Statcon Cases Digest

Case 1
Valentino Legaspi vs. Minister of Finance

G.R.No. L-58289, July 24, 2021
Barredo, J
Facts:
The petition is filed by Honorable Valentino Legaspi, incumbent member of
the interim Batasang Pambansa, praying that the court declare Presidential
Decree No. 1840 “granting tax amnesty and filing of statement of assets and
liabilities and some other purposes” unconstitutional with the following
allegations:
1. The decree was issued by the President Ferdinand Marcos under
supposed legislative powers granted him under Amendment No. 6 of
the Constitution.
2. The said decree was promulgated despite the fact that under
Constitution, the legislative power shall be vested in a Batasang
Pambansa.
3. Amendment No. 6 of the Constitution with such re-confirmation did not
mean to include the President’s legislative powers.
4. Presidential Decree No. 1840 is patently null and void having been
passed without the concurrence of the Batasang Pambansa.
5. The said decree first dated after the lifting of Martial Law and the
amendments brings to test the validity of the exercise of standby
emergency powers invoked in amendment 6.
Issue: Whether or not the Presidential Decree No. 1840 is unconstitutional.
Ruling:
Case 2
Arturo M. Tolentino vs. Secretary of Finance
G.R.No. 115455, August 25, 1994
Mendoza, J
Facts:
Case 3
Manila Prince Hotel vs. GSIS
Case 4
Judge Rodolfo T. Allarde vs. Commission on Audit
G.R.No. 103578, January 29, 2021
Griño-Aquino, J
Facts:
The case is a petition for certiorari and/or mandamus seeking to annul and
set aside the decisions of the Commission on Audit which denied the petitioner
Judge Rodolfo Allarde request for the inclusion of the monthly allowance as a part
of his retirement benefits.
In computing his total retirement pay, GSIS included a lump sum of
P240,000 or P4000 per month, monthly allowance from Municipality of
Muntinlupa during his incumbency as Judge, was appropriated and awarded.
However it reached the Manila Authority and was denied by Commission on Audit
on separate decisions dated June 5, 1991, November 5, 1991, August 20, 1991
and January 27, 1992.
Issue: Whether or not the P4000 monthly allowance should be included in the
computation of his retirement benefits under Republic Act No. 910, as amended
by Presidential Decree No. 1438.
Ruling:
No, accordingly, the provisions of Section 3 of Presidential Decree. 1438
which are clear and unambiguous, should be given their plain and natural
meaning. In as much as the law limits the computation of the lump sum of 5 years
gratuity to “the highest monthly salary plus the highest monthly aggregate of
transportation, living and representation allowance that the judge was receiving
on the date of his retirement” it is understood that other allowance are excluded
and the petitioner failed to prove that the P4,000 additional monthly allowance
that he was receiving was a representation, living or transportation allowance.
The Solicitor General aptly observed that such additional allowance does
not constitute an integral part of the judge’s remuneration for it may or may not
be given by the local government. If the said allowance were to be included in the
computation of retirement benefits, the result would be inequality and disparity
in the retirement benefits of the judges.
Wherefore, finding no grave abuse of discretion in the decision of COA, the
petition for review is hereby dismissed.
Case 5
Caltex (Philippines), Inc. vs. Enrico Palomar
G.R.No. L-19650, September 29, 1966
Castro, J
Facts:
In 1960, Caltex Inc. conceived and laid the groundwork for promotional
scheme “Caltex Hooded Pump Contest” to drum up patronage for oil products
with no fee or consideration is required to be paid, no purchase of products
required to be made. Foreseeing the extensive use of mails not only amongst the
media for publicizing the contest but also for the transmission of communications
relative thereto, representations were made by Caltex with the postal authorities
for the contest to be cleared in advance for the mailing in view of sections
1954(a), 1982 and 1983 of the Revised Administrative Code or the Postal Law. The
overtures were later formalized in a letter to the Postmaster General, Enrico
Palomar dated October 31, 1960, in which the Caltex, through Counsel, enclosed
a copy of the contest rules and endeavored to justify its position that the contest
does not violate the anti-lottery provisions but was declined into the
consideration that the contest involves a “gift enterprise” which is equally banned
by the Postal Law and if Caltex conducts the contest, a fraud order will have to be
issued against it.
Issues: Whether or not the proposed contest violates the Postal Law.
Ruling: No, the proposed contest does not violate the Postal Law. The said law
condemns as absolutely non-mailable and empowers the Postmaster General to
issue fraud orders against or deny the use of facilities of the postal service to any
information concerning “any lottery, gift enterprise or scheme for the distribution
of money, or of any real or personal property by lot, chance or drawing of any
kind.” But the law does not condemn the gratuitous distribution of property by
chance because it does not constitute lottery and gambling spirit is not being
cultivated or stimulated. Gift enterprise and similar schemes therein
contemplated are condemnably only if like lotteries, they involve the element of
consideration, finding none in the proposed contest.
Accordingly, the judgment appealed from is affirmed.

Statcon Cases Digest

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Statcon Cases Digest

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Case 1

Valentino Legaspi vs. Minister of Finance

You might also like