This case has been cited 6 times or more.
|
2008-07-28 |
QUISUMBING, J. |
||||
| Can Phividec[1] Industrial Authority (PIA) temporarily operate as a seaport cargo-handler upon agreement with the Philippine Ports Authority (PPA)[2] sans a franchise or a license from Congress or PPA? | |||||
|
2006-07-20 |
CARPIO, J. |
||||
| Development Authority,[32] Fisheries Development Authority,[33] Bases Conversion Development Authority,[34] Philippine Ports Authority,[35] Cagayan de Oro Port Authority,[36] San Fernando Port Authority,[37] Cebu Port Authority,[38] and Philippine National Railways.[39] | |||||
|
2004-11-11 |
CALLEJO, SR., J. |
||||
| The petitioner cannot, likewise, find solace in Section 25 of P.D. No. 857,[8] to wit:SEC. 25. Exemption from Realty Taxes The Authority shall be exempt from the payment of real property taxes imposed by the Republic of the Philippines, its agencies, instrumentalities or political subdivisions; Provided, That no tax exemptions shall be extended to any subsidiaries of the Authority that may be organized; Provided, finally, That investments in fixed assets shall be deductible for income tax purposes. | |||||
|
2004-07-30 |
CALLEJO, SR., J. |
||||
| In a Letter dated December 18, 1992, the petitioner's Assistant General Manager for Engineering, Teofilo H. Landicho, informed the respondents that its proposal was not acceptable. However, he stated that if the price of the project would be lowered to P30,794,230.89, then the petitioner PPA may award the project to the respondents, subject to the approval of higher authority.[4] The respondents, through their Executive Director, agreed to reduce the price of the project.[5] | |||||
|
2002-02-27 |
DE LEON, JR., J. |
||||
| The international port of Sasa and the domestic port of Sta. Ana are general cargo type ports. They are facing serious ship and cargo congestion problems brought about mainly by the faster growth of shipping industry than the development of the ports. They do not possess the special cargo handling facilities which TFSC plans to put up at the proposed terminal.[13] It is true that under P.D. No. 857 (1975) as amended,[14] the construction and operation of ports are subject to licensing regulations of the PPA as public utility.[15] However, the instant case did not arise out of pure beneficence on the part of the government where TEFASCO would be compelled to pay ordinary license and permit fees. TEFASCO accepted and performed definite obligations requiring big investments that made up the valuable consideration of the project. The inter-agency committee report that recommended approval of TEFASCO port construction and operation estimated investments at Sixteen Million Pesos (P16,000,000.00) (1975/1976 price levels) disbursed within a construction period of one year[16] and covered by foreign loans of Two Million Four Hundred Thirty-Four Thousand US Dollars (US$2,434,000.00) with interests of up to Ten Million Nine Hundred Sixty-Five Thousand Four Hundred Sixty-Five Pesos (P10,965,465.00) for the years 1979 to 1985.[17] In 1987 the total investment of TEFASCO in the project was valued at One Hundred Fifty-Six Million Two Hundred Fifty-One Thousand Seven Hundred Ninety-Eight Pesos (P156,251,798.00).[18] The inter-agency committee report also listed the costly facilities TEFASCO would build, and which in fact it has already built - | |||||