This case has been cited 4 times or more.
|
2015-04-22 |
PERLAS-BERNABE, J. |
||||
| Before the Court are the following motions: (a) the Motion for Reconsideration[1] dated May 22, 2013, filed by petitioner Land Bank of the Philippines (LBP) assailing the Decision[2] dated April 17, 2013 of the Court (April 17, 2013 Decision), which upheld the Decision[3] dated March 26, 2010 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CV. No. 89732 affirming with modification the Decision[4] dated April 10, 2007 of the Regional Trial Court of Agoo, La Union, Branch 31 in Civil Case No. A-2473; (b) the Motion for Leave to Intervene with Pleading-in-Intervention Attached [5] dated July 8, 2013, filed by the Municipality of Agoo, La Union (Municipality) praying that it be allowed to intervene in this case; and (c) the Motion for Reconsideration-in-Intervention[6] dated July 8, 2013, filed by the Municipality seeking that the Court set aside its April 17, 2013 Decision and promulgate a new one in its stead dismissing the case (subject motions). | |||||
|
2015-04-22 |
MENDOZA, J. |
||||
| Petitioner also established a valid taxpayer's suit. A person suing as a taxpayer must show that the act complained of directly involves the illegal disbursement of public funds derived from taxation.[25] Contrary to the assertion of JKG-Power Plates, MVPSP clearly involves the expenditure of public funds. While the motor vehicle registrants will pay for the license plates, the bid documents and contract for MVPSP[26] indicate, that the government shall bear the burden of paying for the project. Every portion of the national treasury, when appropriated by Congress, must be properly allocated and disbursed. Necessarily, an allegation that public funds in the amount of P3.851 billion shall be used in a project that has undergone an improper procurement process cannot be easily brushed off by the Court. | |||||
|
2014-08-05 |
CARPIO, ACTING C.J. |
||||
| Since petitioner Association of Flood Victims has no legal capacity to sue, petitioner Hernandez, who is filing this petition as a representative of the Association of Flood Victims, is likewise devoid of legal personality to bring an action in court. Neither can petitioner Hernandez sue as a taxpayer because he failed to show that there was illegal expenditure of money raised by taxation[10] or that public funds are wasted through the enforcement of an invalid or unconstitutional law.[11] | |||||
|
2013-09-18 |
PERLAS-BERNABE, J. |
||||
| With respect to the first, jurisprudence dictates that a taxpayer may be allowed to sue where there is a claim that public funds are illegally disbursed or that public money is being deflected to any improper purpose, or that public funds are wasted through the enforcement of an invalid or unconstitutional law or ordinance.[34] In this case, public funds of the Province of Cavite stand to be expended to enforce the compromise judgment. As such, Remulla being a resident-taxpayer of the Province of Cavite has the legal standing to file the petition for annulment of judgment and, therefore, the same should not have been dismissed on said ground. Notably, the fact that there lies no proof that public funds have already been disbursed should not preclude Remulla from assailing the validity of the compromise judgment. Lest it be misunderstood, the concept of legal standing is ultimately a procedural technicality which may be relaxed by the Court if the circumstances so warrant. As observed in Mamba v. Lara,[35] the Court did not hesitate to give standing to taxpayers in cases[36] where serious legal issues were raised or where public expenditures of millions of pesos were involved. Likewise, it has also been ruled that a taxpayer need not be a party to the contract in order to challenge its validity,[37] or to seek the annulment of the same on the ground of extrinsic fraud.[38] Indeed, for as long as taxes are involved, the people have a right to question contracts entered into by the government,[39] as in this case. | |||||