This case has been cited 4 times or more.
|
2014-02-04 |
PERALTA, J. |
||||
| If this Court were to sustain petitioners' contention that jurisdiction over their certiorari petition lies with the CA, this Court would be confirming the exercise by two judicial bodies, the CA and the CTA, of jurisdiction over basically the same subject matter precisely the split-jurisdiction situation which is anathema to the orderly administration of justice.[35] The Court cannot accept that such was the legislative motive, especially considering that the law expressly confers on the CTA, the tribunal with the specialized competence over tax and tariff matters, the role of judicial review over local tax cases without mention of any other court that may exercise such power. Thus, the Court agrees with the ruling of the CA that since appellate jurisdiction over private respondents' complaint for tax refund is vested in the CTA, it follows that a petition for certiorari seeking nullification of an interlocutory order issued in the said case should, likewise, be filed with the same court. To rule otherwise would lead to an absurd situation where one court decides an appeal in the main case while another court rules on an incident in the very same case. | |||||
|
2005-10-13 |
TINGA, J. |
||||
| In our recent rulings in Southern Cross Cement Corporation v. The Philippine Cement Manufacturers Corp.,[60] this Court had occasion to examine the authority granted by Congress to the Department of Trade and Industry (DTI) Secretary to impose safeguard measures pursuant to the Safeguard Measures Act. In doing so, the Court was impelled to construe Section 28(2), Article VI of the Constitution, which allowed Congress, by law, to authorize the President to "fix within specified limits, and subject to such limitations and restrictions as it may impose, tariff rates, import and export quotas, tonnage and wharfage dues, and other duties or imposts within the framework of the national development program of the Government."[61] | |||||
|
2005-09-01 |
AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J. |
||||
| 3) Insertion by the Bicameral Conference Committee of Sections 27, 28, 34, 116, 117, 119, 121, 125,[7] 148, 151, 236, 237 and 288, which were present in Senate Bill No. 1950, violates Article VI, Section 24(1) of the Constitution, which provides that all appropriation, revenue or tariff bills shall originate exclusively in the House of Representatives G.R. No. 168730 | |||||
|
2005-07-15 |
QUISUMBING, J. |
||||
| In the recent case of Southern Cross Cement Corporation v. Philippine Cement Manufacturers Corporation,[9] this Court intimated, but only by way of obiter dictum, that the imposition of safeguard measures should not be enjoined as that would be tantamount to enjoining the collection of taxes. | |||||