Commission on Internal Revenue vs. Philex Mining Corp.

Facts:
Philex Mining Corp is a VAT registered taxpayer with approved Application for zero rate effective
April 12, 1998 on Feb. 13,2012 Philex Mining field its Amended quarterly VAT returns for the 2 nd & 3rd
quarter to reflect excess input tax arising from its zero-rated sales. On June 22,202, it filled claims for
refund of Php 45,048 ,921.68 & Php 51 ,464 ,383.31 with the dept. of finance – One stop shop Center
& attached to the Claimants Sheet Info are the letters containing the list of docs to support its claims.
Thereafter, Philex Mining Filed 2 Separate petitions for review before the CTA Division. The Court
granted the motion to consolidate the 2 cases & to commission and Ind. Cert. Pub. Acc. Thereafter,
trial ensued.

CTA Division partly granted Philex Mining’s Petitions. It held upon examining the evidence submitted
by Philex mining Corp. & evaluation of the report issued by the ICPA that Philex Mining Corp.
sufficiently proved its Entitlement for a refund but in the reduced amount of Php 51 ,173 ,898.99.

CIR moved for reconsideration alleging that judicial claim was premature due to Philex Mining`s
failure to comply with the necessary requirements particularly the keeping of subsidiary sales journal,
& the filling of monthly vat declaration. CTA division denied CIR`s motion for recommendation for
lack of merit. It reiterated that the judicial claims were timely filed. As to the non – compliance with
the accounting requirements, the CTA division held that there was nothing in SEC. 112(A) of the tax
code that required the presentation for a refund of its claimed excess input tax.

Discontented, the CIR appealed to CTA and banc reiterating their argument, but the CTA En Banc
affirmed the CTA Divisions Findings.

ISSUE:
Whether or not tax declarations and subsidiary journals form part of the requirements of the law for
the grant of tax credit or refund.

Ruling:
The Court ruled in favor of Philex Mining Corporation. The Court ruled that in statutory construction,
it is elementary that when the words of a statute are clear, plain, and free from ambiguity, it must be
given its literal meaning and applied without attempted interpretation. The plain-meaning rule
or verba legis, expressed in the maxim index animi sermo, or speech is the index of intention, rests
on the valid presumption that the words employed by the legislature in a statute correctly express its
intention or will, and preclude the court from construing it differently.
Verba legis non est recedendum. From the words of a statute there should be no departure.
Furthermore, every part of the statute must be interpreted with reference to the context, i.e. that every
part of the statute must be considered together with the other parts, and kept subservient to the
general intent of the whole enactment. Guided by the foregoing principles, the court see no reason to
depart from the finding and conclusion of the CTA.

Philex Mining's failure to maintain subsidiary sales and purchase journals or to file the monthly VAT
declarations should not result in the outright denial of its claim for refund as these are not part of
the requirements for Philex Mining to be entitled thereto. Section 112 (A) of the Tax Code is very
clear; no construction or interpretation is needed. The Court may not construe a statute that is free
from doubt; neither can we impose conditions or limitations when none is provided for.
IMMACULADA L. GARCIA, petitioner vs. SOCIAL SECURITY COMMISSION LEGAL AND
COLLECTION, SOCIAL SECURITY SYSTEM

FACTS:
Garcia, Eduardo de Leon, Ricardo de Leon, Pacita Fernandez, and Consuelo Villanueva were directors of Impact
Corporation. The corporation was engaged in the business of manufacturing aluminum tube containers and operated
two factories. Around 1978, Impact Corporation started encountering financial problems. In
March 1983, Impact Corporation filed with the SEC a Petition for Suspension of Payments. On 8 May 1985, the
union of Impact Corporation filed a Notice of Strike with the Ministry of Labor which was followed by a declaration of
strike on 28 July 1985. The Ministry of Labor noted the inability of Impact Corporation to pay wages, 13th month pay,
and SSS remittances due to cash liquidity problems. On 3 July 1985 the SSS, through its Legal and Collection Division
(LCD), filed a case before the SSC for the collection of unremitted SSS premium contributions withheld by Impact
Corporation from its employees.

Summonses were not served upon Eduardo de Leon, Pacita Fernandez. And Consuelo Villanueva as their
whereabouts were unknown and were all determined to be deceased.

Petitioner filed a motion to dismiss on grounds of prescription, lack of cause and cessation of business, but was denied
for lack of merit. Petitioner argued that the Impact Corporation had ceased operations in 1980 and insisted that she is
a mere director without managerial functions and ceased to be as such in 1982. She furthers that she cannot be made
personally liable for the corporate obligations of Impact Corp.

The case reached the CA, petitioner persistently filed for motion for reconsideration but was continuously denied by
the court until it reached the SC which affirmed the ruling of the CA

ISSUES:

Can a mere director or officer of an employer corporation be held liable for the unpaid SSS premium
contributions under Section 28(f) of the Social Security Law?

RULING:

Yes. Section 28(f) of the Social Security Law provides that if the act or omission penalized by this Act
be committed by an association, partnership, corporation or any other institution, its managing head,
directors or partners shall be liable to the penalties provided in this Act for the offense. Petitioner
invokes the rule in statutory construction called ejusdem generic; that is, where general words follow
an enumeration of persons or things, by words of a particular and specific meaning, such general
words are not to be construed in their widest extent,but are to be held as applying only to persons or
things of the same kind or class as those specifically mentioned. According to petitioner, to be held
liable under Section 28(f) of the Social Security Law, one must be the "managing head," "managing
director," or "managing partner." This Court though finds no need to resort to statutory construction.
Section 28(f) of the Social Security Law imposes penalty on:

(1) the managing head;

(2) directors; or
 (3) partners, for offenses committed by a juridical person

The said provision does not qualify that the director or partner should likewise be a "managing
director" or "managing partner." The law is clear and unambiguous.

According to petitioner, to be held liable under Section 28(f) of the Social Security Law, one must be
the "managing head," "managing director," or "managing partner." This Court though finds no need
to resort to statutory construction. The said provision does not qualify that the director or partner
should likewise be a "managing director" or "managing partner. The law is clear and unambiguous.

EMILIO A. GONZALES III v. OFFICE OF PRESIDENT OF PHILIPPINES G.R No. 196231

Barrreras-Sulit Vs Ochoa et al. G.R No. 196232

The two petitions have been consolidated not because they stem from the same factal meiileu but
because they raise a common thread of issues regarding the President’s exercise of power to remove
from office herein petitioners who claim the cloak of independence of the constitutionally-created
office to which they belong-the Office of the Ombudsman.

Both cases seek to declare as unconstitutional Section 8 (2) of R.A No. 6770, otherwise known as the
Ombudsman Act of 1989, which gives the President the power to dismiss a Deputy Ombudsman of the
Office of the Ombudsman.

First Case:

A formal charge for grave misconduct (robbery, grave threats, robbery extortion and physical injuries)
was filed before the PNP-NCR against Manila Police District Sr Inspector Rolando Mendoza and four
other police officers. A similar charge was also filed by private complainant, Christian M. Kalaw,
before the Office of the Prosecutor, Manila. While said cases were pending, the Office of the Regional
Director of the National Police Commission, turned over, upon the request of Emilio A. Gonzales III,
all relevant documents and evidence in relation to said case to the Office of the Deputy Ombudsman
for appropriate administrative adjudication.

The complaint was dismissed upon a finding that the material allegations made by the complainant
had not been substantiated by any evidence at all to warrant theindictment of respondents of the
offenses charged. The Also, Internal Affairs Service of the PNP issued a Resolution recommending the
dismissal without prejudice of the administrative case against the police officers, for failure of the
complainant to appear in three (3) consecutive hearings despite due notice.

However, the recommendation of petitioner Emilio Gonzales III, that the said police officers were
guilty of grave misconduct was approved by the Ombudsman and shall be meted with the penalty of
dismissal from the service. While said case was pending for final review and action, P/S Insp.
Mendoza hijacked a bus-load of foreign tourists in a desperate attempt to have himself reinstated in
the police service. The hostage taking incident ended in the tragic death of 8 HK Chinese Nationals as
well as P/S Insp. Mendoza’s death. This incident prompted the creation of the Incident Investigation
and Review Committee to determine the accountability.

In it’s report, IIRC presented its findings: Deputy Ombudsman Gonzales committed serious and
inexcusable negligence and gross violation of their own rules of procedure by allowing Mendoza's
motion for reconsideration to languish for more than nine (9) months without any justification, in
violation of the Ombudsman prescribed rules to resolve motions for reconsideration in administrative
disciplinary cases within five (5) days from submission. The inaction is gross, considering there is no
opposition thereto. The prolonged inaction precipitated the desperate resort to hostage-taking.

Hence, the petitioner was found guilty of gross neglect of duty and grave misconduct constituting
betrayal of public trust and was meted with the penalty of dismissal from servce.

G.R. No. 196232

In April of 2005, the Acting Deputy Special Prosecutor of the Office of the Ombudsman
charged Major General Carlos F. Garcia, his wife, their two sons, and several unknown
persons with Plunder and Money Laundering before the Sandiganbayan.

On January 7, 2010, the Sandiganbayan denied Major General Garcia's urgent petition
for bail holding that strong prosecution evidence militated against the grant of bail. On
March 16, 2010, however, the government, represented by petitioner, Special
Prosecutor Wendell Barreras- Sulit ("Barreras-Sulit") and her prosecutorial staff
sought the Sandiganbayan's approval of a Plea Bargaining Agreement (hereinafter
referred to as "PLEBARA") entered into with the accused. On May 4, 2010, the
Sandiganbayan issued a Resolution finding the change of plea warranted and the
PLEBARA compliant with jurisprudential guidelines.

the House of Representatives' Committee on Justice conducted public hearings on the

PLEBARA. At the conclusion of these public hearings, the Committee on Justice passed
and adopted Committee Resolution No. 3,24 recommending to the President the
dismissal of petitioner Barreras-Sulit from the service and the filing of appropriate
charges against her Deputies and Assistants before the appropriate government office
for having committed acts and/or omissions tantamount to culpable violations of the
Constitution and betrayal of public trust, which are violations under the Anti-Graft
and Corrupt Practices Act and grounds for removal from office under the Ombudsman
Act.

The Office of the President initiated OP-DC-Case No. 11-B-003 against petitioner
Barreras-Sulit. In her written explanation, petitioner raised the defenses of prematurity
and the lack of jurisdiction of the OP with respect to the administrative disciplinary
proceeding against her. The OP, however, still proceeded with the case, setting it for
preliminary investigation on April 15, 2011.
ISSUES: