This case has been cited 2 times or more.
|
2009-10-02 |
PERALTA, J. |
||||
| This Court does not agree. In International, the Court held that the further amendment was intended to eliminate the scheme used by banks of issuing passbooks to "cloak" its time deposits as regular savings deposits.[47] More importantly, the Court held that the amendment to include "other evidences of deposits that are drawing interest significantly higher than the regular savings deposit" was merely intended to eliminate the ambiguity[48] as reflected in the exchanges[49] between Mr. Miguel Andaya of the Bankers Association of the Philippines and Senator Ralph Recto, Senate Chairman of the Committee on Ways and Means, during the deliberations on Senate Bill No. 2518 which eventually became R.A. No. 9243. Contrary therefore to petitioner's position, International is categorical in that the said amendment did not signify that time deposits evidenced by a passbook were exempt from documentary stamp tax under Section 180 of the 1997 NIRC,[50] but that it merely served to eliminate the ambiguity in the law. | |||||
|
2000-02-03 |
QUISUMBING, J. |
||||
| Note, however, that Civil Cases No. N-4614 and CA-G.R. No. 20113 were initiated for the benefit of so-called "small fishermen" whom the appellate court found to be squatters. The records show that some of these alleged "small fishermen" were also parties-defendants in Civil Case Nos. N-1924 and N-2052. For purposes of res judicata, only substantial identity is required and not absolute identity.[12] Parties in both cases need not be physically identical provided that there is privity between the parties or their successors-in-interest subsequent to the commencement of the previous cause of action, litigating for the same thing, title, or capacity.[13] The Court of Appeals correctly found in our view, that since all the aforecited cases were ultimately in the interest of these "small fishermen," there is privity of interest in all the cases. | |||||