You are on page 1of 5

Phil. Sugar Central Agency v.

Collector of
Customs
Case No. 241
No. 27761 (Dec. 6 1927)
Chapter III, Page 113, Footnote No.186
FAC!"
Petitioner acts as agency and attorney-in-fact
of Ma-ao Sugar Central Co.
Ma-ao Sugar Central Co. shipped 5,12,1!
gross "ilos of centrifugal sugar to #nited
States in a $harf on Pulapandan, %ccidental
&egros on steamship 'annover. (harf
$as )uilt and maintained solely )y the Ma-ao
Sugar Central Co. *efendant
collected $harfage dues on petitioner+s
$harf.
I!!#$"
(,& the *efendant can collect $harfage
dues on $harves not o$ned )y
government.
%$&D"
-es. .he /overnment can )e allo$ed to
collect )ecause not to do so 0$ould
overthro$ and destroy the $hole system of
the /overnment, in and )y $hich millions
of pesos have )een levied and collected and
e1pended in the construction of
/overnment $harves, and it $ould have
defeated the construction of the
/overnment $harf at Pulapandan.2
D'ssent'ng (p'n'on"
'istorically, $harves not o$ned nor operated
)y government cannot )e
ta1ed or levied upon.
TITLE : Phil Sugar Central vs
Collector of Customs, 51 Phil
131 G.. !o. L"#$$%1,
&ecem'er %, 1(#$

)*CTS : This is

ISS+E : Whether or not the Government
of the Philippine Islands can legally collect the duty of
$1 per gross ton of 1,000 kilos as a charge for wharfage
on goods, wares and merchandise exported through a
port of entry of the Philippine Islands or shipped
therefrom to the United tates, where it appears that the
Government does not own the wharf and that the sugar
in !uestion was loaded from a wharf which was the sole
property of a private person"

SEE BOOK of Alcantara
,EL& : In view of its history,
its long continuous construction, and what has
been done and accomlished by and under it,
clearly the !overnment is entitled to have and
receive the money in "uestion even though the
sugar is shied from a rivate wharf#

$udgement of the lower court reversed,
with costs#
)an'*a +oc,e- C*./ Inc. 0. 1a2es an3
A2.se2ent 4oar3
Case No. 164
No. &512727 (Fe/r.ar- 29, 1966)
Chapter III, Page 114, Footnote No.196
FAC!"
.he Petitioner states that they are entitled
to certain Sundays unreserved for
any event and that reducing the num)er of
said days is an infringement of their right.
Petitioner relies on the strength of Sec. of
3A 456, as amended )y 3A 674, that the
unreserved Sundays may )e used )y
private individuals or groups duly licensed
)y
the /ames and Amusement 8oard 9/A8:.
3A 1552 increased the s$eepsta"es dra$
and races to 12 )ut $ithout specifying the
days on $hich they are to )e run, the /A8
reduced the num)er of racing days
assigned to private individuals and entities
)y si1.
I!!#$"
(,& the Petitioner has a right to the
unreserved days.
%$&D"
&o. ;rom the $ording of the 3A 456 and 3A
674, it is clear that the te1t is
permissive and is not mandatory. .he
private individuals and entities are not
entitled
to the use of such days. Petitioner+s claim
that the intent of the legislature $as to
allo$ the races and s$eepsta"es to )e run
on the same day are untena)le. .he
$ords of mem)ers of Congress are not
representative of the entire 'ouse of
3epresentatives or Senate. Also,
Petitioner+s claim that to allo$ the PCS% to
use their
e<uipment and property is deprivation of
property is also untena)le )ecause they
have a rental agreement $ith the PCS%.
3amos v. CA
Case No. 273
1.8. No. &522773 (Dece2/er 18, 1967)
Chapter III, Page 117, Footnote No.193
FAC!"
.he present case had its incipiency in a
petition =led )y the then &ational
3ice and Corn Corporation 9&A3>C: $or"ers
for an o)ligation created )y agreement
con=rmed )y the Court of >ndustrial 3elations
directing &A3>C to pay 25? for
additional compensation for overtime $or",
night $or" and $or" rendered on
Sundays and legal holidays )y its la)orers
and employees. 3ice and Corn
Administration 93CA: claims that unli"e
&A3>C, $hich $as possessed $ith a distinct
and separate corporate e1istence, they are
merely an o@ce directly under the
President, a governmental machinery to
carry out a declared government policy to
sta)iliAe the price of palay, rice, and corn,
and not for pro=t. .o carry out this
function, )y la$ of the Common$ealth Act
other$ise "no$n as the 8udget Act, 3CA
depends for its continuous operation on
appropriation yearly set aside )y the
/eneral Appropriations Act. .here has )een
consistent administrative interpretation
)y the %@ce of the President as to $hat
may, under la$, )e granted to 3CA $or"ers
and employees for overtime $or" and $or"
on Sundays and holidays. &ot a matter
of right, such compensation $as given upon
authority of the 8udgetary Act.
I!!#$"
(,& 3CA should )e held ans$era)le B $hen
&A3>C ceased to e1ist and 3CA
$as created B for the said o)ligation.
%$&D"
(hile e1ecutive construction is not
necessarily )inding upon courts, it is
entitled to great $eight and consideration.
.he reason for this is that such
construction comes from the particular
)ranch of government called upon to
implement the particular la$ involved. .hus,
unless the President speci=cally
appropriates the 25? compensation, 3CA is
not lia)le to the a)ovementioned
o)ligation.
3egalado v. -ulo
Case No. 277
1.8. No. &542293 (Fe/r.ar- 13, 1937)
Chapter II, Page 77, Footnote No.27
FAC!"
Petitioner $as Custice of Peace of Malinao,
Al)ay. %n &ovem)er 1!, 1641,
Act &o. 4766 $hich provided for the age
retirement among Dustices $as approved. A
fe$ years later, Petitioner )ecame !5 years
of age 9age retirement as provided )y
Sec. 254 of the Administrative Code,
amended further )y Act. &o. 4766:. Shortly
thereafter, Este)an .. Fillar $as appointed
as Custice of Peace to ta"e the place of
Petitioner. %n *ecem)er 1G, 164, Fillar
assumed o@ce.
I!!#$"
(,& under the provisions of Section 254 of
the Administrative Code, as further
amended )y Act &o. 4766, the Custices of
Peace and au1iliary Dustices appointed
prior to the approval of the Act shall cease
to hold o@ce upon reaching the age of
!5.
%$&D"
Custices appointed prior to the approval of
the Act $ill not )e aHected )y
said amendment 9Act &o. 4766:.
T-PIC : .I.
C-!TE/P-*0
C-!ST+CTI-!
C. E1ecutive
Construction
#. ule"
/a2ing Po3er

TITLE : /olina vs affert4,
35 Phil 1%$
G.. !o. L"11988,
April4,1918

)*CTS : %laintiff &olina contends that
the fish produced #y him are to #e regarded as an
$agricultural product$ within the meaning of that term
as used in paragraph %c& of section '1 of (ct )o" *++,
%now section 1'-0 of the (dministrative .ode of
1,1/&, in forced when the disputed tax was levied, and
that he is therefore exempt from the percentage tax on
merchants0 sales esta#lished #y section '0 of (ct )o"
*++,, as amended1 2%c& (gricultural products when sold
#y the producer or owner of the land where grown,
whether in their original state or not" %(ct )o" *++,, sec"
'1"&3



ISS+E : Whether or not fish in general
constitute an agricultural products, and therefore exempt
from the percentage tax on merchants0 sales esta#lished
#y section '0 of (ct )o" *++,, as amended"

,EL& : 4he underlying principle of all
construction is that the intent of the legislature should #e
sought in the words employed to express it, and that
when found it should #e made to govern, " " " what was
in the legislative mind at the time the law was enacted5
what the circumstances were, under which the action
was taken5 what evil, if any, was meant to #e redressed5 "
" " " (nd where the law has contemporaneously #een put
into operation, is entitled to great respect, as #eing very
pro#a#ly a true expression of the legislative purpose, and
is not lightly to #e overruled, although it is not
conclusive" %.ooley on 4axation 67ol" 18 +d" 9d", p"
':0"&" 4herefore, fish produced in ponds are agricultural
products and thus, exempted from taxation when sold #y
the producer or he owner of the land" (dministrative
conclusion of tax law should #e followed unless clearly
erroneous"

;udgment affirmed"
Ast.r'as !.gar Centra* 0. Co22'ss'oner
o9 C.sto2s
Case No. 24
No. &519337 (!epte2/er 36 1969)
Chapter III, Page 112, Footnote No.183
FAC!"
Petitioner =led a petition for revie$ of the
unfavora)le decision of the C.A
$hich denied the recovery of the sum of
P27,!26.2 $hich the Petitioner paid under
protest in the concept of customs duties and
special import ta1.
#nder the la$ in eHect at that time, the
Petitioner is entitled to recovery of
ta1es and duties paid for importation of
containers provided importer re-e1ports said
containers $ithin a 1year period.
Also Asturias contends that they are entitled
to an alternative recovery of the
said amount minus 1? under Sec. 15!9): of
the Customs and .ariH Act.
I!!#$"
(,& Petitioner is entitled to recovery of
import ta1es and duties.
%$&D"
&o. .he 1-year period mentioned in the
Philippine .ariH Act contains no
e1press mention of any e1tension or of any
grounds for it to )e e1tended.
.he provisions invo"ed )y the Petitioner to
sustain his claim for refund, oHer
t$o options to an importer. .he =rst gives
him the privilege of importing, free from
import duties, the containers mentioned
therein as long as he e1ports them $ithin
one year from the date of acceptance of
the import entry, it is non-e1tendi)le. .he
second contemplates a case $here import
duties are =rst paid su)Dect to refund to
the e1tent of 66? of the amount paid,
provided the articles mentioned are
e1ported
$ithin three years from importation.
Tung Chin Hui v. Rodriguez
ISSUE: whether ec"1< =ule '1 of the pre>100/ =ules
of .ourt, which provided the appeal in ha#eas corpus
cases to #e taken within '< hours from notice of
?udgment, has #een replaced #y the 1,,/ =ules of
.ivil Procedure, which provides in ec" + =ule '1
thereof, that appeal from ?udgment or final order shall
#e taken within 1: days from receipt thereof, in view
of the fact that the ec" 1< was repealed, in accordance
with the well>settled rule of statutory construction that
provisions of an old law that were not reproduced in
the revision thereof covering the same su#?ect are
deemed repealed and discarded
HEL: . in this case to a#rogate those provisions of
the old laws that are not reproduced in the revised
statute or .ode"
6ustamante vs !LC, #%5 SC*
%1 G.. !o. 111%5 /arch 15,
1((%

)*CTS: This is a etition for certiorari
see'ing to reverse the ()*+ *esolution of &ay
,, -.., setting aside earlier resolution dated
&arch /, -.., and deleting the award of
bac'wages in favor of etitioners#Osmali'
Bustamante and three others were emloyed as
laborers and harvesters while )amaran was
emloyed as a laborer and srayer in resondent
comany0s lantation# They all signed contracts of
emloyment for a eriod of si1 months from
$anuary 2, -.34 to $uly 2, -..4 but started wor'ing
sometime in Setember -./.# Before the contracts
e1ire in $uly 2,-..4, their emloyments were
terminated on $une 25, -..4 on the ground of oor
erformance on account of age, not one of them
was allegedly below forty years old#

ISS+E : Whether or not
etitioners are entitled to bac'wages after
a finding by the ()*+ that they had
become regular emloyees #

,EL& : 6es# As rovided for in Article 7
of the )abor +ode of the %hiliines, 8All doubts in
the imlementation and interretation of the +ode,
including its imlementing rules and regulations
shall be resolved in favor of the labor9# $udgment
rendered ordering the !overnment Service
Insurance System to ay the etitioner death
benefits in the amount of Si1 Thousand %esos
:%h3,444#44;#
)ational @ederation of Aa#or vs" )ational Aa#or
=elations .ommission
G"=" )o" 1*//1< %Barch *, *000&
@acts1
Petitioners are employees of the Patalon .oconut 9state
in Cam#oanga" Dith the advent of the =( )o" --:/ or
the .omprehensive (grarian =eform Aaw, the
government sought the compulsory ac!uisition of the
land for agrarian reform" Eecause of this, the private
respondents who are owners of the estate decided to shut
down its operation" Petitioners did not receive any
separation pay" )ow, the petitioners pray, with the
representation of their la#or group, claiming that they
were illegally dismissed" 4hey cite (rticle *<+ of the
Aa#or code where an employer 2may3 terminate the
employment of any employee due to the installation of
la#or saving devices, redundancy, retrenchment to
prevent losses or the closing or cessation of operation"
Issue1
Dhether or not the .ourt should apply the legal maxim
ver#al legis in construing (rticle *<+ of the Aa#or .ode
as regards its applica#ility to the case at #ar"
Feld1
Ges, the legal maxim is applica#le in this case" 4he use
of the word 2may,3 in its plain meaning, denotes that it
is directory in nature and generally permissive only"
(lso, (rticle *<+ of the Aa#or .ode does not
contemplate a situation where the closure of the
#usiness esta#lishment is forced upon the employer
and ultimately for the #enefit of the employees" 4he
Patalon .oconut 9state was closed down #ecause a
large portion of the said estate was ac!uired #y the
H(= pursuant to the .(=P" 4he severance of
employer>employee relationship #etween the parties
came a#out involuntarily, as a result of an act of the
tate" .onse!uently, complainants are not entitled to
any separation pay"
=easoning1
Dhere the words of a statute are clear, plain and free
from am#iguity, it must #e given its literal meaning
and applied without attempted interpretation"
Policy1
(rticle *<+ of the Aa#or .ode applies in cases of
closures of esta#lishment and reduction of personnel"
4he peculiar circumstances in the case at #ar, however,
involves neither the closure of an esta#lishment nor a
reduction of personnel as contemplated under the
article"
Legal Ethics – Duty of Counsel To Cite
Law/Jurisprudence Without Alteration
4he Balaya Aolas received an adverse decision in
the case 7inuya vs =omulo decided #y the
upreme .ourt on (pril *<, *010" 4he Balaya
Aolas sought the annulment of said decision due
to the alleged irregularity in the writing of the text
of the decision" (llegedly, the ponente of said
case, ;ustice Bariano del .astillo copied ver#atim
portions of the decision laid down in said case
from three works #y three foreign authors without
acknowledging said authors hence an overt act of
plagiarism which is highly reprehensi#le"
Plagiarism as defined #y ElackIs Aaw Hictionary
is the 2deli#erate and knowing presentation of
another personIs original ideas or creative
expressions as oneIs own"3
ISSUE: Dhether or not plagiarism is applica#le
to decisions promulgated #y the upreme .ourt"
HEL: )o" It has #een a long standing practice in
this ?urisdiction not to cite or acknowledge the
originators of passages and views found in the
upreme .ourtIs decisions" 4hese omissions are
true for many of the decisions that have #een
penned and are #eing penned daily #y magistrates
from the .ourt of (ppeals, the andigan#ayan, the
.ourt of 4ax (ppeals, the =egional 4rial .ourts
nationwide and with them, the municipal trial courts
and other first level courts" )ever in the ?udiciaryIs
more than 100 years of history has the lack of
attri#ution #een regarded and demeaned as
plagiarism"
(s put #y one author %this time acknowledged #y
the .ourt&, ;oyce ." George from her ;udicial
Jpinion Driting Fand#ook1
A !udge "ri#ing #o re$olve % di$pu#e, "he#her
#ri%l or %ppell%#e, i$ e&e'p#ed (ro' % )h%rge o(
pl%gi%ri$' even i( ide%$, "ord$ or phr%$e$ (ro' %
l%" revie" %r#i)le, novel #hough#$ pu*li$hed in %
leg%l periodi)%l or l%ngu%ge (ro' % p%r#+,$ *rie(
%re u$ed "i#hou# giving %##ri*u#ion. Thu$ !udge$
%re (ree #o u$e "h%#ever $our)e$ #he+ dee'
%ppropri%#e #o re$olve #he '%##er *e(ore #he',
"i#hou# (e%r o( repri$%l. Thi$ e&e'p#ion %pplie$
#o !udi)i%l "ri#ing$ in#ended #o de)ide )%$e$ (or
#"o re%$on$: #he !udge i$ no# "ri#ing % li#er%r+
"or- %nd, 'ore i'por#%n#l+, #he purpo$e o( #he
"ri#ing i$ #o re$olve % di$pu#e. A$ % re$ul#, !udge$
%d!udi)%#ing )%$e$ %re no# $u*!e)# #o % )l%i' o(
leg%l pl%gi%ri$'.
@urther, as found #y the upreme .ourt, the
omission of the acknowledgment #y ;ustice del
.astillo of the three foreign authors arose from a
clerical error" It was shown #efore the upreme
.ourt that the researcher who finaliKed the draft
written #y ;ustice del .astillo accidentally deleted
the citationsLacknowledgements5 that in all, there is
still an intent to acknowledge and not take such
passages as that of ;ustice del .astilloIs own"