12 CIR to Lucien

8/4/2019 12 CIR to Lucien

1/4

CIR vs General FoodsCase regarding the millions of pesos spent on advertising Tang products.Here CA reversed Court of Tax Appeals ruling affirming the CIR that advertising expenses weren'tordinary and not subject to exemption as they were advertising designed to stimulate the futuresale of merchandise or use of services. SC reversed CA, it said respect has been accorded tofindings of fact of CTA regarding taxation as it is highly specialized for review of tax cases.

Cruz vs GanganDistrict director of TESDA who's cellphone got lost in the LRT, CoA found her negligent. SCreversed saying that such finding is not based on substantial evidence hence must be reversed.

Hadji-Sirad vs CSCGov't employee who had 3 different pictures and signatures for her civil service exam. Doctrine ofcase is that a special civil action for certiorari can only be taken when there is no other plain andspeedy remedy. Here there was one as instead of going directly to the SC, an appeal from theCSC decision finding her guilty of grave misconduct could have been taken to the CA by appeal.

Prohibition

-reviewer notesIt is preventive and not for acts already performed, must be timely availed of like certiorari.Requisites:

1.) Ground raised is lack of jurisdiction or GAD2.) No plain, adequate and speedy remedy available3.) Applies to agencies performing quasi-judicial and ministerial functions.

Chua Hiong vs Deportation BoardChua Hiong allegedly secured Filipino citizenship by fraudulently claiming to be son of a Filipinomother, board sought his deportation. He sought to enjoin deportation proceedings on the groundthat he is a Filipino citizen. Here there was substantial evidence tending to show he was of Filipinodescent and the court said prohibition would lie against the deportation proceeding pending the

judicial determination of his citizenship.

Co vs Deportation Board (not discussed in class, supposedly supra)Deportation Board filed charges against the Cos for being Chinese citizens who resided in thePhilippines without registering as Chinese Nationals in Bureau of Immigration, MD on the groundthat they were Filipinos, not granted. Cos then filed action with CFI to prohibit the Board fromcontinuing to take cognizance of the case, it was granted. SC said it was proper, reiterated doctrinein Chua Hiong, there was substantial evidence tending to prove citizenship, in fact the Board couldnot refute it.

Simon vs CHR (not discussed in class, supposedly supra)Demolition of stalls of QC vendors ordered by Mayor, head vendor then filed a complaint with CHR

praying for cease and desist which CHR granted. However, demolition continued, CHR cited QCMayor in contempt for not obeying cease and desist. SC held that the above circumstance fallsoutside contempt powers as the CHR is not a QJA but merely an investigatory body, it can onlyhold other in contempt in furtherance of its powers of investigation.

Paredes vs CA (supra)Regarding the AO which revised the rules of procedure of the Bureau of Patents increasing feespayable to the bureau, a petition for prohibition was filed by petitioners to prohibit the director of theBureau of Patents from implementing the new rules on procedure. Petition was denied, thepetitioners could have resorted to a remedy other than prohibition, SC said that prohibition isgranted only where no other remedy which is sufficient to afford redress is available. Here, the lawitself provided that increases of rates would still have to be approved by the cabinet, since the

approval was not yet given, prohibition is premature.

Mandamus


2/4

Reviewer- compelling a party to perform an act arising out of positive duty enjoined by lawRequisites:

1.) Duty is ministerial2.) Petitioner has clear and controlling right3.) No other plain, speedy and adequate remedy

Pointers accdg to reviewer may lie against discretionary duty when official/agency refuses toexercise its discretionary duty

From self: I remember one case saying that it shall compel the duty to be done, but not how it is tobe done

Blanco vs Board of Medical ExaminersAspiring physicians who took the board exam, they passed, but they were suspected of cheating,supposedly there were leaks. Secretary of Interior annulled the results of the examinations, hencepetitioners sought mandamus to compel the Secretary to release the confirmation of the examresults so they could be sworn in as physicians. SC said that mandamus does not lie, duty of theSecretary was discretionary to confirm or not confirm the results, he had to determine w/n theresults were credible. (memory aid misogynist court says that the manly route would be to takethe exam again)

Ng Gioc Lu vs DFACommissioner of immigration sent a letter to DFA to authorize the consulate in China to issue areturning resident visa to Ng Gioc Lu who was studyng in China. Denied by DFA hence mandamusby petitioner. It was denied by the SC saying that the act of issuing a visa is discretionary,particularly because the consular office in China is in the best position to determine w/n the returnof Ng Gioc Lu to the Philippines is a threat to public safety.

Policarpio vs Philippine Veterans BoardPolicarpio's husband was killed in WW2, she was being given pension but such was discontinued,so an application for resumption was filed with resp. Sec of Board issued a memo stating that thepension was resumed, however, delivery of pension was held in abeyance as the board has not

granted its restoration yet, it was later show that the petition was not yet being acted upon. Hence,mandamus filed by Policarpio to compel their release, but the SC said that mandamus will only lieto compel the board to take action when it refuses to do so (in this case to give the petition forrestoration of pension due course) but shall not prescribe the action to be taken (to release it ornot).

Tan vs Veterans Backpay CommissionTan is the widow of Lt. Tan Chiat Bee, a member of a guerilla organization recognized by the USarmy, Tan filed for the release of backpay, but the request was denied as Tan was an alien.Mandamus was brought by Tan to compel the Commission to give due course to the application.SC said mandamus lies because after proving that Tan was a member of a guerilla organizationrecognized by the US army, it becomes ministerial to approve the release of backpay.

Pangasinan vs Reparation CommissionReparations goods were not transferred to Pangasinan because respondent did not yet sign thecontract to convey the goods to the province. SC said mandamus will not lie to enforce contractualobligations.

Meralco Securities vs SavellanoMeralco was supposedly evading taxes, Maniago reported this to the CIR (because person whoreports evasion would be given a cash reward), CIR found this to be untrue. Maniago filedmandamus to compel the CIR to collect the supposed deficiency tax, SC said mandamus will notlie as it was discretionary upon the CIR to determine w/n Meralco was deficient in paying its tax bythe interpretation of relevant revenue laws.

Cruz vs CACruz's position was reclassified by an executive order, giving her a lower wage, she felt she was


3/4

demoted, so she filed an action with the Merit Systems Protection Board which upgraded her rank.DBM would not enforce the MSPB decision hence mandamus by Cruz. SC said mandamus doesnot lie because the MSPB did not have jurisdiction over the issue and also mandamus was filedonly 2 years after DBM did not implement the decision, hence it negates the claim that mandamuswas the most expeditious and speedy remedy available. (note: Mandamus here could be availed ofw/in 3 months, rule now is 60 days)

PRC vs de GuzmanMedical board exam case regarding Fatima College which had an unusually high passing rate,they weren't sworn in because of such anomalies. Filed petition for mandamus to compel the PRCto register them as licensed physicians, but SC said that mandamus will not lie as such registrationis discretionary because licenses shall be issued only to those who have satisfactorily compliedwith the requirements of the Board, the operative word is satisfactorily, the determination ofsatisfactory compliance is discretionary.

Declaratory ReliefMay be brought by a person interested under a deed, will, contract or other written instrument or bya person whose rights are affected by a statute, executive order or regulation or ordinance beforebreach or violation of his right.Requisites:1. Judicial controversy2. Between persons with adverses interests3. must have legal interst4. ripe for adjudication

Also, accdg to Velarde vs SJS, breach of right must be impending, imminent or even threatened.

Azajar vs ArdallesAzajar was denied right to purchase land as he was not a Filipino citizen, hence Azajar brought anaction for declaratory relief to declare his citizenship. SC said declaratory relief is the improper

remedy, there is a proper administrative procedure for the declaration of citizenship, it must bewhat must be resorted to. (Sir said that one does not seek a declaration of citizenship out ofinterest, I forgot part of the lecture but this could mean that breach of a right has already occurred,hence declaratory relief would be ruled out as it is for an impending breach)

De Borja vs VilladolidRe: license requirement for catching fish or else there would be a criminal action, Villadolidrequired Borja to secure a license, he refused to secure one saying that it is not necessary. Casewas turned over to the prosecutor for appropriate action , de Borja then sought declaratory relief ofw/n a license is required of him. SC said declaratory relief would not lie since it should be filedbefore the breach of law, here there has already been a breach, he proceeded to catch fish withouta license, he should have sought declaratory relief first before proceeding without a license. It is

sufficient that there was already an act which could constitute a breach to bar declaratory relief.

NDSC vs MeerNDSC sought declaratory relief to determine w/n sales of gold and other alloys for dental purposesfalls within a tax provision. At issue is CA 55 which provides that declaratory relief will not lie whentaxpayer questions his liability for the payment of any tax, however, such proviso was removed inthe subsequent amendment of CA 55. SC said that the removal of the proviso was to make theapplication discretionary, the law would allow the taxpayer the remedy of declaratory relief whenthe tax is not yet due, but not when it is due.

Mirando vs Wellington TyDoctrine: requisites for declaratory relief

(1) there must be a justifiable controversy; (2) the controversy must be between personswhose interests are adverse; (3) the party seeking declaratory relief must have a legalinterest in the controversy; and (4) the issue involved must be ripe for judicial determination


4/4

Habeas CorpusSpeedy remedy to secure release of persons deprived of liberty. Applies where there is illegalconfinement.

Mejoff vs Director of PrisonsMejoff was a Russian spy working for the Japanese, he was detained pending deportation. 2Habeas Corpus cases 1st, denied because his detention was necessary for the process of his

deportation, 2nd was granted because it was for an unreasonable length of time (2 years), thegovernment could have adequately found ways to repatriate him to Russia. Here, it was shown thatthe writ does not apply to Philippine citizens alone.

Co vs Deportation Board (Supra)Habeas corpus may issue in deportation cases "in cases when the courts themselves believe thatthere is substantial evidence supporting the claim of citizenship, so substantial that there arereasonable grounds for the belief that the claim is correct, In other words, the remedy should beallowed only in sound discretion of a competent court in a proper proceeding."

Lucien Tran Van Nghia vs Liwag (supra)Warrantless arrest of Tran Van Nghia, he was merely invited then seized by CID agents, hencepetition for habeas corpus. Habes corpus petition mooted by the fact that he posted bail and henceis already granted liberty. Also, other events have supervened, deportation proceedings haveactually taken place and hence his arrest, although initially illegal, is now legal as it is for thepurpose of the proceedings.

Documents

12 CIR to Lucien