Canlas v Republic

FACTS:

ISSUE: Whether or not Manila Pencil Corporation as a successor of the Philippine Consolidated Freight Lines, be exempted in the payment of income tax.

Held: No

ARTICLE XVIII. — SALES AND SERVICES WITHIN THE BASES

1. It is mutually agreed that the United States shall have the right to establish on bases, free of all licenses; fees; sales, excise or OTHER TAXES, or imposts; Government agencies, including concessions, such as sales commissaries and posts exchanges, messes and social clubs, for the exclusive use of the United States military forces and authorized civilian personnel and their families. The merchandise or   services   sold or   dispensed by such agencies shall be free of all taxes, duties and inspection by the Philippine authorities. . . .

While it may be argued that a tax on the income derived from the operation of a concession falls under the term "other taxes" included in the enumeration of the imposts from which a Government agency or private concessioner is exempted, yet what is being exempted from the payment is the establishment of the agency or concession designed for the exclusive use of the U.S. military forces and authorized civil personnel and their families. Taking into account the sentence following the enumeration which specifies the "merchandise or services sold or dispensed by such agencies" to be free from taxes or duties, the privilege is intended merely to be confined to the latter and to no other.

Secretary of Finance v Ilarde

FACTS: Respondent Cabaluna was the Regional Director of the Dept. of Finance in Iloilo City. He co-owns with his wife several real properties located in Iloilo city. After his retirement, there are tax delinquencies on his properties. He paid the amount, however, protesting that the penalties imposed to him are in excess than that provided by law. He filed a suit before the RTC which found that Section 4 of Joint Assessment Regulation No. 1-85 and Local Treasury Regulation No. 2-85 by the respondent is

null and void, declaring that the penalty to be imposed for delinquency of real taxes payment should be 2% on the amount of delinquent tax for each month of delinquency, until it is paid, but not exceeding 24% of the delinquent tax as provided for in Section 66 of P.D. 464, the Real Property Tax Code. Now the Secretary of Finance petitions to reverse decision rendered by respondent Judge Ilarde of RTC, contending that the Regulation is contrary to Section 66 of P.D. 464

ISSUE: Whether or not the impugned Regulation is contrary to the provision of Section 66 of P.D. 464

HELD: The Regulation No. 1-85 and No. 2-85 is contrary to Section 66 of P.D. 464. In using the maxim Ubi lex non distinguit nec nos distinguere debemus or “when the law does not distinguish, we must not distinguish,” P.D. 464 makes no distinction as to whether it is simple delinquency or other forms thereof. P.D 464 or the Real Property Tax Code, covers all real property titled to individuals who become delinquents in paying real estate tax.

_____________________________________________________________

MTRCB v ABS-CBN

FACTS: ABS-CBN aired “Prosti-tuition” which is an episode of the TV Program “The Inside Story” produced and hosted by Loren Legarda. Said episode showed female students who were moonlighting as prostitutes as means to pay their tuition fee.

MTRCB Legal Counsel initiated a formal complaint alleging that ABS-CBN exhibited the TV program without the approval of MTRCB, thus, violating specific MTRCB Rules & Regulations. In response, ABC-CBN explained that The Inside Story is a public affairs program, news, documentary, and socio-political editorial, and as such, it is protected by the Constitutional provision on freedom of expression and the press, and not covered by the power and authority of MTRCB.

MTRCB contends that the jurisdiction of MTRCB covers all TV programs, emphasizing the word “all” in Section 3(b) of P.D. 1986. Such law gave MTRCB the power to screen,review, and examine all TV Programs, and since The Inside Story is a TV program, it is well within the jurisdiction of MTRCB.

ABS-CBN contends that The Inside Story is a newsreel.

ISSUE: Whether or not MTRBC has the power to review the TV program The Inside Story

HELD: Yes, MTRCB has the power to review the TV program The Inside Story. Applying the maxim Ubi lex non distinguit nec nos distinguere debemos, where the law does not make any exception, the court may not exempt something therefrom, unless there is a compelling reason apparent in the law to justify it.

The word “all” in said Presidential Decree covers all TC Programs whether religious, public affairs, news, documentary, etc. The principle assumes that the legislature made no qualification in the use of general word or expression. The Inside Story is a TV program, which means that it is within the jurisdiction of MTRBC.

People v Manantan

FACTS: Guillermo Manantan was charged wth a violation of Section 54 of the Revised Election Code. Under Section 54, “no justice, judge, fiscal, treasurer, or assessor of any province shall aid any candidate, or exert any influence in any manner in an election or take part therein, except to vote, if entitled thereto, or to preserve public peace, if he is a peace officer.”

However, Manantan claims that as Justice of Peace, he is not one of the officers enumerated in said Section. The lower court denied the motion holding that a justice of Peace is within the purview of Section 54, being included in the term “judge”

Defendant claims that the words ‘justice of peace’ was omitted, revealing the intention of the legislature to excluse jsitices of peace from its operation.

ISSUE: Whether or not the Justice of Peace was excluded from the coverage of Section 54 of the Revised Election Code

HELD: Justice of Peace is included in the coverage of Section 54 of the Revised Election Code. Applying the Casus Omisus rule, a person, object, or thing omitted from an enumeration must have been omitted intentionally. The maxim can apply only if and when the omission has been clearly established. Substitution of terms is not omission. The term

“judge includes all officers appointed to decide litigated questions while acting in that capacity, including justice of peace. The intention of the legislature did not excluse justice of peace from said Section as there is no necessity to mention ‘justice of peace’ in the enumeration since it has availed itself of the broader term “judge”

Florentino v PNB - Doctrine of Last Antecedent

FACTS: Florentino is indebted to PNB. Said loan is secured by a mortgage of real properties. Florentino….

ISSUE: Whether or not PNB can be compelled to accept the backpay certificate of Florentino issued to him by the government, to pay an indebtedness to PNB?

HELD: Yes, PNB can be compelled to accept backpay certificate. Section 2 of Republic Act 304 reads as “…obligations subsisting at the time of approval of this amendatory act for which the applicant may directly be liable to the government or to any of its branches or instrumentalities, or the corporations owned or controlled by the government, or to any citizen of the Philippines, or to any association or corporation organized under the laws of the Philippines, who may be willing to accept the same for such settlement,” the court held that the qualifying clause refers ONLY to the immediate antecedent that is “any citizen of the Philippines or any association or corporation organized under the laws of the Philippines.”

Mapa v Arroyo

ISSUE: Does Clause 20 of said contract include P.D. 957, making the cancellation of the contracts of sale incorrect?

HELD: No, Clause 20 of said contract DOES NOT include P.D. 957. Labrador has the right to cancel the contracts of sale due to the lapse of 5 years of default payment from Mapa.

P.D. 957 does not apply because it was enacted after the execution of contracts involved, and other than those provided in Clause 20, no further written commitment was made by the developer. The words “which are offered and indicated in the subdivision or condominium plans” refer not only to “other forms of

development” but also to “faciltiies, improvements, and infrastractures”

The word “and” is not meant to separate words, but is a conjunction used to denote a union.

We further reject petitioner's strained and tenuous application of the so-called doctrine of last antecedent in the interpretation of Section 20 and, correlatively, of Section 21. He would thereby have the enumeration of "facilities, improvements, infrastructures and other forms of development" interpreted to mean that the demonstrative phrase "which are offered and indicated in the approved subdivision plans, etc." refer only to "other forms of development" and not to "facilities, improvements and infrastructures." While this subserves his purpose, such bifurcation whereby the supposed adjectival phrase is set apart from the antecedent words, is illogical and erroneous. The complete and applicable rule is ad proximum antecedens fiat relatio nisi impediatur sentencia. 9Relative words refer to the nearest antecedent, unless it be prevented by the context. In the present case, the employment of the word "and" between "facilities, improvements, infrastructures" and "other forms of development," far from supporting petitioner's theory, enervates it instead since it is basic in legal hermeneutics that "and" is not meant to separate words but is a conjunction used to denote a joinder or union.