ChanRobles™ Virtual Law Library | chanrobles.com™  
Main Index Law Library Philippine Laws, Statutes & Codes Latest Legal Updates Philippine Legal Resources Significant Philippine Legal Resources Worldwide Legal Resources Philippine Supreme Court Decisions United States Jurisprudence
Prof. Joselito Guianan Chan's The Labor Code of the Philippines, Annotated Labor Standards & Social Legislation Volume I of a 3-Volume Series 2019 Edition (3rd Revised Edition)
 

 
Chan Robles Virtual Law Library
 









 

 
UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE
 

 
PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE
 

   
July-2011 Jurisprudence                 

  • [G.R. No. 181035 : July 04, 2011] PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. NOEL DION, ACCUSED-APPELLANT.

  • [G.R. No. 176061 : July 04, 2011] PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, APPELLEE, VS. BINGKY CAMPOS AND DANNY "BOY" ACABO, APPELLANTS.

  • [A.M. No. 2011-04-SC : July 05, 2011] RE: GROSS VIOLATION OF CIVIL SERVICE LAW ON THE PROHIBITION AGAINST DUAL EMPLOYMENT AND DOUBLE COMPENSATION IN THE GOVERNMENT SERVICE COMMITTED BY MR. EDUARDO V. ESCALA, SC CHIEF JUDICIAL STAFF OFFICER, SECURITY DIVISION, OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES.

  • [G.R. No. 183711 : July 05, 2011] EDITA T. BURGOS, PETITIONER, VS. PRESIDENT GLORIA MACAPAGAL-ARROYO, GEN. HERMOGENES ESPERON, JR., LT. GEN. ROMEO P. TOLENTINO, MAJ. GEN. JUANITO GOMEZ, MAJ. GEN. DELFIN BANGIT, LT. COL. NOEL CLEMENT, LT. COL. MELQUIADES FELICIANO, DIRECTOR GENERAL OSCAR CALDERON, RESPONDENTS. [G.R. No. 183712] EDITA T. BURGOS, PETITIONER, VS. PRESIDENT GLORIA MACAPAGAL ARROYO, GEN. HERMOGENES ESPERON, JR., LT. GEN. ROMEO P. TOLENTINO, MAJ. GEN. JUANITO GOMEZ, LT. COL. MELQUIADES FELICIANO, LT. COL. NOEL CLEMENT, RESPONDENTS. [G.R. No. 183713] EDITA T. BURGOS, PETITIONER, VS. CHIEF OF STAFF OF THE ARMED FORCES OF THE PHILIPPINES, GEN. HERMOGENES ESPERON, JR., COMMANDING GENERAL OF THE PHILIPPINE ARMY, LT. GEN. ALEXANDER YANO; CHIEF OF THE PHILIPPINE NATIONAL POLICE, DIRECTOR GENERAL AVELINO RAZON, JR., RESPONDENTS.

  • [A.M. No. 09-5-2-SC : July 05, 2011] RE: BREWING CONTROVERSIES IN THE ELECTIONS IN THE INTEGRATED BAR OF THE PHILIPPINES [A.C. NO. 8292] ATTYS. MARCIAL M. MAGSINO, MANUEL M. MARAMBA AND NASSER MAROHOMSALIC, COMPLAINANTS, VS. ATTYS. ROGELIO A. VINLUAN, ABELARDO C. ESTRADA, BONIFACIO T. BARANDON, JR., EVERGISTO S. ESCALON AND RAYMUND JORGE A. MERCADO, RESPONDENTS.

  • [G.R. No. 171101 : July 05, 2011] HACIENDA LUISITA, INCORPORATED, PETITIONER, LUISITA INDUSTRIAL PARK CORPORATION AND RIZAL COMMERCIAL BANKING CORPORATION, PETITIONERS-IN-INTERVENTION, VS. PRESIDENTIAL AGRARIAN REFORM COUNCIL; SECRETARY NASSER PANGANDAMAN OF THE DEPARTMENT OF AGRARIAN REFORM; ALYANSA NG MGA MANGGAGAWANG BUKID NG HACIENDA LUISITA, RENE GALANG, NOEL MALLARI, AND JULIO SUNIGA [1] AND HIS SUPERVISORY GROUP OF THE HACIENDA LUISITA, INC. AND WINDSOR ANDAYA, RESPONDENTS.

  • [G. R. No. 190795 : July 06, 2011] NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF ELECTRICIY CONSUMERS FOR REFORMS, INC. (NASECORE), REPRESENTED BY PETRONILO ILAGAN; FEDERATION OF VILLAGE ASSOCIATIONS (FOVA), REPRESENTED BY SIEFRIEDO VELOSO; AND FEDERATION OF LAS PIÑAS VILLAGE (FOLVA), REPRESENTED BY BONIFACIO DAZO, PETITIONERS, VS. ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSION (ERC) AND MANILA ELECTRIC COMPANY, INC. (MERALCO), RESPONDENTS.

  • [G.R. No. 192235 : July 06, 2011] PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, APPELLEE, VS. ROLANDO LAYLO Y CEPRES, APPELLANT.

  • [G.R. No. 169196 : July 06, 2011] PETRA C. MARTINEZ, IN HER CAPACITY AS GENERAL MANAGER, CLAVERIA AGRI-BASED MULTI-PURPOSE COOPERATIVE, INC., PETITIONER, VS. FILOMENA L. VILLANUEVA, RESPONDENT. [G.R. NO. 169198] OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN, PETITIONER, VS. FILOMENA L. VILLANUEVA, RESPONDENT.

  • [G.R. No. 184253 : July 06, 2011] REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, THROUGH THE PHILIPPINE NAVY, REPRESENTED BY CAPT. RUFO R. VILLANUEVA, SUBSTITUTED BY CAPT. PANCRACIO O. ALFONSO, AND NOW BY CAPT. BENEDICTO G. SANCEDA PN, PETITIONER, VS. CPO MAGDALENO PERALTA PN (RET.), CPO ROMEO ESTALLO PN (RET.), CPO ERNESTO RAQUION PN (RET.), MSGT SALVADOR RAGAS PM (RET.), MSGT DOMINGO MALACAT PM (RET.), MSGT CONSTANTINO CANONIGO PM (RET.), AND AMELIA MANGUBAT, RESPONDENTS. MSGT ALFREDO BANTOG PM (RET.), MSGT RODOLFO VELASCO PM (RET.), AND NAVY ENLISTEDMEN HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION, INC., RESPONDENT-INTERVENORS.

  • [G.R. No. 175926 : July 06, 2011] PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. RESTITUTO CARANDANG, HENRY MILAN AND JACKMAN CHUA, ACCUSED-APPELLANTS.

  • [G.R. No. 192816 : July 06, 2011] PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, APPELLEE, VS. JOEL GASPAR Y WILSON, APPELLANT.

  • [G.R. No. 175457 : July 06, 2011] RUPERTO A. AMBIL, JR., PETITIONER, VS. SANDIGANBAYAN AND PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, RESPONDENT. [G.R. NO. 175482] VS. ALEXANDRINO R. APELADO, SR., PETITIONER, VS. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, RESPONDENT.

  • [G.R. No. 167284 : July 06, 2011] THE ESTATE OF SOLEDAD MANINANG AND THE LAW FIRM OF QUISUMBING TORRES, PETITIONERS, VS. THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS, SPOUSES SALVACION SERRANO LADANGA* AND AGUSTIN LADANGA,** AND BERNARDO ASENETA, RESPONDENTS.

  • [G.R. No. 160138 : July 13, 2011] AUTOMOTIVE ENGINE REBUILDERS, INC. (AER), ANTONIO T. INDUCIL, LOURDES T. INDUCIL, JOCELYN T. INDUCIL AND MA. CONCEPCION I. DONATO, PETITIONERS, VS. PROGRESIBONG UNYON NG MGA MANGGAGAWA SA AER, ARNOLD VILLOTA, FELINO E. AGUSTIN, RUPERTO M. MARIANO II, EDUARDO S. BRIZUELA, ARNOLD S. RODRIGUEZ, RODOLFO MAINIT, JR., FROILAN B. MADAMBA, DANILO D. QUIBOY, CHRISTOPHER R. NOLASCO, ROGER V. BELATCHA, CLEOFAS B. DELA BUENA, JR., HERMINIO P. PAPA, WILLIAM A. RITUAL, ROBERTO CALDEO, RAFAEL GACAD, JAMES C. CAAMPUED, ESPERIDION V. LOPEZ, JR., FRISCO M. LORENZO, JR., CRISANTO LUMBAO, JR., AND RENATO SARABUNO, RESPONDENTS. [G.R. NO. 160192] PROGRESIBONG UNYON NG MGA MANGGAGAWA SA AER, ARNOLD VILLOTA, FELINO E. AGUSTIN, RUPERTO M. MARIANO II, EDUARDO S. BRIZUELA, ARNOLD S. RODRIGUEZ, RODOLFO MAINIT, JR., FROILAN B. MADAMBA, DANILO D. QUIBOY, CHRISTOPHER R. NOLASCO, ROGER V. BELATCHA, CLEOFAS B. DELA BUENA, JR., HERMINIO P. PAPA, WILLIAM A. RITUAL, ROBERTO CALDEO, RAFAEL GACAD, JAMES C. CAAMPUED, ESPERIDION V. LOPEZ, JR., FRISCO M. LORENZO, JR., CRISANTO LUMBAO, JR., AND RENATO SARABUNO, PETITIONERS, VS. AUTOMOTIVE ENGINE REBUILDERS, INC., AND ANTONIO T. INDUCIL, RESPONDENTS.

  • [G.R. No. 160088 : July 13, 2011] AGUSTIN P. DELA TORRE, PETITIONER, VS. THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS, CRISOSTOMO G. CONCEPCION, RAMON "BOY" LARRAZABAL, PHILIPPINE TRIGON SHIPYARD CORPORATION, AND ROLAND G. DELA TORRE, RESPONDENTS. [G.R. No. 160565] PHILIPPINE TRIGON SHIPYARD CORPORATION AND ROLAND G. DELA TORRE, PETITIONERS, VS. CRISOSTOMO G. CONCEPCION, AGUSTIN DELA TORRE AND RAMON "BOY" LARRAZABAL, RESPONDENTS.

  • [G.R. No. 193003 : July 13, 2011] FRANCISCO IMSON Y ADRIANO, PETITIONER, VS. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, RESPONDENT.

  • [G.R. No. 185440 : July 13, 2011] VICELET LALICON AND VICELEN LALICON, PETITIONERS, VS. NATIONAL HOUSING AUTHORITY, RESPONDENT.

  • [G.R. No. 186467 : July 13, 2011] PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. JAIME GATLABAYAN Y BATARA, ACCUSED-APPELLANT.

  • [A.M. No. RTJ-11-2284 [Formerly A.M. OCA IPI No. 09-3304-RTJ] : July 13, 2011] SPOUSES SUR AND RITA VILLA AND LETICIA GOREMBALEM VALENZUELA, COMPLAINANTS, VS. PRESIDING JUDGE ROBERTO L. AYCO, OFFICER-IN-CHARGE/ LEGAL RESEARCHER VIRGINIA M. BARTOLOME AND SHERIFF IV CRISPIN S. CALSENIA, JR., ALL OF THE REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, BRANCH 26, SURALLAH, SOUTH COTABATO, RESPONDENTS.

  • [A.M. No. P-11-2945 [Formerly OCA-I.P.I. No. 11-3590-P] : July 13, 2011] RE: LEAVE DIVISION, OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES, OFFICE OF THE COURT ADMINISTRATOR, COMPLAINANT, VS. FRANCISCO A. PUA, JR., CLERK OF COURT V, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, BRANCH 55, LUCENA CITY, RESPONDENT.

  • [G.R. No. 175091 : July 13, 2011] P/CHIEF INSPECTOR FERNANDO BILLEDO, SPO3 RODRIGO DOMINGO, PO3 JORGE LOPEZ, FERDINAND CRUZ, AND MARIANO CRUZ, PETITIONERS, VS. WILHELMINA WAGAN, PRESIDING JUDGE OF THE REGIONAL TRIAL COURT OF BRANCH III, PASAY CITY, PUBLIC RESPONDENT. ALBERTO MINA, NILO JAY MINA AND FERDINAND CAASI, PRIVATE RESPONDENTS.

  • [A.M. No. P-11-2946 [Formerly A.M. No. 11-5-52-MTCC] : July 13, 2011] RE: DROPPING FROM THE ROLLS OF CORNELIO RENIETTE CABRERA, UTILITY WORKER I, MUNICIPAL TRIAL COURT IN CITIES, BRANCH 1, LIPA CITY.

  • [G.R. No. 165487 : July 13, 2011] COUNTRY BANKERS INSURANCE CORPORATION, PETITIONER, VS. ANTONIO LAGMAN, RESPONDENT.

  • [G.R. No. 153982 : July 18, 2011] SAN MIGUEL PROPERTIES PHILIPPINES, INC., PETITIONER, VS. GWENDELLYN ROSE S. GUCABAN, RESPONDENT.

  • [G.R. No. 116121 : July 18, 2011] THE HEIRS OF THE LATE RUBEN REINOSO, SR., REPRESENTED BY RUBEN REINOSO JR., PETITIONERS, VS. COURT OF APPEALS, PONCIANO TAPALES, JOSE GUBALLA, AND FILWRITERS GUARANTY ASSURANCE CORPORATION,** RESPONDENT.

  • [G.R. No. 163551 : July 18, 2011] DATU KIRAM SAMPACO, SUBSTITUTED BY HADJI SORAYA S. MACABANDO, PETITIONER, VS. HADJI SERAD MINGCA LANTUD, RESPONDENT.

  • [G.R. No. 163653 : July 19, 2011] COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, PETITIONER, VS. FILINVEST DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, RESPONDENT. [G.R. NO. 167689] COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, PETITIONER, VS. FILINVEST DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, RESPONDENT.

  • [G.R. No. 193007 : July 19, 2011] RENATO V. DIAZ AND AURORA MA. F. TIMBOL, PETITIONERS, VS. THE SECRETARY OF FINANCE AND THE COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, RESPONDENTS.

  • [G.R. No. 187246 : July 20, 2011] EDWIN TABAO Y PEREZ, PETITIONER, VS. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, RESPONDENT.

  • [G.R. No. 169594 : July 20, 2011] BIENVENIDO BARRIENTOS, PETITIONER, VS. MARIO RAPAL, RESPONDENT.

  • [G.R. No. 193723 : July 20, 2011] GENERAL MILLING CORPORATION, PETITIONER, VS. SPS. LIBRADO RAMOS AND REMEDIOS RAMOS, RESPONDENTS.

  • G.R. No. 181919 : July 20, 2011] JONES INTERNATIONAL MANPOWER SERVICES, INC., REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESIDENT, EDWARD G. CUE, PETITIONER, VS. BELLA AGCAOILI-BARIT, RESPONDENT.

  • [G.R. No. 166863 : July 20, 2011] GOVERNMENT SERVICE INSURANCE SYSTEM, PETITIONER, VS. JUM ANGEL, RESPONDENT.

  • [G.R. No. 192760 : July 20, 2011] JOJIT GARINGARAO, PETITIONER, VS. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, RESPONDENT.

  • [G.R. No. 167246 : July 20, 2011] GEORGE LEONARD S. UMALE, PETITIONER, VS. CANOGA PARK DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, RESPONDENT.

  • [G.R. No. 164050 : July 20, 2011] MERCURY DRUG CORPORATION, PETITIONER, VS. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, RESPONDENT.

  • [G.R. No. 186227 : July 20, 2011] PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. ALLEN UDTOJAN MANTALABA, ACCUSED-APPELLANT.

  • [A.M. No. MTJ-09-1736 [FORMERLY OCA I.P.I. NO. 08-2034-MTJ] : July 25, 2011] ATTY. CONRADO B. GANDEZA, JR., COMPLAINANT, VS. JUDGE MARIA CLARITA C. TABIN, PRESIDING JUDGE, MUNICIPAL TRIAL COURT IN CITIES, BRANCH 4, BAGUIO CITY. RESPONDENT.

  • [G.R. No. 173259 : July 25, 2011] PHILIPPINE NATIONAL BANK, PETITIONER, VS. F.F. CRUZ AND CO., INC. RESPONDENT.

  • [G.R. No. 165777 : July 25, 2011] CEFERINA DE UNGRIA [DECEASED], SUBSTITUTED BY HER HEIRS, REPRESENTED BY LOLITA UNGRIA SAN JUAN-JAVIER, AND RHODORA R. PELOMIDA AS THEIR ATTORNEY-IN-FACT, PETITIONER, VS. THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS, THE HONORABLE REGIONAL TRIAL COURT OF GENERAL SANTOS CITY, BRANCH 35, ROSARIO DIDELES VDA. DE CASTOR, NEPTHALIE CASTOR ITUCAS, FEROLYN CASTOR FACURIB, RACHEL DE CASTOR, LEA CASTOR DOLLOLOSA, AND ROSALIE CASTOR BENEDICTO, RESPONDENTS.

  • [G.R. No. 152695 : July 25, 2011] VICTORIA CLARAVALL, ASSISTED BY HER HUSBAND, LORETO CLARAVALL, PETITIONER, VS. RICARDO LIM, ROBERTO LIM, AND ROGELIO LIM, RESPONDENTS.

  • [G.R. No. 151911 : July 25, 2011] EDGAR PAYUMO, REYNALDO RUANTO, CRISANTO RUANTO, APOLINARIO RUANTO, AND EXEQUIEL BONDE, PETITIONERS, VS. HONORABLE SANDIGANBAYAN, PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN, AND OFFICE OF THE SPECIAL PROSECUTOR, DOMICIANO CABIGAO, NESTOR DOMACENA, ROLANDO DOBLADO, ERNESTO PAMPUAN, EDGARDO PRADO, ROMEO DOMINICO, RAMON GARCIA, AND CARLOS PACHECO, RESPONDENTS. [G.R. NO. 154535] NESTOR DOMACENA, PETITIONER, VS. HONORABLE SANDIGANBAYAN, PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, AND EDGAR PAYUMO, REYNALDO RUANTO, CRISANTO RUANTO, APOLINARIO RUANTO, AND EXEQUIEL BONDE, RESPONDENTS.

  • [A.M. No. 07-9-214-MTCC : July 26, 2011] RE: APPLICATION FOR INDEFINITE LEAVE AND TRAVEL ABROAD OF PRESIDING JUDGE FRANCISCO P. RABANG III, MUNICIPAL TRIAL COURT IN CITIES, COTABATO CITY

  • [A.M. No. RTJ-11-2261 (Formerly oca ipi No. 10-3386- RTJ) : July 26, 2011] ATTY. JOSE VICENTE D. FERNANDEZ, COMPLAINANT, VS. JUDGE ANGELES S. VASQUEZ, RESPONDENT.

  • [G.R. No. 161787 : July 27, 2011] MASING AND SONS DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION AND CRISPIN CHAN, PETITIONERS, VS. GREGORIO P. ROGELIO, RESPONDENT.

  • [G.R. No. 175485 : July 27, 2011] CASIMIRO DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, PETITIONER, VS. RENATO L. MATEO, RESPONDENT.

  • [G.R. No. 175343 : July 27, 2011] LORETO LUGA (DECEASED), SUBSTITUTED BY CELERINA LUGA - DECEASED (WIFE) AND CHILDREN NAMELY: PURIFICACION LUGA-BIONG, ELIZABETH LUGA-CABAÑA, ROSALIE LUGA-TANUTAN, LEDIA LUGA-GUY AB, MARITESS LUGA-GRAVINO, NESTOR LUGA AND DAVID LUGA. PETITIONERS, VS. SPS. ELENA AND ROGELIO ARCIAGA, RESPONDENTS.

  • [G.R. No. 186417 : July 27, 2011] PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. FELIPE MIRANDILLA, JR., DEFENDANT AND APPELLANT.

  • [G. R. No. 172699 : July 27, 2011] ELECTROMAT MANUFACTURING AND RECORDING CORPORATION, PETITIONER, VS. HON. CIRIACO LAGUNZAD, IN HIS CAPACITY AS REGIONAL DIRECTOR, NATIONAL CAPITAL REGION, DEPARTMENT OF LABOR AND EMPLOYMENT; AND HON. HANS LEO J. CACDAC, IN HIS CAPACITY AS DIRECTOR OF BUREAU OF LABOR RELATIONS, DEPARTMENT OF LABOR AND EMPLOYMENT, PUBLIC RESPONDENTS. D E C I S I O N NAGKAKAISANG SAMAHAN NG MANGGAGAWA NG ELECTROMAT-WASTO, PRIVATE RESPONDENT.

  • [G.R. No. 164679 : July 27, 2011] OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN, PETITIONER, VS. ULDARICO P. ANDUTAN, JR., RESPONDENT.

  • [A.M. NO. P-11-2944 (FORMERLY OCA IPI NO. 10-3342-P) : July 27, 2011] CAROL A. ABADIANO, CLEOFE ABADIANO-BONACHITA, RYAN M. ABADIANO AND CHERRY MAE M. ABADIANO, COMPLAINANTS, VS. GENEROSO B. REGALADO, SHERIFF IV, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, BRANCH 16, CEBU CITY, RESPONDENT.

  • [G.R. No. 163252 : July 27, 2011] ABOSTA SHIPMANAGEMENT CORPORATION, PETITIONER, VS. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION (FIRST DIVISION) AND ARNULFO R. FLORES, RESPONDENTS.

  • [G.R. No. 159101 : July 27, 2011] SPS. GONZALO T. DELA ROSA & CRISTETA DELA ROSA, PETITIONERS, VS. HEIRS OF JUAN VALDEZ AND SPOUSES POTENCIANO MALVAR AND LOURDES MALVAR, RESPONDENTS.

  • [G.R. No. 175291 : July 27, 2011] THE HEIRS OF NICOLAS S. CABIGAS, NAMELY: LOLITA ZABATE CABIGAS, ANECITA C. CANQUE, DIOSCORO CABIGAS, FIDEL CABIGAS, AND RUFINO CABIGAS, PETITIONERS, VS. MELBA L. LIMBACO, LINDA L. LOGARTA, RAMON C. LOGARTA, HENRY D. SEE, FREDDIE S. GO, BENEDICT Y. QUE, AWG DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, PETROSA DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, AND UNIVERSITY OF CEBU BANILAD, INC., RESPONDENTS.

  • [A.M. No. P-11-2888 (formerly A.M. OCA I.P.I. No. 09-3252-P) : July 27, 2011] GOLDEN SUN FINANCE CORPORATION, REPRESENTED BY RACHELLE L. MARMITO, COMPLAINANT, VS. RICARDO R. ALBANO, SHERIFF III, METROPOLITAN TRIAL COURT (METC), BRANCH 62, MAKATI CITY, RESPONDENT.

  • [A.M. No. P-10-2852 (Formerly A.M. OCA IPI No. 09-3270-P) : July 27, 2011] OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES, OFFICE OF THE COURT ADMINISTRATOR, COMPLAINANT, VS. LEDA O. URI, COURT STENOGRAPHER I, MUNICIPAL TRIAL COURT, ALAMINOS, LAGUNA, RESPONDENT.

  • [G.R. No. 178941 : July 27, 2011] JOSE ANSELMO I. CADIZ, LEONARD S. DE VERA, ROMULO A. RIVERA, DANTE G. ILAYA, PURA ANGELICA Y. SANTIAGO, ROSARIO T. SETIAS-REYES, JOSE VICENTE B. SALAZAR, MANUEL M. MONZON, IMMANUEL L. SODUSTA, CARLOS L. VALDEZ, JR., AND LYDIA A. NAVARRO, PETITIONERS, VS. THE HONORABLE PRESIDING JUDGE, BR. 48, RTC-PUERTO PRINCESA AND GLENN C. GACOTT, RESPONDENTS.

  • [G.R. No. 164356 : July 27, 2011] HEIRS OF MARGARITO PABAUS, NAMELY, FELICIANA P. MASACOTE, MERLINDA P. CAILING, MAGUINDA P. ARCLETA, ADELAIDA PABAUS, RAUL MORGADO AND LEOPOLDO MORGADO, PETITIONERS, VS. HEIRS OF AMANDA YUTIAMCO, NAMELY, JOSEFINA TAN, AND MOISES, VIRGINIA, ROGELIO, ERLINDA, ANA AND ERNESTO, ALL SURNAMED YUTIAMCO, RESPONDENTS.

  • [G.R. No. 168251 : July 27, 2011] JESUS M. MONTEMAYOR, PETITIONER, VS. VICENTE D. MILLORA, RESPONDENT.

  • [G.R. No. 171868 : July 27, 2011] SPOUSES FRANCISCO D. YAP AND WHELMA S. YAP, PETITIONERS, VS. SPOUSES ZOSIMO DY, SR. AND NATIVIDAD CHIU DY, SPOUSES MARCELINO MAXINO AND REMEDIOS L. MAXINO, PROVINCIAL SHERIFF OF NEGROS ORIENTAL AND DUMAGUETE RURAL BANK, INC., RESPONDENTS. [G.R. NO. 171991] DUMAGUETE RURAL BANK, INC. (DRBI) HEREIN REPRESENTED BY MR. WILLIAM D.S. DICHOSO, PETITIONERS, VS. SPOUSES ZOSIMO DY, SR. AND NATIVIDAD CHIU DY, SPOUSES MARCELINO MAXINO AND REMEDIOS MAXINO, AND SPOUSES FRANCISCO D. YAP AND WHELMA S. YAP, RESPONDENTS.

  • [G.R. No. 172506 : July 27, 2011] JERRY MAPILI, PETITIONER, VS. PHILIPPINE RABBIT BUS LINES, INC./NATIVIDAD NISCE, RESPONDENTS.

  • [G.R. No. 182042 : July 27, 2011] THUNDER SECURITY AND INVESTIGATION AGENCY/ LOURDES M. LASALA, PETITIONER, VS. NATIONAL FOOD AUTHORITY (REGION I) AND NFA REGIONAL BIDS AND AWARDS COMMITTEE (REGION I), RESPONDENTS.

  • [A.M. No. RTJ-07-2060 (Formerly OCA IPI No. 06-2498- RTJ) : July 27, 2011] NATIONAL POWER CORPORATION, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESIDENT CYRIL DEL CALLAR, COMPLAINANT, VS. JUDGE SANTOS B. ADIONG, RTC, BRANCH 8, MARAWI CITY, RESPONDENT.

  • [G.R. No. 180390 : July 27, 2011] PRUDENTIAL BANK, PETITIONER, VS. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, RESPONDENT.

  • [G.R. No. 168105 : July 27, 2011] LAND BANK OF THE PHILIPPINES, PETITIONER, VS. SEVERINO LISTANA, RESPONDENT.

  • [G.R. No. 156686 : July 27, 2011] NEW SUN VALLEY HOMEOWNERS' ASSOCIATION, INC., PETITIONER, VS. SANGGUNIANG BARANGAY, BARANGAY SUN VALLEY, PARAÑAQUE CITY, ROBERTO GUEVARRA IN HIS CAPACITY AS PUNONG BARANGAY AND MEMBERS OF THE SANGGUNIANG BARANGAY, RESPONDENTS.

  • [G.R. No. 182551 : July 27, 2011] PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. ROSENDO REBUCAN Y LAMSIN, ACCUSED-APPELLANT.

  • [G.R. No. 153809 : July 27, 2011] ELOISA L. TOLENTINO, PETITIONER, VS. ATTY. ROY M. LOYOLA, MUNICIPAL MAYOR, DOMINGO C. FLORES, MUNICIPAL BUDGET OFFICER, ALICIA L. OLIMPO, MUNICIPAL TREASURER, ANNALIZA L. BARABAT, MUNICIPAL ACCOUNTANT, AMADOR B. ALUNIA, MUNICIPAL ADMINISTRATOR, NENITA L. ERNACIO, MUNICIPAL AGRICULTURIST, AMELIA C. SAMSON, HUMAN RESOURCE OFFICER IV, EDWIN E. TOLENTINO, COMMUNITY AFFAIRS OFFICER IV, DOMINGO R. TENEDERO AND ROEL Z. MANARIN, SANGGUNIANG BAYAN (SB) MEMBERS, ALL FROM CARMONA, CAVITE, RESPONDENTS.

  • [A.M. No. RTJ-11-2285 (Formerly OCA I.P.I. No. 10-3472-RTJ : July 27, 2011] MAYOR MACARIO T. HUMOL, COMPLAINANT, VS. JUDGE HILARION P. CLAPIS, JR., REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, BRANCH 3, 11th JUDICIAL REGION, NABUNTURAN, COMPOSTELA VALLEY PROVINCE, RESPONDENT.

  •  





     
     

    [G.R. No. 164050 : July 20, 2011]   MERCURY DRUG CORPORATION, PETITIONER, VS. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, RESPONDENT.

     
    SECOND DIVISION

    [G.R. No. 164050 : July 20, 2011]

    MERCURY DRUG CORPORATION, PETITIONER, VS. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, RESPONDENT.

    D E C I S I O N


    PEREZ, J.:

    This petition for review on certiorari calls for an interpretation of the term “cost” as used in Section 4(a) of Republic Act No. 7432, otherwise known as “An Act to Maximize the Contribution of Senior Citizens to Nation Building, Grant Benefits and Special Privileges and For Other Purposes.”

    A rundown of the pertinent facts is presented below.

    Pursuant to Republic Act No. 7432, petitioner Mercury Drug Corporation (petitioner), a retailer of pharmaceutical products, granted a 20% sales discount to qualified senior citizens on their purchases of medicines.  For the taxable year April to December 1993 and January to December 1994, the amounts representing the 20% sales discount totalled P3,719,287.68[1] and P35,500,593.44,[2] respectively, which petitioner claimed as deductions from its gross income.

    Realizing that Republic Act No. 7432 allows a tax credit for sales discounts granted to senior citizens, petitioner filed with the Commissioner of Internal Revenue (CIR) claims for refund in the amount of P2,417,536.00 for the year 1993 and P23,075,386.00 for the year 1994.  Petitioner presented a computation[3] of its overpayment of income tax, thus:

    TAXABLE YEAR 1993


    SALES, Net
    P10,228,518,335.00
     
    Add: Cost of 20% Discount to Senior Citizens
               3,719,288.00
     
    SALES, Gross
    P10,232,237,623.00
     
     
    COST OF SALES
     
     
    Merchandise Inventory, Beg.
    P2,427,972,150.00
     
    Purchases
    8,717,393,710.00
     
    Goods Available for Sales
    P11,145,365,860.00
     
    Merchandise Inventory, End
    2,458,743,127.00
    8,686,622,733.00
     
     
    GROSS PROFIT
    P1,545,614,890.00
     
    Add: Miscellaneous Income
          58,247,973.00
     
     
    TOTAL INCOME
    P1,603,862,863.00
     
     
    OPERATING EXPENSES
    1,226,816,343.00
     
     
    NET INCOME BEFORE TAX
    P 377,046,520.00
     
    Less: Income subjected to final income tax
    20,966,602.00
     
     
    NET TAXABLE INCOME
    P 356,079,918.00
     
     
    INCOME TAX PAYABLE
    P 124,627,972.00
     
     
    LESS: TAX CREDIT (20% Sales
     
    Discount to Senior Citizens)
    P 3,719,288.00
     
    TAX ACTUALLY PAID
    123,326,220.00
    127,045,508.00
     
     
    TAX REFUNDABLE
    P 2,417,536.00
     
     
    x x x x
     


    TAXABLE YEAR 1994

    SALES, Net
    P 11,671,366,402.00
    Add: Cost of 20% Sales Discount to Senior Citizens
    35,500,594.00
    SALES, Gross
    P11,706,866,996.00
    COST OF SALES
    Merchandise Inventory, Beg.
    P2,458,743,127.00
    Purchases
    10,316,941,308.00
    Goods Available for Sales
    P12,775,684,435.00
    Less: Merchandise Inventory, End
    2,928,397,228.00
     9,847,287,207.00
    GROSS PROFIT
    P1,859,579,789.00
    Add: Miscellaneous Income
    68,809,864.00
    TOTAL INCOME
    P1,928,389,653.00
    OPERATING EXPENSES
    1,499,422,645.00
    NET INCOME BEFORE TAX
    428,967,008.00
    Less: Income subjected to final Income tax
    25,591,586.00
    NET TAXABLE INCOME
    P 403, 375,422.00
    INCOME TAX PAYABLE
    P 141,181,398.00
    LESS: TAX CREDIT (Cost of 20%

    Discount to Senior Citizens)

    P 35,500,594.00

    TAX ACTUALLY PAID

    128,756,190.00
    164,256,784.00
         
    TAX REFUNDABLE
    P 23,075,386.00

    When the CIR failed to act upon petitioner’s claims, the latter filed a petition for review with the Court of Tax Appeals.  On 6 September 2000, the Court of Tax Appeals rendered the following judgment:[4]

    WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, the instant Petition for Review is hereby PARTIALLY GRANTED. Accordingly, Revenue Regulations No. 2-94 of the Respondent is declared null and void insofar as it treats the 20% discount given by private establishments as a deduction from gross sales.  Respondent is hereby ORDERED to GRANT A REFUND OR ISSUE A TAX CREDIT CERTIFICATE to Petitioner in the reduced amount of P1,688,178.43 representing the latter’s overpaid income tax for the taxable year 1993.  However, the claim for refund for taxable year 1994 is denied for lack of merit.[5]

    The Court of Tax Appeals favored petitioner by declaring that the 20% sales discount should be treated as tax credit rather than a mere deduction from gross income.  The Court of Tax Appeals however found some discrepancies and irregularities in the cash slips submitted by petitioner as basis for the tax refund.  Hence, it disallowed the claim for taxable year 1994 and some portion of the amount claimed for 1993 by petitioner, viz:

    So, contrary to the allegation of Petitioner that it granted 20% sales discounts to senior citizens in the total amount of P3,719,888.00 for taxable year 1993 and P35,500,554.00 for taxable year 1994, this Court’s study and evaluation of the evidence show that for taxable year 1993 only the amounts of P3,522,123.25 and for 1994, the amount of P8,789,792.27 were properly substantiated.  The amount of P3,522,123.25 corresponding to 1993 will be further reduced to P2,989,930.43 as this Court’s computation is based on the cost of the 20% discount and not on the total amount of the 20% discount based on the decision of the Court of Appeals in Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Elmas Drug Corporation, CA-SP No. 49946 promulgated on October 19, 1999, where it ruled:

    Thus the cost of the 20%  discount represents the actual amount spent by drug corporations in complying with the mandate of RA 7432.  Working on this premise, it could not have been the intention of the lawmakers to grant these companies the full amount of the 20% discount as this could be extending to them more than what they actually sacrificed when they gave the 20% discount to senior citizens.” (Underscoring supplied).


    Similarly the amount of P8,789,792.27 corresponding to taxable year 1994 will be reduced to P7,393,094.28 based on the aforequoted Court of Appeals decision.  These reductions are illustrated as follows:

    TAXABLE YEAR 1993
     
     
    Cost of Sales
    P 8,686,622,733.00
     
    Divided by Gross Sales
    10,232,237,623.00
     
    Cost of Sales Percentage
    84.89%
     
    Adjusted Amount of 20% Discount given
     

    to Senior Citizens

    3,522,123.25
     
    Multiply by
    84.89%
     
    Allowable Tax Credit
    P 2,989,930.43
     
     
    TAXABLE YEAR 1994
     
     
    Cost of Sales
    P9,847,287,207.00
     
    Divided by Gross Sales
    11,706,866,996.00
     
    Cost of Sales Percentage
    84.11%
     
    Adjusted Amount of 20% Discount given
     
    to Senior Citizens
    P 8,789,792.27
     
    Multiply by
    84.11%
     
    Allowable Tax Credit
    P 7,393,094.28
     


    With the foregoing changes in the amount of discounts granted by Petitioner in 1993 and 1994, it necessarily follows that adjustments have to be made in the computation of the refundable amount which is entirely different from the computation presented by the Petitioner.  This Court’s conclusion is that Petitioner is only entitled to a tax credit of P1,688,178.43 for taxable year 1993 detailed as follows:

    TAXABLE YEAR 1993
     
     
    Sales, Net
    P10,228,518,335.00
     
    Add: Cost of 20% Discount
     
    given to Senior Citizens
                 3,719,288.00
     
     
    SALES, Gross
    P10,232,237,623.00
     
     
    COST OF SALES
     
    Merchandise Inventory, Beg.
    P2,427,972,150.00
     
    Add: Purchases
    8,717,393,710.00
     
    Total goods available for sale
    P1,145,365,860.00
     
    Less: Merchandise Inventory, End
    2,458,743,127.00
    8,686,622,733.00
     
    GROSS PROFIT
    P 1,545,614,890.00
     
    Add: Miscellaneous Income
        58,247,973.00
     
    TOTAL INCOME
    P 1,603,862,863.00
     
    OPERATING EXPENSES
    1,226,816,343.00
     
    NET INCOME BEFORE TAX
    P 377,046,520.00
     
    Less: Income subjected to final income tax
    20,966,602.00
     
    NET TAXABLE INCOME
    P 356,079,918.00
     
    INCOME TAX PAYABLE
    P 124,627,972.00
     
    LESS: TAX CREDIT (20% Sales Discount
     
    given to Senior Citizens)
    P 2,989,930.43
     
    TAX ACTUALLY PAID
    123,326,220.00
    126,316,150.43
     
    TAX REFUNDABLE
    P 1,688,178.43
       


    and no refund or tax credit for taxable year 1994 as the computation below shows that Petitioner, instead of having a tax credit of P23,075,386.00 as claimed in the Petition, still has a tax due of P5,032,113.72 detailed as follows:

    TAXABLE YEAR 1994
    SALES, Net
    P11,671,366,402.00
    Add: Cost of 20% Sales Discount given
    to Senior Citizens
    35,500,594.00
    SALES, Gross
    11,706,866,996.00
    COST OF SALES
    Merchandise Inventory, Beg.
    P2,458,743,127.00
    Add: Purchases
    10,316,941,308.00
    Total goods available for sale
    P12,775,684,435.00
    Less: Merchandise Inventory, End
    2,928,397,228.00
    9,847,287,207.00
    GROSS PROFIT
    P 1,859,579,789.00
     
    Add: Miscellaneous Income
        68,809,864.00
     
    TOTAL INCOME
    P 1,928,389,653.00
     
    OPERATING EXPENSES
    1,499,422,645.00
     
    NET INCOME BEFORE TAX
    P 428,967,008.00
     
    Less: Income subjected to final income
       25,591,586.00
     
    Tax
    NET TAXABLE INCOME
    P 403,375,422.00
     
    INCOME TAX PAYABLE
    P 141,181,398.00
     
    LESS: TAX CREDIT (Cost of 20%
    Discount given to Senior Citizens)
    P7,393,094.28
    TAX ACTUALLY PAID
    128,756,190.00
    136,149,284.28

    TAX STILL DUE
    P 5,032,113.72
     

    The conclusion of tax liability instead of tax overpayment pertaining to taxable year 1994 has the effect of negating the tax refund of Petitioner because the basis of such refund is the fact that there is tax credit.  Under the circumstances, instead to tax credit, Petitioner has a tax liability of P5,032,113.72, hence the refund for the period must fail.[6]

    Moreover, the Court of Tax Appeals stated that the claim for tax credit must be based on the actual cost of the medicine and not the whole amount of the 20% senior citizens discount.  It applied the formula: cost of sales/gross sales x amount of 20% sales discount.

    Petitioner moved for partial reconsideration.  In a Resolution dated 20 December 2000, the Court of Tax Appeals modified its earlier ruling by increasing the creditable tax amount to P18,038,489.71, inclusive of the taxable years 1993 and 1994.  The Court of Tax Appeals finally granted the claim for refund for the taxable year 1994 on the basis of the cash slips submitted by petitioner, in the sum of P16,350,311.28, thus:

    TAXABLE YEAR 1994

    a) Computation of adjusted amount of 20% discount given to senior citizens:

    Sales discount to be considered as basis for disallowance P35,414,211.68

    Less: Disallowances

    a) Sales discount without supporting documents   P224,269.15
    b) Sales discounts twice recorded                          7,462.66
    c) Overstatement of sales discount              648,988.28      880,720.09
    Adjusted amount of 20% sales discount                      P34,211,769.45

    b) Computation of the allowable tax credit on the 20% sales discount:

    Cost of Sales                            P9,847,287,207.00
    Divided by Gross Sales             11,706,866,996.00
    Cost of Sales Percentage                               84.11%

    Adjusted Amount of 20% discount given to
    Senior Citizens               P34,211,769.45
    Multiply by                                 84.11%
                                         P28,775,519.28

    c) Computation of the refundable amount:

    SALES, Net
    P11,671,366,402.00
    Add: Cost of 20% Sales discount given
    to Senior Citizens
    35,500,594.00
    SALES, Gross
    P11,706,866,996.00
    COST OF SALES
    9,847,287,207.00
    GROSS PROFIT
    P 1,859,579,789.00
    Add: Miscellaneous Income
    68,809,864.00
    TOTAL INCOME
    P 1,928,389,653.00
    OPERATING EXPENSES
    1,499,422,645.00
    NET INCOME BEFORE TAX
    428,967,008.00
    Less: Income subjected to final income tax
    25,591,586.00
    NET TAXABLE INCOME
    P 403,375,422.00
    INCOME TAX PAYABLE
    P 141,181,398.00
    LESS: TAX CREDIT (Cost of 20%
    Discount given to Senior Citizens)
    P28,775,519.28
    TAX ACTUALLY PAID
    128,756,190.00
    157,531,709.28
    AMOUNT REFUNDABLE FOR
    TAXABLE YEAR 1994
    P 16,350,311.28[7]

    Petitioner elevated the case to the Court of Appeals via a Petition for Review under Rule 43.  Petitioner sought a partial modification of the above resolution raising as legal issue the basis of the computation of tax credit.  Petitioner contended that the actual discount granted to the senior citizens, rather than the acquisition cost of the item availed by senior citizens, should be the basis for computation of tax credit.

    On 20 October 2003, the Court of Appeals rendered a Decision[8] sustaining the Court of Tax Appeals and dismissing the petition.  Citing the Court of Appeals cases of Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Elmas Drug Corporation and Trinity Franchising and Management Corp. v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, the appellate court interpreted the term “cost” as used in Section 4(a) of Republic Act No. 7432 to mean the acquisition cost of the medicines sold to senior citizens.  Therefore, it upheld the computation provided by the Court of Tax Appeals in its 20 December 2000 Resolution.

    Petitioner filed a motion for partial reconsideration which the Court of Appeals denied in a Resolution[9] dated 23 June 2004.  This prompted petitioner to file the instant petition for review.  Petitioner raises the following legal grounds for the allowance of its petition:

    I.

    LIMITING THE TAX CREDIT ON THE ACQUISITION COST OF THE MEDICINES SOLD AMOUNTS TO A TAKING OF PROPERTY FOR PUBLIC USE WITHOUT JUST COMPENSATION.

    II.

    FORCING PETITIONER TO GRANT 20% DISCOUNT ON SALE OF MEDICINE TO SENIOR CITIZENS WITHOUT FULLY REIMBURSING IT FOR THE AMOUNT OF DISCOUNT GRANTED VIOLATES THE DUE PROCESS CLAUSE FOR BEING OPPRESSIVE, UNREASONABLE, CONFISCATORY, AND AN UNDUE RESTRAINT OF TRADE.

    III.

    EVEN THE COURT OF APPEALS HAD AN INTERPRETATION OF THE TERM “COST” THAT IS DIFFERENT FROM, AND BROADER THAN THE INTERPRETATION OF THE COURT OF TAX APPEALS.  YET, THE COURT OF APPEALS AFFIRMED IN TOTO THE COURT OF TAX APPEALS’ DECISION.

    IV.

    THE COURT MAY CONSIDER THE SPIRIT AND REASON OF THE LAW WHERE A LITERAL MEANING WOULD LEAD TO INJUSTICE OR DEFEAT THE CLEAR INTENT OF THE LAWMAKERS.

    V.

    RESPONDENT MUST ACCORD PETITIONER THE SAME TREATMENT AS MAR-TESS DRUG IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PRINCIPLE OF EQUAL PROTECTION OF LAWS.[10]

    Petitioner adopts a two-tiered approach towards defending its thesis.  First, petitioner explains that in addition to the direct expenses incurred in acquiring the medicine intended for re-sale to senior citizens, operating expenses or administrative overhead are likewise incurred.  Limiting the tax credit on the acquisition cost of the medicines sold amounts to a taking of property for public use without just compensation, petitioner argues.  Moreover, petitioner contends that to compel it to grant 20% discount on sale of medicine to senior citizens without fully reimbursing it for the amount of discount granted violates the due process clause for being oppressive, unreasonable, confiscatory and an undue restraint of trade.  In the second tier, petitioner maintains that the term “cost” should at least include all business expenses directly incurred to produce the merchandise and to bring them to their present location and use.  Petitioner alleges that while the Court of Appeals subscribes to the above interpretation, it nevertheless affirmed in toto the Court of Tax Appeals’ erroneous decision.

    In lieu of its Comment, the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) filed a Manifestation and Motion supporting petitioner’s theory that the amount of tax credit should be computed based on sales discounts properly substantiated by petitioner.  The OSG adverted to the case of Bicolandia Drug Corporation (Formerly Elmas Drug Corporation) v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue[11] wherein we held that the term “cost” refers to the amount of the 20% discount extended by a private establishment to senior citizens in their purchase of medicines, which amount should be applied as a tax credit.  The OSG opines that the allowance of claim for additional tax credits should be based on sales discounts properly substantiated before the Court of Appeals.

    The main thrust of the petition is to determine whether the claim for tax credit should be based on the full amount of the 20% senior citizens’ discount or the acquisition cost of the merchandise sold.

    Preliminarily, Republic Act No. 7432 is a piece of social legislation aimed to grant benefits and privileges to senior citizens.  Among the highlights of this Act is the grant of sales discounts on the purchase of medicines to senior citizens.  Section 4(a) of Republic Act No. 7432 reads:

    SEC. 4.  Privileges for the Senior Citizens. — The senior citizens shall be entitled to the following:

    a) the grant of twenty percent (20%) discount from all establishments relative to the utilization of transportation services, hotels and similar lodging establishments, restaurants and recreation centers and purchase of medicines anywhere in the country: Provided, That private establishments may claim the cost as tax credit;

    The burden imposed on private establishments amounts to the taking of private property for public use with just compensation in the form of a tax credit.[12]

    The foregoing proviso specifically allows the 20% senior citizens' discount to be claimed by the private establishment as a tax credit and not merely as a tax deduction from gross sales or gross income.  The law however is silent as to how the “cost of the discount” as tax credit should be construed.

    Indeed, there is nothing novel in the issues raised in this petition.  Our rulings in Bicolandia Drug Corporation (Formerly Elmas Drug Corporation) v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue,[13] Cagayan Valley Drug Corporation v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue,[14] and M.E. Holding Corporation v. Court of Appeals[15] operate as stare decisis[16] with respect to this legal question.

    In Bicolandia, we construed the term “cost” as referring to the amount of the 20% discount extended by a private establishment to senior citizens in their purchase of medicines.[17]  The Court of Appeals’ decision in Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Elmas Drug Corporation dated 19 October 1999 was relied upon by the Court of Appeals as basis for its interpretation of the term “cost” when it decided the instant case in 20 October 2003.  As correctly pointed out by the OSG, said case had been elevated to this Court and had been eventually resolved with finality on 22 June 2006 in the case entitled Bicolandia Drug Corporation v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue.

    We reiterated this ruling in the 2008 case of Cagayan Valley Drug by holding that petitioner therein is entitled to a tax credit for the full 20% sales discounts it extended to qualified senior citizens.  This holds true despite the fact that petitioner suffered a net loss for that taxable year.[18]

    The most recent case in point is M.E. Holding Corporation which bears a strikingly similar set of facts and issues with the case at bar.  Both petitioners filed their respective income tax return initially treating the 20% sales discount to senior citizens as deductions from its gross income. When advised that the discount should be treated as tax credit, they both filed a claim for overpayment.  The Bureau of Internal Revenue on both occasions failed to act timely on the claims, hence they appealed before the Court of Tax Appeals.  The Court of Tax Appeals in M.E. Holding concedes that the 20% sales discount granted to qualified senior citizens should be treated as tax credit but it placed reliance on the Court of Appeals’ decision in Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Elmas Drug Corporation where the term “cost of the discount” was interpreted to mean only the direct acquisition cost, excluding administrative and other incremental costs.  This was the very same case relied upon by the Court of Appeals in the present case.  We finally affirmed in M.E. Holding that the tax credit should be equivalent to the actual 20% sales discount granted to qualified senior citizens.

    It is worthy to mention that Republic Act No. 7432 had undergone two (2) amendments; first in 2003 by Republic Act No. 9257 and most recently in 2010 by Republic Act No. 9994.  The 20% sales discount granted by establishments to qualified senior citizens is now treated as tax deduction and not as tax credit.  As we have likewise declared in Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Central Luzon Drug Corporation,[19] this case covers the taxable years 1993 and 1994, thus, Republic Act No. 7432 applies.

    Based on the foregoing, we sustain petitioner’s argument that the cost of discount should be computed on the actual amount of the discount extended to senior citizens.  However, we give full accord to the factual findings of the Court of Tax Appeals with respect to the actual amount of the 20% sales discount, i.e., the sum of P3,522,123.25. for the year 1993 and P34,211,769.45 for the year 1994.  Therefore, petitioner is entitled to a tax credit equivalent to the actual amounts of the 20% sales discount as determined by the Court of Tax Appeals.  A new computation for tax refund is in order, to wit:

    TAXABLE YEAR 1993
    SALES, Net
    P10,228,518,335.00
    Add: Cost of 20% Discount to Senior Citizens
                3,522,123.25
    SALES, Gross
    P10,232,040,458.25
    COST OF SALES
    Merchandise Inventory, Beg.
    P2,427,972,150.00
    Purchases
    8,717,393,710.00
    Goods Available for Sales
    P11,145,365,860.00
    Merchandise Inventory, End
    2,458,743,127.00
       8,686,622,733.00
    GROSS PROFIT
    P1,545,417,725.25
    Add: Miscellaneous Income
            58,247,973.00
    TOTAL INCOME
    P1,603,665,698.25
    OPERATING EXPENSES
      1,226,816,343.00
    NET INCOME BEFORE TAX
    P 376,849,349.25
    Less: Income subjected to final income tax
       20,966,602.00
    NET TAXABLE INCOME
    P 355,882,747.25
    INCOME TAX PAYABLE
    P 124,558,961.54
    LESS: TAX CREDIT (20% Sales
    Discount to Senior Citizens)
    P 3,522,123.25
    TAX ACTUALLY PAID
    123,326,220.00
    126,848,343.25

    TAX REFUNDABLE

    P 2,289,381.71

    TAXABLE YEAR 1994
    SALES, Net
    P 11,671,366,402.00
    Add: Cost of 20% Sales Discount
    to Senior Citizens
    34,211,769.45
    SALES, Gross
    P11,705,578,171.45
    COST OF SALES
    Merchandise Inventory, Beg.
    P2,458,743,127.00
    Purchases

    10,316,941,308.00
    Goods Available for Sales

    12,775,684,435.00

    Less: Merchandise Inventory, End
    2,928,397,228.00
    9,847,287,207.00
    GROSS PROFIT
    P1,858,290,964.45
    Add: Miscellaneous Income
    68,809,864.00
    TOTAL INCOME
    P1,927,100,828.45
    OPERATING EXPENSES
    1,499,422,645.00
    NET INCOME BEFORE TAX
    427,678,183.45
    Less: Income subjected to final Income tax
    25,591,586.00
    NET TAXABLE INCOME
    P 402,086,597.45
    INCOME TAX PAYABLE
    P 140,730,309.11
    LESS: TAX CREDIT (Cost of 20%
    Discount to Senior Citizens)
    P 34,211,769.45
    TAX ACTUALLY PAID
    128,756,190.00
    162,967,959.45

    TAX REFUNDABLE
    P 22,237,650.34

    WHEREFORE, the petition is GRANTED. The assailed Decision and Resolution of the Court of Appeals are REVERSED and SET ASIDE.  Respondent Commissioner of Internal Revenue is ORDERED to issue tax credit certificates in favor of petitioner in the amounts of P2,289,381.71 and P22,237,650.34.

    SO ORDERED.

    Carpio, (Chairperson), Leonardo De Castro,
    * Brion, and Peralta,** JJ., concur.

    Endnotes:


    *  Per Special Order No. 1006.

    ** Per Special Order No. 1040.

    [1] The amount was rounded off to read as P3,719,288.00.

    [2] The amount was rounded off to read as P35,500,594.00.

    [3] Rollo, pp. 51-52.

    [4] Penned by Associate Justice Ramon O. De Veyra with Associate Justices Ernesto D. Acosta and Amancio Q. Saga, concurring.  Id. at 49-62.

    [5] Id. at 61-62.

    [6] Id. at 59-61.

    [7] Id. at 91-92.

    [8] Penned by Associate Justice Rosmari D. Carandang with Associate Justices Eugenio S. Labitoria and Mercedes Gozo-Dadole, concurring.  Id. at 128-136.

    [9] Id. at 153-154.

    [10] Id. at 16-31.

    [11] G.R. No. 142299, 22 June 2006, 492 SCRA 159.

    [12] See Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Central Luzon Drug Corporation, G.R. No. 159647, 15 April 2005, 456 SCRA 414, 443-444; City of Cebu v. Spouses Dedamo, 431 Phil. 524, 532 (2002).

    [13] Supra note 11.

    [14] G.R. No. 151413, 13 February 2008, 545 SCRA 10.

    [15] G.R. No. 160193, 3 March 2008, 547 SCRA 389.

    [16] Once a case has been decided one way, the rule is settled that any other case involving exactly the same point at issue should be decided in the same manner under the principle stare decisis et non quieta movere.  See Petron Corporation v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, G.R. No. 180385, 28 July 2010, 626 SCRA 100, 122 citing Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Trustworthy Pawnshop, Inc., G.R. No. 149834, 2 May 2006, 488 SCRA 538, 545.

    [17] Supra note 11 at 168.

    [18] Supra note 14 at 21-22.

    [19] G.R. No. 159647, 15 April 2005, 456 SCRA 414.

    [G.R. No. 164050 : July 20, 2011]   MERCURY DRUG CORPORATION, PETITIONER, VS. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, RESPONDENT.


    Back to Home | Back to Main

     

    QUICK SEARCH

    cralaw

       

    cralaw



     
      Copyright © ChanRobles Publishing Company Disclaimer | E-mail Restrictions
    ChanRobles™ Virtual Law Library | chanrobles.com™
     
    RED