PART 2: EXECUTIVE CONSTRUCTION against Chief Justice Hilario G. Davide, Jr.

, founded on the alleged

results of the legislative inquiry initiated by above-mentioned
I. Executive Construction Given Great Weight
House Resolution. This second impeachment complaint was
PART 3: CONSTRUCTION OF SPECIFC TYPES OF LEGISLATION accompanied by a “Resolution of Endorsement/Impeachment”
signed by at least one-third (1/3) of all the Members of the House
I. CONSTITUTION of Representatives.13 Since the first impeachment complaint
FRANCISCO ET AL v HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES never made it to the floor for resolution, respondent House of
Representatives concludes that the one year bar prohibiting the
FACTS initiation of impeachment proceedings against the same officials
On July 22, 2002, the House of Representatives adopted a could not have been violated as the impeachment complaint
Resolution, sponsored by Representative Felix William D. against Chief Justice Davide and seven Associate Justices had not
Fuentebella, which directed the Committee on Justice “to been initiated as the House of Representatives, acting as the
conduct an investigation, in aid of legislation, on the manner of collective body, has yet to act on it. Opposing petitioners on the
disbursements and expenditures by the Chief Justice of the other hand interpreted the word “initiate” to mean the filing of
Supreme Court of the Judiciary Development Fund (JDF).” On the complaint. Since there was already a first complaint that
June 2, 2003, former President Joseph E. Estrada filed an never got through the Committee, no impeachment complaint
impeachment complaint (first impeachment complaint) against maybe filed until the lapse of the 1 year period.
Chief Justice Hilario G. Davide Jr. and seven Associate Justices of
this Court for “culpable violation of the Constitution, betrayal of
the public trust and other high crimes.” The House Committee on ISSUE/S
Justice ruled on October 13, 2003 that the first impeachment 1. When is an impeachment proceeding initiated?
complaint was “sufficient in form,”9 but voted to dismiss the
same on October 22, 2003 for being insufficient in substance.10 2. Is the second impeachment complaint valid?
To date, the Committee Report to this effect has not yet been
HELD
sent to the House in plenary in accordance with the said Section
3(2) of Article XI of the Constitution. Four months and three 1. Art. XI, Sec. 3, pars. (1), (5) & (6) of the Constitution states:
weeks since the filing on June 2, 2003 of the first complaint or on
(1) The House of Representatives shall have the exclusive power
October 23, 2003, a day after the House Committee on Justice
to initiate all cases of impeachment.
voted to dismiss it, the second impeachment complaint11 was
filed with the Secretary General of the House12 by (5) No impeachment proceedings shall be initiated against the
Representatives Gilberto C. Teodoro, Jr. (First District, Tarlac) and same official more than once within a period of one year.
Felix William B. Fuentebella (Third District, Camarines Sur)
(6) The Senate shall have the sole power to try and decide all In this petition for prohibition, the petitioners, who are
cases of impeachment. When sitting for that purpose, the taxpayers, lawyers, members of the Integrated Bar of the
Senators shall be on oath or affirmation. When the President of Philippines and professors of Constitutional Law, seek to enjoin
the Philippines is on trial, the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court the respondent Salvador Mison from performing the functions of
shall preside, but shall not vote. No person shall be convicted the Office of Commissioner of the Bureau of Customs and the
without the concurrence of two-thirds of all the Members of the respondent Guillermo Carague, as Secretary of the Department
Senate. of Budget, from effecting disbursements in payment of Mison’s
salaries and emoluments, on the ground that Mison’s
“Initiate” of course is understood by ordinary men to mean, as
appointment as Commissioner of the Bureau of Customs is
dictionaries do, to begin, to commence, or set going. As
unconstitutional by reason of its not having been confirmed by
Webster’s Third New International Dictionary of the English
the Commission on Appointments. The respondents, on the
Language concisely puts it, it means “to perform or facilitate the
other hand, maintain the constitutionality of respondent Mison’s
first action,” The Court pried the Constitutional Convention
appointment without the confirmation of the Commission on
Records to ascertain the intent of the framers of the Constitution.
Appointments.
The framers really intended “initiate” to mean the filing of the
verified complaint to the Committee on Justice of the Lower ISSUE: W/N all appointments made by the president require
House. This is also based on the procedure of the U.S. Congress approval of the Commission on Appointments to be valid?
where an impeachment is initiated upon filing of the
impeachment complaint.
HELD: NO. Section 16, Article VII of the 1987 Constitution
2. Having concluded that the initiation takes place by the act of
provides:
filing of the impeachment complaint and referral to the House
Committee on Justice, the initial action taken thereon, the
meaning of Section 3 (5) of Article XI becomes clear. Once an
impeachment complaint has been initiated in the foregoing The President shall nominate and, with the consent of the
manner, another may not be filed against the same official within Commission on Appointments, appoint the heads of the
a one year period following Article XI, Section 3(5) of the executive departments, ambassadors, other public ministers and
Constitution. consuls, or officers of the armed forces from the rank of colonel
or naval captain, and other officers whose appointments are
vested in him in this Constitution. He shall also appoint all other
officers of the Government whose appointments are not
SARMIENTO VS MISON
otherwise provided for by law, and those whom he may be
FACTS: authorized by law to appoint. The Congress may, by law, vest the
appointment of other officers lower in rank in the President enumeration of subjects excludes others not enumerated, it
alone, in the courts, or in the heads of the departments, agencies, would follow that only those appointments to positions expressly
commissions or boards. stated in the first group require the consent (confirmation) of the
Commission on Appointments.
The President shall have the power to make appointments during
the recess of the Congress, whether voluntary or compulsory, but The position of Commissioner of the Bureau of Customs (a
such appointments shall be effective only until disapproval by the bureau head) is not one of those within the first group of
Commission on Appointments or until the next adjournment of appointments where the consent of the Commission on
the Congress. Appointments is required. As a matter of fact, as already pointed
out, while the 1935 Constitution includes “heads of bureaus”
It is apparent, that there are four (4) groups of officers whom the
among those officers whose appointments need the consent of
President shall appoint. These four (4) groups are:
the Commission on Appointments, the 1987 Constitution on the
First, the heads of the executive departments, ambassadors, other hand, deliberately excluded the position of “heads of
other public ministers and consuls, officers of the armed forces bureaus” from appointments that need the consent
from the rank of colonel or naval captain, and other officers (confirmation) of the Commission on Appointments.
whose appointments are vested in him in this Constitution;
Consequently, we rule that the President of the Philippines acted
Second, all other officers of the Government whose within her constitutional authority and power in appointing
appointments are not otherwise provided for by law; respondent Salvador Mison, Commissioner of the Bureau of
Customs, without submitting his nomination to the Commission
Third, those whom the President may be authorized by law to on Appointments for confirmation. He is thus entitled to exercise
appoint; the full authority and functions of the office and to receive all the
Fourth, officers lower in rank whose appointments the Congress salaries and emoluments pertaining thereto.
may by law vest in the President alone.

The first group of officers is clearly appointed with the consent of MANILA PRINCE HOTEL V GSIS (DIGEST)
the Commission on Appointments. Appointments of such officers
are initiated by nomination and, if the nomination is confirmed
by the Commission on Appointments, the President appoints.
FACTS:
The second, third and fourth groups of officers are the present
The Government Service Insurance System (GSIS) decided to sell
bone of contention. By following the accepted rule in
through public bidding 30% to 51% of the issued and outstanding
constitutional and statutory construction that an express
shares of the Manila Hotel (MHC).
In a close bidding, two bidders participated: Manila Prince Hotel RULING:
Corporation (MPHC), a Filipino corporation, which offered to buy
Yes. Sec 10, Art. XII of the 1987 Constitution is a self-executing
51% of the MHC at P41.58 per share, and Renong Berhad, a
provision.
Malaysian firm, with ITT-Sheraton as its hotel operator, which bid
for the same number of shares at P44.00 per share, or P2.42 A provision which lays down a general principle, such as those
more than the bid of petitioner. found in Article II of the 1987 Constitution, is usually not self-
executing. But a provision which is complete in itself and
Pending the declaration of Renong Berhard as the winning bidder
becomes operative without the aid of supplementary or enabling
and the execution of the contracts, the MPHC matched the bid
legislation, or that which supplies sufficient rule by means of
price in a letter to GSIS. MPHC sent a manager’s check to the GSIS
which the right it grants may be enjoyed or protected, is self-
in a subsequent letter, which GSIS refused to accept. On 17
executing.
October 1995, perhaps apprehensive that GSIS has disregarded
the tender of the matching bid, MPHC came to the Court on
prohibition and mandamus.
Hence, unless it is expressly provided that a legislative act is
Petitioner invokes Sec. 10, second par., Art. XII, of the 1987 necessary to enforce a constitutional mandate, the presumption
Constitution and submits that the Manila Hotel has been now is that all provisions of the constitution are self-executing. If
identified with the Filipino nation and has practically become a the constitutional provisions are treated as requiring legislation
historical monument which reflects the vibrancy of Philippine instead of self-executing, the legislature would have the power
heritage and culture. to ignore and practically nullify the mandate of the fundamental
law.
Respondents assert that Sec. 10, second par., Art. XII, of the 1987
Constitution is merely a statement of principle and policy since it In fine, Section 10, second paragraph, Art. XII of the 1987
is not a self-executing provision and requires implementing Constitution is a mandatory, positive command which is
legislation(s). complete in itself and which needs no further guidelines or
implementing laws or rules for its enforcement. From its very
words the provision does not require any legislation to put it in
ISSUE: operation.

Whether the provisions of the Constitution, particularly Article

XII Section 10, are self-executing.
Oposa vs. Factoran Case Digest (G.R. No. 101083, July 30, 1993)
FACTS: ISSUES:

The plaintiffs in this case are all minors duly represented and joined (1) Whether or not the plaintiffs have a cause of action.
by their parents. The first complaint was filed as a taxpayer's class (2) Whether or not the complaint raises a political issue.
suit at the Branch 66 (Makati, Metro Manila), of the Regional Trial (3) Whether or not the original prayer of the plaintiffs result in the
Court, National capital Judicial Region against defendant impairment of contracts.
(respondent) Secretary of the Department of Environment and
Natural Resources (DENR). Plaintiffs alleged that they are entitled to RULING:
the full benefit, use and enjoyment of the natural resource treasure
that is the country's virgin tropical forests. They further asseverate First Issue: Cause of Action.
that they represent their generation as well as generations yet
unborn and asserted that continued deforestation have caused a Respondents aver that the petitioners failed to allege in their
distortion and disturbance of the ecological balance and have complaint a specific legal right violated by the respondent Secretary
resulted in a host of environmental tragedies. for which any relief is provided by law. The Court did not agree with
this. The complaint focuses on one fundamental legal right -- the right
Plaintiffs prayed that judgment be rendered ordering the to a balanced and healthful ecology which is incorporated in Section
respondent, his agents, representatives and other persons acting in 16 Article II of the Constitution. The said right carries with it the duty
his behalf to cancel all existing Timber License Agreement (TLA) in the to refrain from impairing the environment and implies, among many
country and to cease and desist from receiving, accepting, other things, the judicious management and conservation of the
processing, renewing or approving new TLAs. country's forests. Section 4 of E.O. 192 expressly mandates the DENR
to be the primary government agency responsible for the governing
Defendant, on the other hand, filed a motion to dismiss on the and supervising the exploration, utilization, development and
ground that the complaint had no cause of action against him and conservation of the country's natural resources. The policy
that it raises a political question. declaration of E.O. 192 is also substantially re-stated in Title XIV Book
IV of the Administrative Code of 1987. Both E.O. 192 and
The RTC Judge sustained the motion to dismiss, further ruling that Administrative Code of 1987 have set the objectives which will serve
granting of the relief prayed for would result in the impairment of as the bases for policy formation, and have defined the powers and
contracts which is prohibited by the Constitution. functions of the DENR. Thus, right of the petitioners (and all those
they represent) to a balanced and healthful ecology is as clear as
Plaintiffs (petitioners) thus filed the instant special civil action for DENR's duty to protect and advance the said right.
certiorari and asked the court to rescind and set aside the dismissal
order on the ground that the respondent RTC Judge gravely abused A denial or violation of that right by the other who has the correlative
his discretion in dismissing the action. duty or obligation to respect or protect or respect the same gives rise
to a cause of action. Petitioners maintain that the granting of the TLA,
which they claim was done with grave abuse of discretion, violated welfare. In short, the non-impairment clause must yield to the police
their right to a balance and healthful ecology. Hence, the full power of the State.
protection thereof requires that no further TLAs should be renewed
or granted. The instant petition, being impressed with merit, is hereby GRANTED
and the RTC decision is SET ASIDE.
After careful examination of the petitioners' complaint, the Court
finds it to be adequate enough to show, prima facie, the claimed
violation of their rights. II. LABOR LAWS

Manahan v. Employees Compensation Commission

Second Issue: Political Issue.
Facts:
Second paragraph, Section 1 of Article VIII of the constitution
provides for the expanded jurisdiction vested upon the Supreme Maria E. Manahan, the petitioner, is the widow of Nazario Manahan,
Court. It allows the Court to rule upon even on the wisdom of the Jr., who died of “Enteric Fever” while employed as classroom teacher
decision of the Executive and Legislature and to declare their acts as in Las Piñas Municipal High School, Las Piñas, Rizal, on 8 May, 1975.
invalid for lack or excess of jurisdiction because it is tainted with The deceased was in perfect health when he entered government
grave abuse of discretion. service on 20 July 1969, and that in the course of his employment in
1974, he was treated for epigastric pain. He succumbed to enteric
fever on May 8, 1975. Thus, the petitioner filed a claim with the
Third Issue: Violation of the non-impairment clause. Government Service Insurance System (GSIS) for death benefit under
Presidential Decree 626. In a letter dated 19 June 1975, the GSIS
The Court held that the Timber License Agreement is an instrument denied the claim on a finding that the ailment of Nazario Manahan,
by which the state regulates the utilization and disposition of forest Jr., typhoid fever, is not an occupational disease, and that enteric
resources to the end that public welfare is promoted. It is not a fever or paratyphoid is similar in effect to typhoid fever, in the sense
contract within the purview of the due process clause thus, the non- that both are produced by Salmonella organisms. The petitioner
impairment clause cannot be invoked. It can be validly withdraw appealed to the Employees Compensation Commission (ECC), which
whenever dictated by public interest or public welfare as in this case. affirmed the decision of the GSIS on a finding that the ailment of the
The granting of license does not create irrevocable rights, neither is deceased, enteric fever, was not induced by or aggravated by the
it property or property rights. nature of the duties of Nazario Manahan, Jr. as a teacher. Thus, the
appeal.
Moreover, the constitutional guaranty of non-impairment of
obligations of contract is limit by the exercise by the police power of Issue:
the State, in the interest of public health, safety, moral and general
Whether the Workmen’s Compensation should be resolved in favor
of the worker.

Held:
The Transitory and Final Provisions of the New Labor Code provides RETIREMENT LAWS
that all actions and claims accruing prior to the effectivity of this Code
shall be determined in accordance with the laws in force at the time Tantuico, Jr. v. Domingo
of their accrual and under the third paragraph of Article 292, Title II
(Prescription of Offenses and Claims), workmen’s compensation FACTS:
claims accruing prior to the effectivity of this Code and during the The petition questions the withholding of one-half of Petitioner’s
period from 1 November 1974 up to 31 December 1974 shall be retirement benefits. Petitioner was Chairman of the COA from 1976
processed and adjudicated in accordance with the laws and rules at to 1986. On December 1985, he applied for and obtained clearance,
the time their causes of action accrued Hence, this Courtapplied the which covered the period from 1976 to 1985, from all money,
provisions of the Workmen’s Compensation Act, as amended, on property, and other accountabilities in preparation for his
passing upon petitioner’s claim.. The illness that claimed the life of retirement. After the EDSA Revolution, he submitted his resignation
the deceased may had its onset before 10 December 1974, thus, his and sought a second clearance for the period from January 1, 1986
action accrued before 10 December 1974. Still, In any case, and case to March 9, 1986. Respondent, who took over as Chairman, created
of doubt, the same should be resolved in favor of the worker, and an inventory/audit of all equipment acquired during the tenure of his
that social legislations — like the Workmen’s Compensation Act and 2 predecessors. After the committee recommended Petitioner’s
the Labor Code — should be liberally construed to attain their clearance from accountability and after another special audit,
laudable objective, i.e., to give relief to the workman and/or his Respondent approved Petitioner’s application for retirement but
dependents in the event that the former shoulddie or sustain an added that of the money value of benefits due would be withheld
injury. Pursuant to such doctrine and applying now the provisions of subject to the findings of the audit.
the Workmen’s Compensation Act in this case, the presumption of
compensability subsists in favor of the claimant. The Supreme Court ISSUE:
set aside the decision of the ECC and ordered the GSIS to pay the W/N Respondent can authorize that half of Petitioner’s retirement
petitioner the amount of P6,000.00 as death compensation benefit benefits may be withheld.
and P600.00 as attorney’s fees, to reimburse the petitioner’s
expenses incurred for medical services, hospitalization and HELD:
medicines of the deceased Nazario Manahan, Jr., duly supported by No. Under Section 4 of RA 1568 providing for life pension to the
proper receipts, and to pay administrative fees. Auditor General and members of COMELEC, the benefits granted
shall not be subject to garnishment, levy or execution. Likewise,
under Section 33 of P.D. 1146 (Revised Government Service
Insurance Act), the benefits granted “shall not be subject, among
others, to attachment, garnishment, levy or other processes.” tax was erroneously computed when it failed to take into account the
Withholding Petitioner’s benefits is not allowed in this case. Well- reversing entries of the revenue accounts and income adjustments,
settled is the rule that retirement laws are liberally interpreted in such as repossessions, write-offs and legal accounts. Similarly, the
favor of the retiree because the intention is to provide for the Bureau of Internal Revenue (BIR) failed to take into account the
retiree’s well-being. reversing entries of repossessions, legal accounts, and write-offs
when it computed the percentage tax; thus, the total income
reported, that the BIR arrived at, was not equal to the actual receipts
III. TAX LAWS of payment from the customers. As for thedeficiency DST, Philacor
claims that the accredited appliance dealers were required by law to
Tax Burdens affix the documentary stamps on all promissory notes purchased
until the enactment of Republic Act No. 7660, otherwise known as An
PHILACOR CREDIT CORPORATION VS. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL Act Rationalizing Further the Structure and Administration of the
REVENUE Documentary Stamp Tax, which took effect on January 15, 1994. In
addition, Philacor filed, on the following day, a supplemental protest,
Facts: arguing that the assessments were void for failure to state the law
Both courts held that petitioner Philacor Credit and the facts on which they were based.CTA Division rendered
Corporation (Philacor), as an assignee of promissory notes, is liable decision. It concluded that Philacor failed to declare part of its
for deficiency documentary stamp tax (DST) on (1) the issuance of income, making it liable for deficiency income tax and percentage
promissory notes; and (2) the assignment of promissory notes for the tax. However, it also found that the Commissioner of Internal
fiscal year ended 1993.Philacor is a domestic corporation engaged in Revenue (CIR) erred in his analysis of the entries in Philacor’s books
the business of retail financing. A prospective buyer of a home thereby considerably reducing Philacor’s liability to a deficiency
appliance – with neither cash nor any credit card – may purchase income tax of P1,757,262.47 and a deficiency percentage tax of
appliances on installment basis from an appliance dealer. After P613,987.86. The CTA also ruled that Philacor is liable for the DST on
Philacor conducts a credit investigation and approves the buyer’s the issuance of the promissory notes and their subsequent transfer
application, the buyer executes a unilateral promissory note in favor or assignment. Noting that Philacor failed to prove that the DST on
of the appliance dealer. Pursuant to Letter of Authority No. its promissory notes had been paid for these two transactions, the
17107,Revenue Officer Celestino Mejia examined Philacor’s books of CTA held Philacor liable for deficiency DST of P673,633.88,
accounts and other accounting records for the fiscal year August 1,
1992 to July 31, 1993. Philacor received tentative computations of Issue:
deficiency taxes for this year. Philacor’s Finance Manager, contested WON Philacor is liable for the DST on the issuance of the PN.
the tentative computations of deficiency taxes (totaling
P20,037,013.83) through a letter dated April 17, 1995.Philacor Ruling:
protested the PANs, with a request for reconsideration and Under Section 173 of the National Internal Revenue Code, the
reinvestigation. It alleged that the assessed deficiency income persons primarily liable for the payment of DST are the persons (1)
making; (2) signing; (3) issuing; (4) accepting; or (5) transferring the 61,048.19 liters of gasoline was actually used in aviation during the
taxable documents, instruments or papers. Should these parties be period from October 3, 1956 to May 31, 1957. The estate, as claimed,
exempted from paying tax, the other party who is not exempt would was entitled to the same rights and privileges as Filipino citizens
then be liable. In this case, petitioner Philacor is engaged in the operating public utilities including privileges in the matter of taxation.
business of retail financing. Through retail financing, a prospective The Commissioner of Internal Revenue disagreed. The matter was
buyer of home appliance may purchase an appliance on installment brought to the Court of Tax Appeals and ordered the petitioner to
by executing a unilateral promissory note in favor of the appliance
refund to the respondent the sum of P2,441.93. Court of Tax Appeals
dealer, and the same promissory note is assigned by the appliance
decision was reversed.
dealer to Philacor. Thus, under this arrangement, Philacor did not
make, sign, issue, accept or transfer the promissory notes. It is the
buyer of the appliances who made, signed and issued the documents ISSUE:
subject to tax while it is the appliance dealer who transferred these 1. Whether or not Section 142 of the National Internal Revenue
documents to Philacor which likewise indisputably received or Code allowing Filipinos a refund of 50 percentum of the
“accepted” them. Acceptance, however, is an act that is not even specific tax paid on aviation oil, could be availed by citizens
applicable to promissory notes, but only to bills of exchange. Under of the United States and all forms of business enterprises
the Negotiable Instruments Law, the act of acceptance refers solely owned or controlled directly by them in view of the privilege
to bills of exchange. In a ruling adopted by the Bureau of Internal
under the Ordinance to operate public utilities in the same
Revenue as early as 1995, “acceptance” has been defined as having
reference to incoming foreign bills of exchange which are accepted manner as to, and under the same conditions imposed upon,
in the Philippines by the drawees thereof, and not as referring to the citizens of the Philippines or corporations or associations
common usage of the word as in receiving. Thus, a party to a taxable owned or controlled by citizens of the Philippines.
transaction who “accepts” any documents or instruments in the plain
and ordinary meaning does not become primarily liable for the tax. DECISION:

Tax Exemptions No. The decision of the Court of Tax Appeals is reversed and the case
is remanded to it, to grant respondent Administrator the opportunity
COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE VS. GUERRERO of proving whether the estate could claim the benefits of Section 142
of the National Internal Revenue Code, allowing refund to citizens of
FACTS: foreign countries on a showing of reciprocity. With costs.
The Commissioner of Internal Revenue denied the claim for refund in
the sum of P2,441.93 filed by the administrator of the estate of Paul RATIO DECIDENDII:
I. Gunn. The deceased operated an air transportation business under
the business name and style of Philippine Aviation Development.
 1. To the extent that a refund is allowable, there is in reality a
tax exemption. The rule applied with undeviating rigidity in
FACTS
the Philippines is that for a tax exemption to exist, it must be
so categorically declared in words that admit of no doubt. No Petitioner is a Value-Added Tax (VAT) taxpayer engaged in the
such language may be found in the Ordinance. It furnishes no importation and exportation business, as a pure buy-sell trader.
support, whether express or implied, to the claim of Petitioner alleged that from September 1998 to December 31,
respondent Administrator for a refund. 2000, it paid an aggregate sum of input taxes for its importation
2. From 1906 to 1966, it has been the constant and uniform of food ingredients.Subsequently, these imported food
holding that exemption from taxation is not favored and is ingredients were exported between the periods of April 1, 2000
never presumed, so that if granted it must be strictly to December 31, 2000, from which the petitioner was able to
construed against the taxpayer. (Catholic Church vs Hastings generate export sales amounting to P114,577,937.24. The
and Esso Standard Eastern, Inc. vs Acting Commissioner of aforestated export sales which transpired from April 1, 2000 to
Customs) December 31, 2000 were “zero-rated” sales, pursuant to Section
3. At the time when the Ordinance took effect in April 1947, the 106(A (2)(a)(1) of the NIRC of 1997.Petitioner alleged that the
accumulated input taxes for the period of September 1, 1998 to
strict rule against the exemption was undisputed and
December 31, 2000 have not been applied against any output
indisputable. Such being the case, it would be a plain
tax.
departure from the terms of the Ordinance to predicate a tax
exemption where none was intended. (Gold Creek Mining On March 26, 2002 and June 28, 2002, petitioner filed two
Corp. vs Rodriguez 1938) separate applications for the issuance of tax credit
4. The Ordinance is designed for a limited period to allow what certificates.On July 24, 2002, in view of respondent’s inaction,
the Constitution prohibits; Americans may operate public petitioner elevated the case before this Court by way of a Petition
utilities. (Martin vs Hunter’s Lessee (1816) I Wheat 304) for Review, docketed as C.T.A. Case No. 6513.Trial ensued and
(Cardozo, The Nature of Judicial Process (1921) 83) the CTA First Division rendered a Decision on 13 June 2007. It
5. Tax exemption is not to be presumed and that if granted, it is denied petitioner’s claim for failure to comply with the invoicing
to be most strictly construed. No such grant was apparent on requirements prescribed under Section 113 in relation to Section
the face of the Ordinance. No such grant could be implied 237 of the National Internal Revenue Code (NIRC) of 1997 and
from its history, much less from its transitory character. Section 4.108-1 of Revenue Regulations No. 7-95.On appeal,
Tax Refunds the CTA En Banc likewise denied the claim of petitioner citing
violation of the invoicing requirements.
APPLIED FOOD INGREDIENTS COMPANY, INC. V.
COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE
ISSUE 120+30 day mandatory periods were already in the law and BIR
Ruling No. DA-489-03 had not yet been issued, petitioner does
not have an excuse for not observing the 120+ 30 day period.
Is the petitioner is entitled to the issuance of a tax certificate or Failure of petitioner to observe the mandatory 120-day period is
refund representing creditable input taxes attributable to zero- fatal to its claim and rendered the CT A devoid of jurisdiction
rated sales? over the judicial claim.

HELD
NO. The Commissioner of Internal Revenue (CIR) had one
hundred twenty (120) days from the date of submission of
complete documents in support of the application within which
to decide on the administrative claim.Counting 120 days from
26 March 2002, the CIR had until 24 July 2002 within which to
decide on the claim of petitioner for an input VAT refund
attributable to the its zero-rated sales for the period April to
September 2000.On the other hand, the CIR had until 26 October
2002 within which to decide on petitioner’s claim for refund
filed on 28 June 2002, or for the period covering October to
December 2000.
In this case, the judicial claim of petitioner was filed on 24 July
2002. Petitioner clearly failed to observe the mandatory 120-day
waiting period. Consequently, the premature filing of its claim
for refund/credit of input VAT before the CTA warranted a
dismissal, inasmuch as no jurisdiction was acquired by the CTA.
In accordance with the ruling in San Roque and considering that
petitioner’s judicial claim was filed on 24 July 2002, when the