This case has been cited 4 times or more.
|
2014-07-30 |
BERSAMIN, J. |
||||
| In resolving the issue of double taxation involving Section 21 of the Revenue Code of Manila, the Court is mindful of the ruling in City of Manila v. Coca-Cola Bottlers Philippines, Inc.,[37] which has been reiterated in Swedish Match Philippines, Inc. v. The Treasurer of the City of Manila.[38] In the latter, the Court has held: x x x [T]he issue of double taxation is not novel, as it has already been settled by this Court in The City of Manila v. Coca-Cola Bottlers Philippines, Inc., in this wise: | |||||
|
2013-07-03 |
SERENO, C.J. |
||||
| At the outset, it must be pointed out that the issue of double taxation is not novel, as it has already been settled by this Court in The City of Manila v. Coca-Cola Bottlers Philippines, Inc.,[27] in this wise: Petitioners obstinately ignore the exempting proviso in Section 21 of Tax Ordinance No. 7794, to their own detriment. Said exempting proviso was precisely included in said section so as to avoid double taxation. | |||||
|
2013-06-05 |
PERLAS-BERNABE, J. |
||||
| Although the RRCTA does not explicitly sanction extensions to file a petition for review with the CTA, Section 1, Rule 7[36] thereof reads that in the absence of any express provision in the RRCTA, Rules 42, 43, 44 and 46 of the Rules of Court may be applied in a suppletory manner. In particular, Section 9[37] of Republic Act No. 9282 makes reference to the procedure under Rule 42 of the Rules of Court. In this light, Section 1 of Rule 42[38] states that the period for filing a petition for review may be extended upon motion of the concerned party. Thus, in City of Manila v. Coca-Cola Bottlers Philippines, Inc.,[39] the Court held that the original period for filing the petition for review may be extended for a period of fifteen (15) days, which for the most compelling reasons, may be extended for another period not exceeding fifteen (15) days.[40] In other words, the reglementary period provided under Section 3, Rule 8 of the RRCTA is extendible and as such, CTA Division's grant of respondents' motion for extension falls squarely within the law. | |||||
|
2012-10-22 |
PERALTA, J. |
||||
| Petitioners cited cases decided by this Court wherein it was held that the 30-day period within which to file an appeal with the CTA is jurisdictional and non-extendible. However, these rulings had been superseded by this Court's decision in the case of City of Manila v. Coca- Cola Bottlers, Philippines, Inc.,[13] as correctly cited by the CTA En Banc. Suffice it to say that this Court's ruling in the said case is instructive, to wit: x x x x | |||||