Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

ACEBEDO OPTICAL COMPANY v. CA

This case has been cited 7 times or more.

	GR No. 161107 2013-03-12	MA. LOURDES C. FERNANDO v. ST. SCHOLASTICA'S COLLEGE MENDOZA, J.
"Police power is the plenary power vested in the legislature to make statutes and ordinances to promote the health, morals, peace, education, good order or safety and general welfare of the people."[21] The State, through the legislature, has delegated the exercise of police power to local government units, as agencies of the State. This delegation of police power is embodied in Section 16[22] of the Local Government Code of 1991 (R.A. No. 7160), known as the General Welfare Clause,[23] which has two branches. "The first, known as the general legislative power, authorizes the municipal council to enact ordinances and make regulations not repugnant to law, as may be necessary to carry into effect and discharge the powers and duties conferred upon the municipal council by law. The second, known as the police power proper, authorizes the municipality to enact ordinances as may be necessary and proper for the health and safety, prosperity, morals, peace, good order, comfort, and convenience of the municipality and its inhabitants, and for the protection of their property."[24]
	GR No. 171742 2011-06-15	CIR v. MIRANT MENDOZA, J.
The CTA First Division rendered judgment partially granting Mirant's claim for refund in the reduced amount of P38,620,427.00, representing its duly substantiated unutilized creditable withholding taxes for taxable year 2000 out of the total claim of ?38,718,323.00 therefor. [16] It appears that the total claim was reduced by P97,896.00 for the following reasons: the amount of P92,996.00 was deducted because the CTA First Division found that it was not covered by the withholding tax certificate issued by Southern Energy Quezon, Inc. for the period October 1, 2000 to December 31, 2000. Moreover the additional amount of P4,900.00 was also deducted because based on the reconciliation schedule for the creditable taxes of P745,290.00 withheld by Southern Energy Quezon, Inc. for the period October 1, 2000 to December 31, 2000 on Mirant's Philippine peso billings under Invoice No. 0015, the corresponding creditable taxes claimed by Mirant in its 2000 income tax return amounted to P750,190.00 which was higher by ?4,900.00 than that reflected in the certificate. [17]
	GR No. 177056 2009-09-18	OFFICE OF SOLICITOR GENERAL v. AYALA LAND INCORPORATED CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
It is not sufficient for the OSG to claim that "the power to regulate and control the use, occupancy, and maintenance of buildings and structures carries with it the power to impose fees and, conversely, to control, partially or, as in this case, absolutely, the imposition of such fees." Firstly, the fees within the power of regulatory agencies to impose are regulatory fees. It has been settled law in this jurisdiction that this broad and all-compassing governmental competence to restrict rights of liberty and property carries with it the undeniable power to collect a regulatory fee. It looks to the enactment of specific measures that govern the relations not only as between individuals but also as between private parties and the political society.[31] True, if the regulatory agencies have the power to impose regulatory fees, then conversely, they also have the power to remove the same. Even so, it is worthy to note that the present case does not involve the imposition by the DPWH Secretary and local building officials of regulatory fees upon respondents; but the collection by respondents of parking fees from persons who use the mall parking facilities. Secondly, assuming arguendo that the DPWH Secretary and local building officials do have regulatory powers over the collection of parking fees for the use of privately owned parking facilities, they cannot allow or prohibit such collection arbitrarily or whimsically. Whether allowing or prohibiting the collection of such parking fees, the action of the DPWH Secretary and local building officials must pass the test of classic reasonableness and propriety of the measures or means in the promotion of the ends sought to be accomplished.[32]
	GR No. 179674 2009-07-28	PYRO COPPER MINING CORPORATION v. MINES ADJUDICATION BOARD-DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENT CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
According to Section 5 of DAO No. 96-40, "Director" means the Director of the MGB Central Office, while "Regional Director" means the Regional Director of any MGB Regional Office. As the authority to issue an Exploration Permit is vested in the MGB, then the same necessarily includes the corollary power to revoke, withdraw or cancel the same.[45] Indisputably, the authority to deny, revoke, or cancel EP No. 05-001 of private respondent is already lodged with the MGB, and not with the Panel of Arbitrators.
	GR No. 160795 2008-06-27	CORINTHIAN GARDENS ASSOCIATION v. SPS. REYNALDO NACHURA, J.
While it is true that this Court noted the Memorandum and Supplemental Memorandum filed by the Cuasos, such notation was made only insofar as Corinthian made them respondents in this petition. This Court cannot grant to the Cuasos any affirmative relief as they did not file a petition questioning the CA ruling. Consequently, the Decision of the CA holding that the Cuasos acted in bad faith and that the perimeter fence may now be demolished cannot be put in issue by the Cuasos. It is a fundamental principle that a party who does not appeal, or file a petition for certiorari, is not entitled to any affirmative relief.[30] An appellee who is not an appellant may assign errors in his brief where his purpose is to maintain the judgment, but he cannot seek modification or reversal of the judgment or claim affirmative relief unless he has also appealed.[31] This applies to C.B. Paraz and Engr. De Dios who likewise failed to assail the aforementioned CA Decision.
	GR NO. 118127 2005-04-12	CITY OF MANILA v. PERFECTO A.S. LAGUIO TINGA, J.
The Ordinance was passed by the City Council in the exercise of its police power, an enactment of the City Council acting as agent of Congress. Local government units, as agencies of the State, are endowed with police power in order to effectively accomplish and carry out the declared objects of their creation.[41] This delegated police power is found in Section 16 of the Code, known as the general welfare clause, viz:SECTION 16. General Welfare.-Every local government unit shall exercise the powers expressly granted, those necessarily implied therefrom, as well as powers necessary, appropriate, or incidental for its efficient and effective governance, and those which are essential to the promotion of the general welfare. Within their respective territorial jurisdictions, local government units shall ensure and support, among other things, the preservation and enrichment of culture, promote health and safety, enhance the right of the people to a balanced ecology, encourage and support the development of appropriate and self-reliant scientific and technological capabilities, improve public morals, enhance economic prosperity and social justice, promote full employment among their residents, maintain peace and order, and preserve the comfort and convenience of their inhabitants.