Pascual v. Pascual-Bautista Case No. 198 G.R. No. 84240 (March 25, 1992) Chapter IV, Page 127, Footnote No.
16 FACTS: Petitioners are the acknowledged natural children of the late EligioPascual, the latter being the full blood brother of the decedent Don Andres Pascual, who died intestate without any issue, legitimate, acknowledged natural, adopted or spurious children. ISSUE: W/N Art. 992 of the Civil Code of the Philippines, which states that ³An illegitimate child has no right to inherit abintestato from the legitimate children and relatives of his father or mother; nor shall such children or relatives inherit in the same manner from the illegitimate child´, interpreted to exclude recognized can be
People v. Amigo Case No. 201 G.R. No. 116719 (January 18, 1996) Chapter IV, Page 127, Footnote No.16 FACTS: The Regional Trial Court rendered a decision finding the Accused guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of murder, and sentenced to the penalty of reclusionperpetua. Accused-Appellant argues that error was committed by the trial court in imposing or meting out the penalty of reclusion perpetua against him despite the fact that Sec. 19 (1), Art. 3 of the 1987 Constitution was already in effect when the offense was committed. Accused-Appellant contends that under the 1987 Constitution and prior to the promulgation of RA 7659, the death penalty had been abolished and hence, the penalty that should have been imposed for the crime of murder committed by Accused-Appellant should be reclusion temporal in its medium period to 20 years of reclusion temporal. ISSUE: W/N Sec. 19 (1), Article 3 of the 1987 Constitution means to require a corresponding modification in the other periods as a result of the prohibition against the death penalty.
natural children from the inheritance of deceased. HELD:
In Diaz v. IAC, this Court ruled that ³Art. 992 of the Civil Code provides a barrier or iron curtain in that it prohibits absolutely a succession ab intestate between the illegitimate child and the legitimate children and relatives of the father or mother of said legitimate child. They may have a natural tie of blood, but this is not recognized by law for the purposes of Art. 992.´
HELD: EligioPascual is a legitimate child but petitioners are his illegitimate children. Petitioners herein cannot represent their father in the succession of the latter to the intestate estate of the decedent Andres Pascual, full blood brother of their father. In People vs. Muñoz, the Court held that ³A reading of Section 19 (1) of Article III will readily show that there is really nothing therein which expressly declares the abolition of the death penalty.
on appeal to the CA. unjustly convicted (when a judge knowingly and deliberately rendered an unjust judgment. 109445 (November 7. due to a land dispute and thus imprisoned. convicted. An exception to this is when the reinstatement inadmissible due to strained relations may be
RA 7309. Petitioner be
. Petitioner claims he was unjustly accused and is entitled to compensation. W/N the Labor Tribunal committed grave abuse of discretion in ordering the reinstatement of Respondent Salazar. he does not fall under RA 7309. she might have had direct knowledge of Saldivar¶s questionable activities. the Respondent Court affirmed the decision of the Labor Arbiter with respect to the reinstatement of Private Respondent but limited back wages to 2 years and deleted award for moral damages. 2. No. On appeal.R. Footnote No.
between the employer and the employee. 82511 (March 3.R. In the case at bar. provides for compensation of persons unjustly accused. Basbacio v. HELD: The Labor Code clearly provides that an employee who is unjustly dismissed from work shall be entitled to reinstatement and to his full back wages. thereby. of Justice Case No. ISSUE: 1. Respondent Salazar filed a complaint for illegal suspension and for other damages. HELD: No. The position of Private Respondent as systems analyst is not one that may characterized as such. and imprisoned.Globe-Mackay v. 112 G. G. However. Thus. Petitioner was acquitted because the prosecution was unable to prove beyond reasonable doubt that Petitioner was guilty. For one to be ³unjustly accused´ one must be wrongly accused from the very beginning. whimsical and capricious devoid of any basis for judgment) and imprisoned.3 FACTS: Petitioner placed Respondent preventive suspension because it Salazar under
merely insinuated that since Respondent Salazar had a special relationship with Saldivar. Moreover. 1992) Chapter IV. justify her dismissal. Page 124. What was proven was that he was at the scene of the crime with Petitioner when the shooting happened and left the place with his son-in-law. he is not. among other things. 1994) FACTS:
appeared that she had full knowledge of the loss and whereabouts of an air conditioner that DelfinSaldivar had stolen from the company but failed to inform her employer. No. Petitioner and his son-in-law Balderrama were charged with murder and frustrated murder for killing Boyon and wounding his wife and son. Dept. W/N there existed independent legal grounds to hold Respondent Salazar answerable as well and. NLRC and Salazar Case No. Petitioner was acquitted on the ground that conspiracy between him and his son-inlaw was not proven. ISSUE: W/N Petitioner is entitled to compensation pursuant to RA 7309. Office of the Secretary.
223 of the Labor Code. 223 of the Labor Code. as required by Art. 75222 (July 18. Sec. 32 of the Insolvency Law is clear that there is a cut off period ± one month in attachment cases and thirty days in judgments entered in actions commenced prior to the insolvency proceedings. Page 252. NLRC Case No. No. ISSUE: surety bond. 1993) G. Under the circumstances. the insolvency proceeding in the Court of First Instance of Angeles City was commenced more than four months after the issuance of the said attachment. Petitioner Radiola-Toshiba Phils. Where a statute is susceptible to more than one interpretation. 79. the court should adopt such reasonable and beneficial construction as will render the provision thereof operative and effective and harmonious with each other
. ISSUE: Is JMM Promotions still required to post the required appeal bond.contended that its lien on the subject properties overrode the insolvency proceeding and was not dissolved thereby. there is no conflict between Sec.R. considering it has already posted a cash bond and
Respondent spouses even though it commenced four months after said attachment. Footnote No. A reading of the POEA Rules shows that. 109835 (November 22. No.000.
G. The POEA Rules regarding monetary appeals are clear.
v. Also. as required by the POEA Rules. HELD: No. as required by the POEA? HELD: Yes. 21 Chapter VI. 1980 by the Court of First Instance of
the NLRC dismissed the petition for failure to post the required appeal bond as required by Art. 249
Phils. 000 and posted a cash bond of P100. NLRC Pasig. in addition to the cash and surety bonds and the escrow money.
Inc. 1991) Chapter VI. 32 and Sec.JMM Promotions v. Footnote No.R. 136
Radiola-Toshiba Appellate Case No. However. 000 and a surety bond of P50. an appeal bond in an amount equivalent to the monetary award is required to perfect an appeal from a decision of the POEA W/N the levy on attachment insolvency proceedings against dissolved the The levy on attachment against the subject properties of spouses Carlos and TeresitaGatmaytan was issued on March 4. Page 251. 20 FACTS: FACTS: JMM Promotions paid license fee amounting to P30. When JMM Promotions appealed to regarding a decision rendered by POEA.
2. The law specifically stated that provinces with only one legislative district should be divided into two and therefore should necessarily be elected by districts. 1992) FACTS: Petitioner contends that under Par (d) of Sec. Petitioners¶ contention would be more in keeping with the spirit of the law. For failure to pay their loan. Respondent also maintains that the period for repurchase has already prescribed based on Monge et al.500. Angeles.119 of the Public Land Act. No. 1989) Chapter IV. No. Respondent states that the sale of the property disqualified Petitioners from being legal heirs vis-àvis the said property. W/N the prescription period had already prescribed. Footnote No. 3 of RA 7166.De Guia v. the prescription period starts on the day after the expiration of the period of redemption when the deed of absolute sale was executed. Page 135.R. The explanatory note in the proposed bill provided that the reason for the division into two legislative districts is to reduce the number of candidates to be voted for in the 1992 elections. 30 G. members of the SangguniangPanlulungsod and Bayan shall be elected at large. the property of Petitioners was mortgaged to Philippine National Bank as security for a loan of P2. Petitioner maintains that they have a right to repurchase the property under Sec. Par (d) Sec. Court of Appeals G. The court realized that the language of the law in this case seems abstruse and the key to determine what legislature intended is the purpose or reason which induced it to enact the statute. For foreclosure sales. Held: The provision makes no distinction between the legal heirs. Sangguniang
Salenillas v. HELD: No. vs. 104712 (May 6.3 of the RA refers only to elective officials of the Sangguniang Panlulungsod of single district cities and elective officials of the Sangguniang Bayan for municipalities outside Metro Manila. ISSUE: 1. COMELEC Case No. W/N petitioners have the right to repurchase the property under the said Act. 78687 (January 31. the Monge case involved a pacto de retro sale and not a foreclosure sale and so the rules under the transaction would be different. Par (d) should be interpreted in line with the rest of the statute and to follow the interpretation of the petitioner there would have been no reason for the RA to single out the single district provinces. With regard to prescription. 3 of RA 7166 should be interpreted to mean that elective officials of the SangguniangPanlulungsod and Sangguniang Bayan shall be elected at large. ISSUE: W/N par (d) Sec.
.47 FACTS: On December 4. the property was foreclosed by PNB and was bought at a public auction by Private Respondent.R. 1973. The distinction made by Respondent contravenes the very purpose of the Act.
No. ISSUE: W/N the tax ordinance is valid. The Early Retirement Law would violate the equal protection clause of the constitution if the Supreme Court were to sustain Respondent¶s submission that the benefits of said law are to be denied a class of
. regardless The benefits realty tax at one and one-half percent. authorized under this Act shall apply to all regular. ISSUE: W/N Petitioner¶s status as a co-terminus employee is excluded from the benefits of RA 6683 (Early Retirement Law). Philippines Case No. temporary. 1949. It fixes the annual
of age. No. 2. 1989 with Respondent Administration. 60 G. 1969.R. Civil Service Commission Case No. the Court of First Instance of Manila ruled that the tax ordinance is void as it is not authorized by the city charter or by any law. 1981) FACTS: Sec. HELD: The petition is granted. filed an application on January 30. Page 164. HELD: The Court holds that the doctrine of implications in Statutory Construction sustains the City of Manila¶s contention that the additional one-half percent realty tax is sanctioned by the provision of the Special Education Fund Law that ³the total real The Revised Charter of Manila took effect on June 18. denied the same. 7125. Footnote No. L-37251 (August 31. however. believing that she is qualified to avail of the benefits of the program.Chua v. who have rendered at least a total of two (2) consecutive years of government service as of the date of separation«´ Petitioner Lydia Chua. ± This Act shall cover all appointive officials and employees of the National Government. imposed an annual additional one percent tax and fixes the total realty tax at three percent. imposing an additional one-half percent realty tax. The court applied the doctrine of necessary implication in deciding this case. R. the municipal board of Manila enacted Ordinance No. With the three percent maximum limit set by RA 5447. but protested the Ordinance. 1. 1992) Chapter IV. Coverage. Recourse by the petitioner to Respondent Commission yielded the same result.146 FACTS: RA 6683 provided benefits for early retirement and voluntary separation as well as for involuntary separation due reorganization. and that the city of Manila should reimburse Respondent Corporation said tax. effective beginning the third quarter of 1972. The Special Education Fund Law (RA 5447). casual and which took effect on Jan. which. emergency employees.
City of Manila v. Section 2 covers those who are qualified: to
government employees who are similarly situated as those covered by the said law. 23
Judge Gomez and Esso
G. Respondent Corporation paid the tax. 88979 (February 7.
The validity of OCT No. HELD: OCT No. improper prescription. No. Tuason& Co. 735 is valid.R. venue. L-33140 (October 23. v. While the 1949 Revised Charter of Manila fixed the realty tax at one and one-half percent. That was also the avowed intent of the questioned ordinance. They alleged that it had been fraudulently or erroneously included in OCT No. Alcantara vs. ISSUE: W/N OCT No. the 1969 Special Education Fund Law fixed three percent as the maximum real property tax. The Tuason¶s prayed that the petition be dismissed on the ground that the court has no jurisdiction over the case. The fact that the 1974 Real Property Tax Code specially fixes the real property tax at two percent confirms the prior intention of the lawmaker to impose two percent as the realty tax proper. 1978) FACTS: Plaintiffs Aquial (herein Respondents) claimed ownership of a parcel of land located in QC having an area of 383 hectares. 1914 in Case No. Tuason and Pili vs. 735 is valid. Mariano &Aquial& Cordova Case No.property tax shall not exceed a maximum of three per centum´.
Respondents Cordova spouses were allowed to intervene in the case since they were able to purchase 11 hectares from the Aquials. laches and prior judgment. The obvious implication is that an additiona onel half percent tax could be imposed by municipal corporations. The ruling in these cases was also applied in other cases involving the validity of OCT No. 64 G. 7681 of the Court of Land Registration. 735 of the Registry of Deeds of Rizal and that it was registered in the names of Defendants Tuason (herein Petitioners) pursuant to a decree issued on July 6. Tuason. that law fixed at two percent the realty tax that would accrue to the city or municipality. Tuason.
J. Plaintiffs Aquial prayed that OCT No. Inferentially.
.M. 735 was already decided upon by the Supreme Court in the cases of Benin vs. 735 and the titles derived therefrom be declared void due to certain irregularities in the land registration proceeding. 735.
No. R. As a result. 1987) Chapter 5. is that the counter bond to life
. HELD: Yes. During the pendency. It covers not only a final and executory judgment but also the execution of a judgment of pending appeal. No. Petitioner contends that it is clear from the law that the candidate must have entered the political contest.
G. 115245 (July 11.100 FACTS: On March 22. and should have either won or lost. 234
v.99 FACTS: Sycwin Coating& Wires Inc. However. Respondent Commission imposed a fine of P10. Respondent attached some of the properties of Varian Industrial Corp upon the posting of a supersedes bond. Footnote No. The latter in turn posted a counter bond through Petitioner so the attached properties were released. 14 of RA 7166 states that ³every candidate´ has the obligation to file his statement of contributions and expenditures. L-72005 (May 29. Sycwin prayed that Petitioner Corporation be ordered to pay the value of its bond which was granted. Neither the rules nor provisions of the counter bond limited its application to a final and executory judgment. Footnote No.000 pesos for failure to file his statement of contributions and expenditures. he withdrew his certificate of candidacy. Sec. Page 201. Sycwin filed a petition for execution pending appeal against the properties of Varian. 5. Rule 57 of the Rules of Court.
judgment including one pending appeal if returned unsatisfied may be charged against such counter bond.Philippine British Appelate Court Case No. which was granted. It appllies to the payment of any judgment that may be recovered by Plaintiff. HELD: ISSUE: The counter bond was issued in accordance with Sec. ISSUE: W/N the counter bond issued was valid. Three days later. As the law makes no distinction or qualification as to whether the candidate pursued his candidacy or withdrew the Pilar v.
attachment shall be charged with the payment of any judgment that is returned unsatisfied. Page 200.R. having withdrawn his certificate of candidacy three days after its filing. filed a complaint for a collection of money against Varian Industrial Corporation. The rule therefore. 242 G. the writ of execution was returned unsatisfied as Varian failed to deliver the previously attached personal properties upon demand. The only conclusion is that an execution of any logical W/N Petitioner can be held liable for failure to file a statement of contributions and expenditures since he was a ³non-candidate´. Commission on Elections Case No. 1995) Chapter 5. 1992. Petitioner filed his certificate of candidacy for the position of member of the SangguniangPanlalawigan of the Province of Isabela.
Sec. With regard to Petitioner¶s allegation that the check is not covered by BP 22.110 FACTS: Petitioner was charged with a violation of BP 22 (Bouncing Checks Law) for issuing a worthless check. the same is controlling and sufficient to vest jurisdiction in the Makati Regional Trial Court. 13 of Resolution No. The Court acquires jurisdiction over the case and over the person of the accused upon the filing of a complaint or information in court which initiates a criminal action. Footnote No.R. 87416 (April 8. The determinative factor (in determining venue) is the place of the issuance of the check.same. it will be noted that the law does not distinguish the currency involved in the case. However. and is therefore. HELD: The Makati Regional Trial Court has jurisdiction.
. ISSUE: W/N the Makati Regional Trial Court has jurisdiction over the case in question. Vol. No. III unmistakably show that the intention of the lawmakers is to apply the law to whatever currency may be the subject thereof. Page 96. 2348 categorically refers to ³all candidates who filed their certificate of candidacy´
De Villa v. he contends that the check was drawn against a dollar account with a foreign bank. the Court revealed that the records of Batasan. CA Case No. 1991) Chapter III. The offense was committed in Makati and therefore. the term ³every candidate´ must be deemed to refer not only to a candidate who pursued his campaign. but also to one who withdrew his candidacy. 88 G. Thus. not covered by the said law.
Under such law. namely: food products.
among those Petitioner imports. Because such items will be used for toothpaste. it was also provided that: ³Foreign exchanged used for the payment of cost.Colgate-Palmolive Phil. Importation including ³stabilizers and flavors´ is of materials Petitioner¶s arguments effected the grant of the refund: RA 601 does not categorize the exceptions as stated above. books supplies/ materials and medical supplies. HELD: No. not the parts and categorizations posited by the respondent. Therefore. and industrial starch. the following which were included are hardly such: fertilizer. L-14787 (January 28. Petitioner pays the Central
Bank of the Philippines 17% special excise tax on the foreign exchange used for the payment of the cost.R. No. Inc v. 67
products. cattle. The ³stabilizers and flavors´ the petitions refer to are items which must fall under the category of food
. the law must be seen in its entire context. poultry feed. The refusal to deny refund was based on the following argument: All the items enumerated for the tax exemption fall under one specific class. Gimenez Case No. vitamin concentrate. it is not a food product and therefore not subject to exemption
G. the Exchange Tax Law.95 FACTS: Petitioner Corporation engages in manufacturing toilet preparations and household remedies. Page 199. Footnote No. Though ³stabilizers and flavors´ are preceded by items that might fall under food products. For importation.´ any importer making
The petitioner therefore seeks a refund of the 17% special excise tax ISSUE: W/N the imports of ³dental cream stabilizers and flavors´ are subject to a 17% transportation tax exemption under the Exchange Tax Law. transportation and/or other charges incident to the importation into the Philippines of « stabilizer and flavors « shall be refunded to application therefore. transportation and other charges pursuant to RA 601. 1961) Chapter V.
as the same speaks of penalties in administrative cases. the Philippine Anti-Graft Board required Private Respondent to submit his explanation or comment. The Ombudsman has the power to suspend the employees of the said institution may it be in punitive or preventive suspension. The Respondent argue that the preventive suspension laid by the Ombudsman under Sec. similar to the immediate family member. of the Philippines vs. both retired and in active service.141 Acting on information received. business associate. Sec. 13(3) of the Constitution refers to ³suspension´ in its punitive sense. for violation of RA 3019 and 1379. Footnote No. and close associate in EO 1 and the close relative. Secretary Flavier Case No. which indicated the acquisition of wealth beyond his lawful income. Page 104. or nominee in EO 2. was unable to produce his supporting evidence. 40 G. while the Petitioner contends that the Ombudsman can only recommend to the Heads of Departments and other agencies the preventive suspension of officials and employees facing administrative investigation conducted by his office. ISSUE: W/N the Ombudsman has the power to preventively suspend government officials working in other offices other than that of the Ombudsman pending the investigation of administrative complaints. Applying the rule in statutory construction. Private Respondent. 13(8) of Art. because they were allegedly in the custody of his bookkeeper who had gone abroad. 1993)
FACTS: Chapter III.R. Hon. 24 of RA 6770 grants the Ombudsman the power to
of AFP personnel. HELD: No. together with his supporting evidence. a retired lt. relative. No. an agency of the PCGG. 106719 (September 21. In response. colonel. while Sec.Rep. 257
Buenaseda v.´ ISSUE: W/N Private Respondent may be investigated and prosecuted by the Board. The anti-graft Board was created by the PCGG to ³investigate unexplained wealth and corrupt practices the FACTS: The Private Respondents filed an administrative complaint with the Ombudsman against the Petitioner for the violation of the Anti-graft and Corrupt Practices Act. 9 of the 1987 Constitution. agent. HELD: Yes. dummy. 24 of RA 6770 is contemplated in by Sec. the Ombudsman filed an order directing the preventive suspension of the Petitioners. despite several postponements. who were employees of the national center for mental health.
. the term ³subordinate´ as used in EO 1 and 2 would refer to one who enjoys a close association or relation with former President Marcos and/or his wife. Migrinio and Tecson Case No.
step in an
Fule v. he submitted a memorandum confirming the Stipulation of Facts.
. the Bouncing Checks Law. Also. Footnote No. in its language. No. Said check was dishonored for the reason that the said checking account was already closed. the signature of the Petitioner and the counsel is mandatory. prosecution presented its evidence and the Petitioner waived his right. Upon the hearing. Because of the word ³shall´. Page 337. the rule is mandatory. He was convicted by the trial court. Sec. HELD: The CA erred. issued and made out check No. 1988) Chapter VIII. Therefore. This statute is procedural and may arise in order to facilitate a speedy and efficient investigation on cases filed against the officers. the Appellate Court.R. ISSUE: W/N the CA erred in affirming the decision of the RTC based on the Stipulation of Facts that was not signed by the Petitioner nor his counsel. Instead. 26741 in favor of Roy Nadera. Case is re-opened to receive evidence of Petitioner. ³No agreement or admission made or entered during the pre-trial conference shall be used in evidence against the accused unless reduced to writing and signed by him and his counsel´. thus in violation of BP 22. Court of Appeals G. L-79094 (June 22. Negative words and phrases are to be regarded as mandatory while those in the affirmative are merely directory.preventively suspend public officials and employees facing administrative charges. penal statues are to be liberally construed in favor of the accused. A preventive measure is not in itself a punishment but a preliminary administrative investigation. 4 of the Rules on Criminal Procedure provides. and on appeal. an agent of the Towers Assurance Corporation. 37 FACTS: Petitioner.
LGVHAI complained and got a favorable result from Respondent HIGC declaring registration of Petitioner association cancelled and Respondent CA affirmed the said decision. the
reconsideration citing the submitted ex parte motion but the court denied it. HELD: The court is not empowered by law to dismiss the appeal on the mere failure of an Appellant to submit his memorandum. The subsequent decision was appealed by the Petitioner and during its pendency. The legislature¶s intent is not to automatically dissolve a corporation for its failure to pass its by-laws. No.Bersabal v.R. But the Respondent judge issued an order dismissing the case for failure to prosecute Petitioner filed a motion for Petitioner¶s appeal. 1997)
Chapter VIII. The language of the statute should be considered as a whole while ascertaining the intent of the legislature in using the word ³must´ or ³shall´. Page 335. Petitioner filed a motion ex parte to submit memorandum within 30 days from receipt of notice of submission of the transcript of stenographic notes taken during the hearing of the case which was granted by the court. Later. 117188 (August 7. (LGVHAI) was registered with Respondent Home Insurance and Guaranty Corporation (HIGC) as the sole homeowners¶ organization in the said subdivision but it did not file its corporate bylaws.´ After receipt. Inc. Footnote No.R. 1978)
Loyola Grand Villas Homeowners Association. No. The Loyola Grand Villas Homeowners Association Inc. v. Salvador G. L-35910 (July 21.
Petitioner association filed a petition for certiorari. Hence. it was discovered that there were two other organizations within the subdivision: the North and South Associations. The law provides that ³Courts« shall decide« cases on the basis of the evidence and records transmitted from the city« courts: Provided« parties may submit memoranda« if so requested«´ It cannot be interpreted otherwise than that the submission of memoranda is optional. Respondent HIGC then informed the president of LGVHAI that the latter has been automatically dissolved because of non-submission of its by-laws as required by the Corporation Code. ISSUE: W/N the mere failure of an Appellant to submit the mentioned memorandum would empower the CFI to dismiss the appeal on the ground of failure to prosecute. HELD: No. 25 FACTS: FACTS: Private Respondents filed an ejectment suit against the Petitioner. Court of Appeals G. This resulted in the registration of Petitioner association. The word ³must´ in a statute is not always imperative but it may be consistent with an exercise of discretion. the court issued an order stating that ³«counsels for both parties are given 30 days from receipt of this order within which to file their memoranda in order for this case to be submitted for decision by the court. ISSUE: W/N the failure of a corporation to file its by-laws within one month from the date of its incorporation results in its automatic dissolution.
1. Since Petitioners were considered project employees. The Supreme Court looked into the definition of ³insulating oils´ under Materials Handbook by George J. The law frowns on exemption from taxation. insulating oil is different from insulators. Sr. Once that ³project´ is done. and that would have been more than enough to consider them as regular employees. Moreover. Brady. the fact that they have been working in NSC for more than a year does not mean they are automatically converted into regular employees. vs. HELD: No. Manila Electric Company Case No. hence an exempting provision must be construed stictissimijuris.ALU-TUCP v.) In Mercado. Footnote No. No. 3
FACTS: G. the proviso in par. 85 FACTS: RA 1394 exempted payment of special import tax for spare parts used for industries and also insulators from all taxes of whatever nature. L-23623 (June 30. (They were hired as project employees for the 5-year expansion program. The workers contend that they should be considered regular workers as opposed to project workers. 280 of the Labor Code. The provision calls for casual employees. The court found out that insulating oils are used for cooling as well as insulating. 2 of Art.R. ISSUE: W/N Petitioners should be considered regular employees. and not to other sections thereof. Respondent contends that their insulating oils are exempt from taxes. 1977) Petitioners were employed by the National Steel Corporation for their five year expansion program. 1994)
Acting Commissioner of Customs v. ISSUE: W/N insulating oil is an insulator Respondent exempt from paying its taxes. as the NSC and NLRC ruled.280 relates only to casual employees and is not applicable to those who do not qualify under the definition of such workers in par. this provision does not apply to them. Chapter VII. 109328 (August 16. Petitioners¶ contentions stemmed from Art. NLRC. And there is no question that the insulating oil that Respondent is importing is used for cooling instead of insulating. The proviso is to be construed with reference to the immediately preceding part of the provision to which it is attached. 8 th Edition.R. No. making
. their services will no longer be needed. HELD: No. ALU-TUCP claims that they have been working in NSC for more than 6 years and that their work is necessary for the business. Page 301. NLRC G.
inoperative or nugatory.
. no recall shall take place within one year from the date of the official¶s assumption to office or immediately preceding a regular local one year
election. No. 74 is to subject an elective local official to recall once during his term. Thus. Since the SangguniangKabataan (SK) election was set on the first Monday of May 2006. 74 of RA No. 196 G.R. An interpretation should be avoided under which a statute or provision being construed is defeated. Every part of the statute must be interpreted with reference to its context. who is the incumbent Punong Barangay. the Court assumed In
that the legislature intended to enact an effective law. The evident intent of Sec. COMELEC Case No. interpreting the phrase ³regular local election´ to include SK election will unduly circumscribe the Code for there will never be a recall election rendering inutile the provision. 1996) Chapter VI.Paras v. no recall may be instituted. 123169 (November 4. interpreting a statute. 50 FACTS: A petition for recall was filed against Paras. determines its construction. and it must be considered together and kept subservient to its general intent. Footnote No. Page 259. (b). 7160. meaningless. The spirit. The recall election was deferred due to Petitioner¶s opposition that under Sec. rather than the letter of a law. HELD: No. (a) and par. ISSUE: W/N the SK election is a local election. as provided in par.