GR No. 215427

PAGCOR vs Bureau of Internal Revenue

GR No. 215427

Facts:

PAGCOR has been excluded from the enumeration of government-owned or controlled corporations that are exempted from the liability for corporate income tax. This has been observed with the RA No 9337 as it amends Section 27 (c) of RA No. 8424 otherwise known as the National Internal Revenue Code (NIRC).

Issue:

Whether or not PAGCOR is liable for the corporate income tax that the conflicting statutes implement.

Held:

There is no conflict between PD 1869 and RA No 9337.The former lays down the taxes imposable upon petitioner, as follows: (1) a five percent (5%) franchise tax of the gross revenues or earnings derived from its operations conducted under the Franchise, which shall be due and payable in lieu of all kinds of taxes, levies, fees or assessments of any kind, nature or description, levied, established or collected by any municipal, provincial or national government authority;15 (2) income tax for income realized from other necessary and related services, shows and entertainment of petitioner.16 With the enactment of R.A. No. 9337, which withdrew the income tax exemption under R.A. No. 8424, petitioner’s tax liability on income from other related services was merely reinstated.

It is a rule that every effort must be exerted to avoid a conflict between statutes; so that if reasonable construction is possible, the laws must be reconciled in that manner. Also, it shall also be borne in mind that it is a canon of statutory construction that a special law prevails over a general law — regardless of their dates of passage — and the special is to be considered as remaining an exception to the general.

GR No. 191894

Danilo Duncano vs Sandiganbayan

GR No. 191894

Facts:

Duncano was a high ranking public officer being the Regional Director of Revenue Region No. 7. He has failed to disclose in his SALN the financial and business interests that he and his family are registered owners. Such non-disclosure may damage and prejudice the public interest.

Issue:

Whether or not the Sandiganbayan has the jurisdiction to try Duncano of the case filed against him.

Held:

Yes, Sandiganbayan does not have the jurisdiction to try Duncano. The Sandiganbayan can only have such when violations of Section 3 (a) and (e) of RA No 3019 are committed by public officials and employees occupying positions of regional director and higher salary with Salary Grade 27 or higher.

As a cardinal rule in statutory construction, particular words, clauses, and phrases should not be studied as detached and isolated expressions, but the whole and every part of the statute must be considered in fixing the meaning of any of its parts, in order to produce a harmonious whole.

GR No. 154213

Eastern Mediterranean Maritime Ltd. and Agemar Manning Agency, Inc. vs Estanislao Surio, et al

GR No. 154213

Facts:

MT Seadance is a vessel owned by Eastern Mediterranean Maritime Ltd and manned and operated by Agemar Manning Agency. The same was not in a good working condition and the payment of wages, remittance of allotments, as well as the payment for extra work and extra overtime work were delayed. As MT Seadance docked at a port in Sweden, representatives of International Transport Federation boarded the same. They have found out that wages of its crew members were below the prevailing rates. As a result, they have moved to increase the wages of the said crewmembers. On Dec 23, 1993, the petitioners filed a complaint against the crew members and claimed reimbursement for the increase of wages received.

Issue:

Whether or not it is under the jurisdiction of NLRC to review cases on appeal decided by POEA.

Held:

No, the NLRC has no jurisdiction to review an appeal case decided by POEA. According to Section 28 (b) of the Omnibus Rules and Regulations Implementing the Migrant Workers and Overseas Filipinos Act of 1995, the POEA shall exercise original and exclusive jurisdiction to hear and decide disciplinary action cases and other special cases, which are administrative in character, involving employers, principals, contracting partners and Filipino migrant workers. Since RA No 8042 has been passed into a law after the filing of charges by the petitioner to the respondents, the rule on retroactivity of the laws shall be observed.

As a rule, all laws are prospective in application unless the contrary is expressly provided, or unless the law is procedural or curative in nature. Thus, such law stating that the POEA has the jurisdiction to decide on disciplinary cases shall be observed in the case at bar.

G.R. No. 201043

Republic vs Daisy Yahon

G.R. No. 201043

Facts:

Sgt Yahon was married to respondent. A TPO has been issued against Sgt Yahon to protect the respondent from further abuses. In the TPO, Sgt Yahon was ordered to provide reasonable financial spousal support to the respondent. In his failure to appear before the court with a counsel and with an answer to the charges against him, the court has granted PPO for the respondent against Sgt Yahon. It was also reiterated that Sgt Yahon should provide for the financial spousal support to his wife from his retirement benefits. However, the Armed Forces of the Philippines Finance Center contended that half of the retirement benefits of Sgt Yahon cannot be given to the respondent as it is from a military institution. The petitioner contended that money due to government employees is not liable to the creditors of the said employees in the process of garnishment.

Issue:

Whether or not the retirement benefits of Sgt Yahon be subject to the ruling of the court to provide for the financial spousal support of respondent.

Held:

Retirement benefits of Sgt Yahon are subject to the financial spousal support of respondent. As a rule in statutory construction, when the law does not distinguish, the court should not distinguish. As section 8 (g) of RA No. 9262 used the general term 'employer', it includes in its coverage the military institution, which is the employer of Sgt Yahon.

G.R. No. 193960

Dabalos vs. RTC Branch 59 of Angeles City, Pampanga

G.R. No. 193960

Facts:

Dabalos had willfully, unlawfully, and feloniously used personal violence against the complainant whom he had a dating relationship with. The said violence constituted the pulling of hair, punching the complainant's back, shoulder, and left eye which have demeaning and degrading effects on the complainant's intrinsic worth and dignity as a human being, in violation of Section 5 (a) of the Republic Act 9262. In Dabalos' defense, he averred that the relationship had already ceased at the time of the alleged incident.

Issue:

Whether or not RA 9262 be construed when the dating relationship was not the proximate cause of the violence?

Held:

Yes. The law provides that any act can be considered as a crime of violence against women through physical harm when it is committed against a woman or her child and the woman is the offender's wife, former wife, or with whom he has or had sexual or dating relationship or with whom he has a common child, and when it results in or is likely to result in physical harm or suffering.

Applying the rule on statutory construction that when the law does not distinguish, neither should the courts, the punishable acts refer to all acts of violence against women with whom the offender has or had a sexual or dating relationship. It did not distinguish that the act of violence should be a consequence of such relationship.

G.R. No. 79094

Manolo Fule vs. Honorable Court of Appeals

G.R. No. 79094

Facts:

Manolo Fule has been accused and convicted of the Violation of Batas Pambansa Blg 22 (The Bouncing Checks Law) on the basis of the Stipulation of Facts.

Issue:

Whether or not the court has erred in its ruling.

Held:

Yes, the court has erred in its ruling. According to Sec 4 of the 1985 Rules on Criminal Procedure, pre-trial agreements must be signed. It provides that no agreement or admission made or entered during the pre-trial conference shall be used in evidence against the accused unless reduced to writing and signed by him and his counsel.

Using the rule of statutory construction, negative words and phrases are to be regarded as mandatory while those in the affirmative are merely directory. The use of the term 'shall' further emphasizes its mandatory character and means that it is imperative, operating to impose a duty which may be enforced.

G.R. No. L-5387

Clyde McGee vs. Republic

G.R. No. L-5387

Facts:

Crisostomo has two minors from her previous marriage. Since the same has ceased because of the death of her first husband, she was allowed to be married to McGee. McGee is an American citizen and contracted marriage with Crisostomo by whom he has one child. He wanted to adopt his two minor children.

Issue:

WON it is legal and valid for McGee to adopt the two minor children of Crisostomo.

Held:

No, McGee cannot adopt the said children. According to Art 335 of the Civil Code, the following cannot adopt: those who have legitimate, legitimated, acknowledged natural children, or natural children by legal fiction. Further, Art 338 of the same Code provides that the following may be adopted: a step-child, by the step-father or step-mother.

According to the rule of statutory construction, negative words and phrases are to be regarded as mandatory while those in the affirmative are merely directory. To this end, Art 335 means that a step-father who already has a child may not adopt a step-child regardless of the provisions of Art 338 of the same Code.