Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

CHEVRON PHILIPPINES v. COMMISSIONER OF BUREAU OF CUSTOMS

This case has been cited 6 times or more.

	GR No. 209324 2015-12-09	REPUBLIC v. PILIPINAS SHELL PETROLEUM CORPORATION VILLARAMA, JR., J.
Fraud, in its general sense, is deemed to comprise anything calculated to deceive, including all acts, omissions, and concealment involving a breach of legal or equitable duty, trust or confidence justly reposed, resulting in the damage to another, or by which an undue and unconscionable advantage is taken of another. It is a question of fact and the circumstances constituting it must be alleged and proved in the court below.[45] Petitioner's allegations of fraud and irregularity in the issuance to FWI and eventual transfer to PSPC of the subject TCCs require presentation of evidence in a full-blown trial. PSPC, in turn, can present its own evidence to prove the status of a purchaser or transferee in good faith and for value. The solidary liability of PSPC and FWI for the amount covered by the TCCs depends on the good faith or lack of it on the part of PSPC.
	GR No. 197117 2013-04-10	FIRST LEPANTO TAISHO INSURANCE CORPORATION v. CIR MENDOZA, J.
It is worthy to note that tax revenue statutes are not generally intended to be liberally construed.[18] Moreover, the CTA being a highly specialized court particularly created for the purpose of reviewing tax and customs cases, it is settled that its findings and conclusions are accorded great respect and are generally upheld by this Court, unless there is a clear showing of a reversible error or an improvident exercise of authority.[19] Absent such errors, the challenged decision should be maintained.
	GR No. 181136 2012-06-13	WESTERN MINDANAO POWER CORPORATION v. CIR SERENO, J.
In addition, it is notable that the CTA Second Division and the CTA En Banc, including Presiding Justice Acosta in his Concurring and Dissenting Opinion, both found that petitioner failed to sufficiently substantiate the existence of its effectively zero-rated sales to NPC for the 3rd and 4th quarters of taxable year 1999, as well as all four quarters of taxable year 2000. It must also be noted that the CTA is a highly specialized court dedicated exclusively to the study and consideration of revenue-related problems, in which it has necessarily developed an expertise.[21] Hence, its factual findings, when supported by substantial evidence, will not be disturbed on appeal.[22] We find no sufficient reason to exempt the present case from this general rule.
	GR No. 163653 2011-07-19	CIR v. FILINVEST DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION PEREZ, J.
Alongside the principle that tax revenues are not intended to be liberally construed, [72] the rule is settled that the findings and conclusions of the CTA are accorded great respect and are generally upheld by this Court, unless there is a clear showing of a reversible error or an improvident exercise of authority. [73] Absent showing of such error here, we find no strong and cogent reasons to depart from said rule with respect to the CTA's finding that no deficiency income tax can be assessed on the gain on the supposed dilution and/or increase in the value of FDC's shareholdings in FAC which the CIR, at any rate, failed to establish. Bearing in mind the meaning of "gross income" as above discussed, it cannot be gainsaid, even then, that a mere increase or appreciation in the value of said shares cannot be considered income for taxation purposes. Since "a mere advance in the value of the property of a person or corporation in no sense constitute the `income' specified in the revenue law," it has been held in the early case of Fisher vs. Trinidad, [74] that it "constitutes and can be treated merely as an increase of capital." Hence, the CIR has no factual and legal basis in assessing income tax on the increase in the value of FDC's shareholdings in FAC until the same is actually sold at a profit.
	GR No. 178523 2010-06-16	MAKATI SPORTS CLUB v. CECILE H. CHENG NACHURA, J.
Fraud is deemed to comprise anything calculated to deceive, including all acts, omissions, and concealment involving a breach of legal or equitable duty, trust or confidence justly reposed, resulting in the damage to another or by which an undue and unconscionable advantage is taken of another.[30] It is a question of fact that must be alleged and proved. It cannot be presumed and must be established by clear and convincing evidence, not by mere preponderance of evidence.[31] The party alleging the existence of fraud has the burden of proof.[32] On the basis of the above disquisitions, this Court finds that petitioner has failed to discharge this burden. No matter how strong the suspicion is on the part of petitioner, such suspicion does not translate into tangible evidence sufficient to nullify the assailed transactions involving the subject MSCI Class "A" share of stock.
	GR No. 156946 2009-07-15	SECRETARY OF FINANCE v. ORO MAURA SHIPPING LINES BRION, J.
Finally, we deem it necessary to reiterate our pronouncement in Chevron Philippines v. Commissioner of the Bureau of Customs,[27] where we discussed the importance of tariff and customs duties in the following manner: Taxes are the lifeblood of the nation. Tariff and customs duties are taxes constituting a significant portion of the public revenue which enables the government to carry out the functions it has been ordained to perform for the welfare of its constituents.[28] Hence, their prompt and certain availability is an imperative need[29] and they must be collected without unnecessary hindrance.[30] [Emphasis supplied.]