LACSON-MAGALLANES vs JOSE PAÑO

3 11 2011

Read case digest here.

Republic of the Philippines
SUPREME COURT
Manila

EN BANC

G.R. No. L-27811      November 17, 1967

LACSON-MAGALLANES CO., INC., plaintiff-appellant,
vs.
JOSE PAÑO, HON. JUAN PAJO, in his capacity as Executive Secretary, and HON. JUAN DE G. RODRIGUEZ, in his capacity as Secretary of Agriculture and Natural Resources, defendants-appellees.

Leopoldo M. Abellera for plaintiff-appellant.
Victorio Advincula for defendant Jose Paño.
Office of the Solicitor General for defendant Secretary of Agriculture and Natural Resources and Executive Secretary.

SANCHEZ, J.:

The question — May the Executive Secretary, acting by authority of the President, reverse a decision of the Director of Lands that had been affirmed by the Executive Secretary of Agriculture and Natural Resources — yielded an affirmative answer from the lower court.1

Hence, this appeal certified to this Court by the Court of Appeals upon the provisions of Sections 17 and 31 of the Judiciary Act of 1948, as amended.

The undisputed controlling facts are:

In 1932, Jose Magallanes was a permittee and actual occupant of a 1,103-hectare pasture land situated in Tamlangon, Municipality of Bansalan, Province of Davao.

On January 9, 1953, Magallanes ceded his rights and interests to a portion (392,7569 hectares) of the above public land to plaintiff.

On April 13, 1954, the portion Magallanes ceded to plaintiff was officially released from the forest zone as pasture land and declared agricultural land.

On January 26, 1955, Jose Paño and nineteen other claimants2 applied for the purchase of ninety hectares of the released area.

On March 29, 1955, plaintiff corporation in turn filed its own sales application covering the entire released area. This was protested by Jose Paño and his nineteen companions upon the averment that they are actual occupants of the part thereof covered by their own sales application.

The Director of Lands, following an investigation of the conflict, rendered a decision on July 31, 1956 giving due course to the application of plaintiff corporation, and dismissing the claim of Jose Paño and his companions. A move to reconsider failed.

READ THE REST OF THE CASE HERE





MALAYAN vs CA

3 11 2011

Read case digest here.

Republic of the Philippines
SUPREME COURT
Manila

FIRST DIVISION

G. R. No. 101469 September 4, 1992

MALAYAN INTEGRATED INDUSTRIES, CORPORATION, petitioner,
vs.
THE HON. COURT OF APPEALS, CITY OF MANDAUE, MAYOR ALFREDO M. OUANO, VICE MAYOR PATERNO P. CANETE, SANGGUNIANG PANGLUNGSOD MEMBERS MANUEL M. MASANGKAY, NOEL C. SOON, CESAR CABAHUG, JR., RAYMUNDO A. CENIZA, CYNTHIA S. BLANCO, PONTICO E. FORTUNA, RAFAEL J. MAYOL and PAULINO P. DY, F.F. CRUZ & CO., INC., CEBU CONTRACTORS ASSOCIATION, MANDAUE REALTY & RESOURCES CORPORATION AND PHILIPPINE ORION PROPERTIES, INC.,respondents.

Sumcad, Senires & Associates for petitioner.

 

GRIÑO-AQUINO, J.:

In this special civil action of certiorari and prohibition, Malayan Integrated Industries Corporation (hereafter MALAYAN) prays that upon the filing of its verified petition, a restraining order or a writ of preliminary injunction be issued by this Court to stop the respondents from further proceeding in CA-G.R. SP No. 25621 and, after a consideration of the merits of the petition, judgment be rendered annulling the appellate court’s resolutions dated August 9, 1991 and August 28, 1991, and the writ of preliminary injunction issued by it on August 29, 1991.

The only issue in this case is whether the Court of Appeals exceeded its jurisdiction, or acted with grave abuse of discretion, in issuing a writ of preliminary injunction in CA-G.R. SP No. 25621 entitled, “The City of Mandaue, et al. vs. Hon. Leonardo B. Cañares and Malayan Integrated Industries Corporation,” “enjoining the respondents and anyone acting in their place and stead, from enforcing the Orders of December 18, 1990 and June 28, 1991 in Civil Case No. CEB-9658 until further orders. . .” (p. 1239, Rollo, Vol. II).

This is a simple case which has been made to appear complicated by the over-extended pleadings of the parties. The petition and its annexes consist of 1,273 pages. The respondents are not to be outdone with their comments of 395 pages. Running true to form, the petitioner filed a reply of 307 pages. The pleadings comprise 3 volumes, each several inches thick. Such profligacy with words is hard to match. Counsels on both sides should heed the admonition of Justice Isagani A. Cruz that:

Counsel should remember that they do a disservice to the administration of justice and contribute to its delay by imposing on the time of the courts with irrelevant discussions that only clutter the record. (Arturo E. Edudela, et al. vs. Hon. Court of Appeals, et al., G.R. No. 89265, July 17, 1992.)

READ THE REST OF THE CASE HERE





MACEDA vs MACARAIG

3 11 2011

Read case digest here.

Republic of the Philippines

SUPREME COURT

Manila

 

EN BANC

 

 

 

G.R. No. 88291 May 31, 1991

 

ERNESTO M. MACEDA, petitioner,

 

vs.

 

HON. CATALINO MACARAIG, JR., in his capacity as Executive Secretary, Office of the President; HON. VICENTE R. JAYME, in his capacity as Secretary of the Department of Finance; HON. SALVADOR MISON, in his capacity as Commissioner, Bureau of Customs; HON. JOSE U. ONG, in his capacity as Commissioner of Internal Revenue; NATIONAL POWER CORPORATION; the FISCAL INCENTIVES REVIEW BOARD; Caltex (Phils.) Inc.; Pilipinas Shell Petroleum Corporation; Philippine National Oil Corporation; and Petrophil Corporation, respondents.

 

Villamor & Villamor Law Offices for petitioner.

 

Angara, Abello, Concepcion, Regala & Cruz for Pilipinas Shell Petroleum Corporation.

 

Siguion Reyna, Montecillo & Ongsiako for Caltex (Phils.), Inc.

 

 

 

GANCAYCO, J.:p

 

This petition seeks to nullify certain decisions, orders, rulings, and resolutions of respondents Executive Secretary, Secretary of Finance, Commissioner of Internal Revenue, Commissioner of Customs and the Fiscal Incentives Review Board FIRB for exempting the National Power Corporation (NPC) from indirect tax and duties.

 

The relevant facts are not in dispute.

 

On November 3, 1986, Commonwealth Act No. 120 created the NPC as a public corporation to undertake the development of hydraulic power and the production of power from other sources.  1

 

On June 4, 1949, Republic Act No. 358 granted NPC tax and duty exemption privileges under—

 

Sec. 2. To facilitate payment of its indebtedness, the National Power Corporation shall be exempt from all taxes, duties, fees, imposts, charges and restrictions of the Republic of the Philippines, its provinces, cities and municipalities.

 

On September 10, 1971, Republic Act No. 6395 revised the charter of the NPC wherein Congress declared as a national policy the total electrification of the Philippines through the development of power from all sources to meet the needs of industrial development and rural electrification which should be pursued coordinately and supported by all instrumentalities and agencies of the government, including its financial institutions.  2 The corporate existence of NPC was extended to carry out this policy, specifically to undertake the development of hydro electric generation of power and the production of electricity from nuclear, geothermal and other sources, as well as the transmission of electric power on a nationwide basis.  3 Being a non-profit corporation, Section 13 of the law provided in detail the exemption of the NPC from all taxes, duties, fees, imposts and other charges by the government and its instrumentalities.

READ THE REST OF THE CASE HERE








Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 139 other followers

%d bloggers like this: