This case has been cited 2 times or more.
|
2011-11-23 |
VILLARAMA, JR., J. |
||||
| It bears reiterating that tax burdens are not to be imposed, nor presumed to be imposed beyond what the statute expressly and clearly imports, tax statutes being construed strictissimi juris against the government.[17] In case of discrepancy between the basic law and a rule or regulation issued to implement said law, the basic law prevails as said rule or regulation cannot go beyond the terms and provisions of the basic law.[18] It must be stressed that the objective of issuing BIR Revenue Regulations is to establish parameters or guidelines within which our tax laws should be implemented, and not to amend or modify its substantive meaning and import. As held in Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Fortune Tobacco Corporation,[19] | |||||
|
2009-06-26 |
BRION, J. |
||||
| Under these clear and unambiguous terms, the PBA should have appealed the ruling of respondent Gaite of the OP to the CA within 15 days from notice,[6] and its failure to comply with the prescribed process is a ground for the dismissal of the petition.[7] Rule 65 - the legal basis for the present petition - itself bars its use as a mode of review when an appeal or any other remedy at law is available.[8] While jurisprudence has recognized exceptions to this rule, the exceptions - like any other exception - must be strictly, rather than liberally, applied. [9] In other words, a petitioner wrongly filing a Rule 65 petition must show a clear entitlement to the jurisprudentially-recognized exceptions. These exceptions are: when public welfare and the advancement of public policy dictates; when the interests of substantial justice so require; and when the questioned order amounts to an oppressive exercise of judicial authority.[10] In applying these exceptions, the words of this Court in Lapid v. Laurea[11] are worth repeating and remembering:Members of the bar are reminded that their first duty is to comply with the rules of procedure, rather than seek exceptions as loopholes. Technical rules of procedure are not designed to frustrate the ends of justice. These are provided to effect the prompt, proper and orderly disposition of cases and thus effectively prevent the clogging of court dockets. Utter disregard of these rules cannot justly be rationalized by harking on the policy of liberal construction. [Emphasis supplied.] | |||||