Song Kiat Chocolate Factory vs.

Central Bank of the Philippines and

Vicente Gella, in his capacity as Treasurer of the Philippines

The plaintiff appellant imported sun dried cocoa for which it paid the
foreign exchange tax imposed by Republic Act No. 601 as amended
(January 8, 1953 October 9, 1953)
Sued Central Bank of the Philippines and in its amended complaint
included the Treasurer of the Philippines for exacting the payment.
Apellant contended that Cocoa beans are considered chocolate and should
be exempt from the foreign exchange tax
Manila Court of First Instance dismissed the case because cocoa beans
were not chocolate and second it was a suit against the government
without the latters consent.
Chocolate manufactured consumer product; Cocoa beans raw material
Presidents proclamation No. 62 of September 2, 1954 issued in
accordance with Republic Act. No. 1197 specifying that said exemption (of
cocoa beans) shall operate from and after September 3, 1954 not before.
Case was dismissed with costs against appellant

Pastor M. Endencia and Fernando Jugo vs. Saturnino David as Collector

of Internal Revenue

Refund of income tax collected from the salary of both Endencia and Jugo
Declaring section 13 of Republic Act No. 590 unconstitutional (as against
Section 9 of the same act declaring that the members of Supreme Court
and all judges of inferior courts shall receive compensation as may be
fixed by law which shall not be diminished during their continuance in
office.
They shall be exempted from payment of income tax.
Section 13 (declaring the payment of income tax not a diminution of the
compensation fixed by the constitution); congress is interpreting the law
and is a breach of the separation of powers between the branches of the
government.
This non-diminution of salary is to uphold the independence of action of
the judges; to attract good and competent men to the bench.
The decision appealed from is affirmed, with no pronouncement as to
costs

Mayor Pablo Magtajas & The City of Cagayan De Oro vs. Pryce
Properties Corporation, Inc. & Philippine Amusement Gaming
Corporation

There is opposition in opening a casino in Cagayan De Oro to preserve the

welfare of the city. (This operation was prohibited by Ordinances 3353 and
3375-93)
Court of Appeals declared these ordinances invalid.

The Sangguniang Panlungsod of the City of Cagayan De Oro does

not have the power and authority to prohibit the operations of
PAGCOR
o What is prohibited by law are those which involve illegal gambling
o The ordinances annulled P.D. 1869
o The ordinances are discriminatory to casino and partial to
cockfighting
o The ordinances are not reasonable
Petitioners assert that:
o They have the power and authority as to the Local Government
Code to establish general welfare and thus make ordinances to
promote this.
o The adoption of Local Government Code had the effect of modifying
the charter of the PAGCOR. The Code is a later enactment than P.D.
1869 and thus deemed to prevail
Not all types of gambling are prohibited, there are those that are
authorized by law.
There is no mention in the LGC that repeals P.D. 1869; but in fact been
improved (PAGCOR) as it were to make the entity more responsive to the
fiscal problems of the government.
The Local Government Code is the power vested in the LGUs from the
legislative body and must not therefore prevail over those statutes above
it.
Petition is denied and the challenged decision of the respondent Court of
Appeals is affirmed, with costs against the petitioners.
o

Lambino vs. COMELEC

Petition to amend the 1987 Constitution (from bicameral-presidential to

unicameral-parliamentary system; providing an article xvii as transitory
provisions)
Issues:
- Whether the Lambino group complies with Section 2, Article XVII of the
Constitution on amendments to the Constitution through a peoples
initiative (the draft of the amendments must be first shown and there
must be a signature of the person, not signed by anyone else but
himself)
- Whether the Court should revisit its ruling in Santiago to implement the
initiative clause on proposals to amend the Constitution
- Whether the COMELEC committed grave abuse of discretion in denying
due course to the Lambino Groups petition
Court declared to merit to the petition (due to the lack of compliance with
the basic requirements of the constitution)