Welcome to Scribd. Sign in or start your free trial to enjoy unlimited e-books, audiobooks & documents.Find out more
Standard view
Full view
of .
Look up keyword
Like this
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
For Case Compilation

For Case Compilation

|Views: 2,934|Likes:
Published by sean

More info:

Published by: sean on Jan 29, 2010
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial


Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as DOC, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less





GR No. 166494, June 29, 2007CARLOS SUPERDRUG CORP. vs. DSWD, ET. AL
Petitioners, belonging to domestic corporations and proprietors operating drugstores in thePhilippines, are praying for preliminary injunction assailing the constitutionality of Section4(a) of Republic Act (R.A.) No. 9257, otherwise known as the “Expanded Senior CitizensAct of 2003.” On February 26, 2004, R.A. No. 9257, amending R.A. No. 7432, was signedinto law by President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo and it became effective on March 21, 2004.Section 4(a) of the Act states: SEC. 4. Privileges for the Senior Citizens. – The senior citizens shall be entitled tothe following:(a) the grant of twenty percent (20%) discount from all establishments relative tothe utilization of services in hotels and similar lodging establishments, restaurantsand recreation centers, and purchase of medicines in all establishments for theexclusive use or enjoyment of senior citizens, including funeral and burial servicesfor the death of senior citizens;
The establishment may claim the discounts granted under (a), (f), (g) and (h) as tax deduction based on the net cost of the goods sold or services rendered: Provided, That the cost of thediscount shall be allowed as deduction from gross income for the same taxable year that thediscount is granted. Provided, further, That the total amount of the claimed tax deduction netof value added tax if applicable, shall be included in their gross sales receipts for tax purposesand shall be subject to proper documentation and to the provisions of the National InternalRevenue Code, as amended.
The DSWD, on May 8, 2004, approved and adopted the Implementing Rules and Regulationsof RA No. 9275, Rule VI, Article 8 which contains the proviso that the implementation of thetax deduction shall be subject to the Revenue Regulations to be issued by the BIR andapproved by the DOF. With the new law, the Drug Stores Association of the Philippineswanted a clarification of the meaning of tax deduction. The DOF clarified that under a taxdeduction scheme, the tax deduction on discounts was subtracted from Net Sales together with other deductions which are considered as operating expenses before the Tax Due wascomputed based on the Net Taxable Income. On the other hand, under a tax credit scheme,the amount of discounts which is the tax credit item, was deducted directly from the tax dueamount.
The DOH issued an Administrative Order that the twenty percent discount shall include both prescription and non-prescription medicines, whether branded or generic. It stated that suchdiscount would be provided in the purchase of medicines from all establishments supplyingmedicines for the exclusive use of the senior citizens.
Drug store owners assail the law with the contention that granting the discount would resultto loss of profit and capital especially that such law failed to provide a scheme to justlycompensate the discount.ISSUE: WON Section 4(a) of the Expanded Senior Citizens Act is unconstitutional or notviolative of Article 3 Section 9 of the Constitution which provides that private property shall not be taken for public use without just compensation and the equal protection clause of Article 3Section 1.HELD:
The permanent reduction in their total revenues is a forced subsidy corresponding to thetaking of private property for public use or benefit. This constitutes compensable taking for which petitioners would ordinarily become entitled to a just compensation. Just compensationis defined as the full and fair equivalent of the property taken from its owner by theexpropriator. The measure is not the taker’s gain but the owner’s loss. The word just is usedto intensify the meaning of the word compensation, and to convey the idea that the equivalentto be rendered for the property to be taken shall be real, substantial, full and ample.
The law grants a twenty percent discount to senior citizens for medical and dental services,and diagnostic and laboratory fees; admission fees charged by theaters, concert halls,circuses, carnivals, and other similar places of culture, leisure and amusement; fares for domestic land, air and sea travel; utilization of services in hotels and similar lodgingestablishments, restaurants and recreation centers; and purchases of medicines for theexclusive use or enjoyment of senior citizens. As a form of reimbursement, the law providesthat business establishments extending the twenty percent discount to senior citizens mayclaim the discount as a tax deduction.
The law is a legitimate exercise of police power which, similar to the power of eminentdomain, has general welfare for its object. Police power is not capable of an exact definition, but has been purposely veiled in general terms to underscore its comprehensiveness to meetall exigencies and provide enough room for an efficient and flexible response to conditionsand circumstances, thus assuring the greatest benefits. Accordingly, it has been described as“the most essential, insistent and the least limitable of powers, extending as it does to all thegreat public needs.” It is “[t]he power vested in the legislature by the constitution to make,ordain, and establish all manner of wholesome and reasonable laws, statutes, and ordinances,either with penalties or without, not repugnant to the constitution, as they shall judge to be for the good and welfare of the commonwealth, and of the subjects of the same.”
Movie tickets for children
An ordinance was passed by the municipal board of Butuan ordering that the price of theadmission of children in movie houses and other places of amusements should be half that of adults.
Owners of 4 theaters (petitioners) maintain that Ordinance 640 violates the due processclause for it is unfair, unjust, confiscatory, and amounts to a restraint of trade and violative of the right of persons to enter into contracts.
Municipality: a valid exercise of policy under the gen welfare clause in their charter.Issue:Is Ordinance 460 a valid exercise of police power?Held: It is not.Ratio: Not lawful subject/ no lawful purpose
The ordinance is not justified by any necessity of public interest. The evidence purpose of it is to reduce the loss in savings of parents, in turn passing the buck to the theater owners. The contention of the city that they are preventing the movie houses fromexploiting children is not tenable (they are given the same quality of entertainment).Besides, the city said that movies are attractive nuisance, so why are they encouraging it.
The means are clearly unreasonable. How can the theater operators distinguish bet a 13-year old an an 11-year old child. The city said that the movie operators can ask thechildren to bring their birth certificates but that is impractical, said the court (why?)
A theater ticket is an evidence of a contract bet the movie house and its patrons. It mayalso be considered a license, allowing the purchases to enjoy the entertainment being provided. In either case, the ticket is a species of property. The operators, as the ownersthereof, have the right to dispose of it at a price it wants and to whom he pleases.
The courts have declared valid laws regulating the prices of food and drugs duringemergency; limiting the act profit of utilities. But the theater is not of the same nature—itis not a public utility or a public good.
 Note 3 instances when the exercise of police power by local govt are invalid:a.violates the consti b.violates the act of Congress of the legc.against public policy or is unreasonable, oppressive, discriminating or inderogation of common rights.
Del Rosario v. Bengzon [GR 88265, 21 December 1989]
En Banc, Grino-Aquino (J): 12 concur, 2 concur in resultFacts: On 15 March 1989, the full text of Republic Act 6675 was published in two newspapers of general circulation in the Philippines. The law took effect on 30 March 1989, 15 days after its publication, as provided in Section 15 thereof. Section 7, Phase 3 of Administrative Order 62 wasamended by Administrative Order 76 dated 28 August 1989 by postponing to 1 January 1990 theeffectivity of the sanctions and penalties for violations of the law, provided in Sections 6 and 12of the Generics Act and Sections 4 and 7 of the Administrative Order. Officers of the PhilippineMedical Association, the national organization of medical doctors in the Philippines, on behalf of their professional brethren who are of kindred persuasion, filed a class suit requesting the Court
to declare some provisions (specifically penal) of the Generics Act of 1988 and the implementingAdministrative Order 62 issued pursuant thereto as unconstitutional, hence, null and void. The petition was captioned as an action for declaratory relief, over which the Court does not exercise jurisdiction. Nevertheless, in view of the public interest involved, the Court decided to treat it as a petition for prohibition instead.Issue: Whether the prohibition against the use by doctors of “no substitution” and/or words of similar import in their prescription in the Generics Act is a lawful regulation.Held: Yes. There is no constitutional infirmity in the Generics Act; rather, it implements theconstitutional mandate for the State “to protect and promote the right to health of the people” and“to make essential goods, health and other social services available to all the people at affordablecost” (Section 15, Art. II and Section 11, Art. XIII, 1987 Constitution). The prohibition againstthe use by doctors of “no substitution” and/or words of similar import in their prescription, is avalid regulation to prevent the circumvention of the law. It secures to the patient the right tochoose between the brand name and its generic equivalent since his doctor is allowed to write both the generic and the brand name in his prescription form. If a doctor is allowed to prescribe a brand-name drug with “no substitution,” the patient’s option to buy a lower-priced, but equallyeffective, generic equivalent would thereby be curtailed. The law aims to benefit theimpoverished (and often sickly) majority of the population in a still developing country like ours,not the affluent and generally healthy minority.
GR No. 130239, April 15, 2005MMDA vs. GARIN
Respondent Garin was issued a traffic violation receipt (TVR) and his driver’s license wasconfiscated for parking illegally. Garin wrote to then MMDA Chairman Prospero Oretarequesting the return of his license and expressed his preference for his case to be file inCourt. Without an immediate reply from the chairman, Garin filed for a preliminaryinjunction assailing among others that Sec 5 (f) of RA 7924 violates the constitutional prohibition against undue delegation of legislative authority, allowing MMDA to fix andimpose unspecified and unlimited fines and penalties. RTC rule in his favor, directingMMDA to return his license and for the authority to desist from confiscating driver’s licensewithout first giving the driver the opportunity to be heard in an appropriate proceeding. Thusthis petition.ISSUE: WON Sec 5(f) of RA 7924 which authorizes MMDA to confiscate and suspend or revokedriver’s license in the enforcement of traffic rules and regulations constitutional?HELD:
The MMDA is not vested with police power. It was concluded that MMDA is not a localgovernment unit of a public corporation endowed with legislative power and it has no power to enact ordinances for the welfare of the community.
Police power, as an inherent attribute of sovereignty is the power vested in the legislature tomake, ordain, establish all manner of wholesome and reasonable laws, statutes andordinances either with penalties of without, not repugnant to the constitution, as they shall judge to be for good and welfare of the commonwealth and for subjects of the same.
There is no provision in RA 7924 that empowers MMDA or its council to “enact ordinance,approve resolutions and appropriate funds for the general welfare of the inhabitants of MetroManila.” It is an agency created for the purpose of laying down policies and coordinatingwith the various national government agencies, People’s Organizations, NGOs and privatesector for the efficient and expeditious delivery of services. All its functions areadministrative in nature.
146 SCRA 323; G.R. No. L-63419; 18 Dec 1986LOZANO VS. MARTINEZFACTS:A motion to quash the charge against the petitioners for violation of the BP 22 was made,contending that no offense was committed, as the statute is unconstitutional. Such motion wasdenied by the RTC. The petitioners thus elevate the case to the Supreme Court for relief. TheSolicitor General, commented that it was premature for the accused to elevate to the SupremeCourt the orders denying their motions to quash. However, the Supreme Court finds it justifiableto intervene for the review of lower court's denial of a motion to quash.ISSUE: WON BP 22 is constitutional as it is a proper exercise of police power of the State.

Activity (64)

You've already reviewed this. Edit your review.
1 hundred reads
1 thousand reads
Angela Villamor Solon liked this
Ernesto Palomique III liked this
Anabel Sta Cruz Sollano liked this
eloisamae_closa45 liked this
eloisamae_closa45 liked this
Kay Beverly Go liked this
Geraldine Solis Ybanez liked this
Isko Perillo liked this

You're Reading a Free Preview

/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->