court applicable, in a suppletory manner, to its own rules of procedure. One of the requirements provided under Section 1, Rule 36 of the Rules of Court is that a judgment or final order determining the merits of the case should state the facts and the law on which it is based.
	GR NO. 148512 2006-06-26	CIR v. CENTRAL LUZON DRUG CORPORATION AZCUNA, J.
Accordingly, when the law says that the cost of the discount may be claimed as a tax credit, it means that the amount -- when claimed shall be treated as a reduction from any tax liability.[8] The law cannot be amended by a mere regulation. The administrative agencies issuing these regulations may not enlarge, alter or restrict the provisions of the law they administer.[9] In fact, a regulation that "operates to create a rule out of harmony with the statute is a mere nullity."[10]
	GR NO. 146779 2006-01-23	RENATO S. GATBONTON v. NLRC AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.
We agree that the publication must be in full or it is no publication at all since its purpose is to inform the public of the contents of the laws. (Emphasis supplied) The Mapua Rules is one of those issuances that should be published for its effectivity, since its purpose is to enforce and implement R.A. No. 7877, which is a law of general application.[14] In fact, the Mapua Rules itself explicitly required publication of the rules for its effectivity, as provided in Section 3, Rule IV (Administrative Provisions), which states that "[T]hese Rules and Regulations to implement the Anti-Sexual Harassment Act of 1995 shall take effect fifteen (15) days after publication by the Committee." Thus, at the time of the imposition of petitioner's preventive suspension on January 11, 1999, the Mapua Rules were not yet legally effective, and therefore the suspension had no legal basis.
	GR NO. 159647 2005-04-15	CIR v. CENTRAL LUZON DRUG CORPORATION PANGANIBAN, J.
Under special laws that particularly affect businesses, there can also be tax credit incentives. To illustrate, the incentives provided for in Article 48 of Presidential Decree No. (PD) 1789, as amended by Batas Pambansa Blg. (BP) 391, include tax credits equivalent to either five percent of the net value earned, or five or ten percent of the net local content of exports.[30] In order to avail of such credits under the said law and still achieve its objectives, no prior tax payments are necessary.
	GR No. 127882 2004-12-01	LA BUGAL-B’LAAN TRIBAL ASSOCIATION v. VICTOR O. RAMOS PANGANIBAN, J.
The Decision struck down the subject FTAA for being similar to service contracts,[9] which, though permitted under the 1973 Constitution,[10] were subsequently denounced for being antithetical to the principle of sovereignty over our natural resources, because they allowed foreign control over the exploitation of our natural resources, to the prejudice of the Filipino nation.
	GR No. 116463 2003-06-10	REPUBLIC THRU DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS v. CA CARPIO, J.
Based on Section 1,[10] Rule 22 of the Rules of Court, and as applied in several cases,[11] "where the last day for doing any act required or permitted by law falls on a Saturday, a Sunday, or a legal holiday in the place where the court sits, the time shall not run until the next working day." Thus, petitioner filed on time its petition on 12 September 1994, the next working day, following the last day for filing which fell on a Sunday.