Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

NIPPON EXPRESS CORPORATION v. CIR

This case has been cited 4 times or more.

	GR No. 210646 2015-07-29	CIR v. AIR LIQUIDE PHILIPPINES MENDOZA, J.
The Court agrees with ALPI in its survey of cases which shows that BIR Ruling No. DA-489-03 was applied even though the taxpayer did not specifically invoke the same. As long as the judicial claim was filed between December 10, 2003 and October 6, 2010, then the taxpayer would not be required to wait for the lapse of 120-day period. This doctrine has been consistently upheld in the recent decisions of the Court.[13] On the other hand, in Nippon Express v. CIR,[14] Applied Food Ingredients v. CIR[15] and Silicon Philippines v. CIR,[16] the taxpayer did not benefit from BIR Ruling No. DA-489-03 because they filed their precipitate judicial claim before December 10, 2003.
	GR No. 194192 2015-06-16	DAVAO CITY WATER DISTRICT v. RODRIGO L. ARANJUEZ PEREZ, J.
The first and fundamental duty of the Court is to apply the law. If the law is clear and free from any doubt or ambiguity as the quoted provision, there is no room for construction or interpretation. The letter must be taken to mean exactly what it says and the court has no choice but to see to it that its mandate is obeyed.[54]
	GR No. 173241 2015-03-25	SILICON PHILIPPINES v. CIR LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.
It is not lost upon the Court that the prescription of the judicial claim has not been raised as an issue by any of the parties whether before the CTA Division, CTA en banc, or this Court. Nonetheless, the 120/30-day prescriptive periods are mandatory and jurisdictional, and the matter of jurisdiction cannot be waived because it is conferred by law and is not dependent on the consent or objection or the acts or omissions of the parties or any one of them.[18] In addition, when a case is on appeal, the Court has the authority to review matters not specifically raised or assigned as error if their consideration is necessary in reaching a just conclusion of the case.[19] More importantly, courts have the power to motu proprio dismiss an action that already prescribed. According to Rule 9, Section 1 of the Revised Rules of Court: SECTION 1. Defenses and objections not pleaded. Defenses and objections not pleaded either in a motion to dismiss or in the answer are deemed waived. However, when it appears from the pleadings or the evidence on record that the court has no jurisdiction over the subject matter, that there is another action pending between the same parties for the same cause, or that the action is barred by a prior judgment or by statute of limitations, the court shall dismiss the claim.
	GR No. 190021 2014-10-22	CIR v. BURMEISTER PERLAS-BERNABE, J.
In the case of Nippon Express (Philippines) Corporation v. CIR,[45] the Court ruled that, because the 120+30-day period is jurisdictional, the issue of whether the taxpayer complied with the said time frame may be broached at any stage, even on appeal. Well-settled is the rule that the question of jurisdiction over the subject matter can be raised at any time during the proceedings. Jurisdiction cannot be waived because it is conferred by law and is not dependent on the consent or objection or the acts or omissions of the parties or any one of them.[46] Therefore, respondent's contention on this score is of no moment.