Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

CIR v. CA

This case has been cited 4 times or more.

	GR No. 176579 2012-10-09	HEIRS OF WILSON P. GAMBOA v. FINANCE SECRETARY MARGARITO B. TEVES CARPIO, J.
There is nothing sacred about processes or pleadings, their forms or contents. Their sole purpose is to facilitate the application of justice to the rival claims of contending parties. They were created, not to hinder and delay, but to facilitate and promote, the administration of justice. They do not constitute the thing itself, which courts are always striving to secure to litigants. They are designed as the means best adapted to obtain that thing. In other words, they are a means to an end. When they lose the character of the one and become the other, the administration of justice is at fault and courts are correspondingly remiss in the performance of their obvious duty.[53] (Emphasis supplied)
	GR No. 176579 2012-10-09	HEIRS OF WILSON P. GAMBOA v. FINANCE SECRETARY MARGARITO B. TEVES CARPIO, J.
The Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) initially filed a motion for reconsideration on behalf of the SEC,[5] assailing the 28 June 2011 Decision. However, it subsequently filed a Consolidated Comment on behalf of the State,[6] declaring expressly that it agrees with the Court's definition of the term "capital" in Section 11, Article XII of the Constitution. During the Oral Arguments on 26 June 2012, the OSG reiterated its position consistent with the Court's 28 June 2011 Decision.
	GR No. 160756 2010-03-09	CHAMBER OF REAL ESTATE v. EXECUTIVE SECRETARY ALBERTO ROMULO CORONA, J.
Petitioner is correct in saying that income is distinct from capital.[44] Income means all the wealth which flows into the taxpayer other than a mere return on capital. Capital is a fund or property existing at one distinct point in time while income denotes a flow of wealth during a definite period of time.[45] Income is gain derived and severed from capital.[46] For income to be taxable, the following requisites must exist: (1) there must be gain;
	GR NO. 109976 2005-04-26	PHILIPPINE NATIONAL OIL COMPANY v. CA CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
This is a consolidation of two Petitions for Review on Certiorari filed by the Philippine National Oil Company (PNOC)[1] and the Philippine National Bank (PNB),[2] assailing the decisions of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 29583[3] and CA-G.R. SP No. 29526,[4] respectively, which both affirmed the decision of the Court of Tax Appeals (CTA) in CTA Case No. 4249.[5]