CIR vs General Foods Case regarding the millions of pesos spent on advertising Tang products.

Here CA reversed Court of Tax Appeals ruling affirming the CIR that advertising expenses weren't ordinary and not subject to exemption as they were advertising designed to stimulate the future sale of merchandise or use of services. SC reversed CA, it said respect has been accorded to findings of fact of CTA regarding taxation as it is highly specialized for review of tax cases. Cruz vs Gangan District director of TESDA who's cellphone got lost in the LRT, CoA found her negligent. SC reversed saying that such finding is not based on substantial evidence hence must be reversed. Hadji-Sirad vs CSC Gov't employee who had 3 different pictures and signatures for her civil service exam. Doctrine of case is that a special civil action for certiorari can only be taken when there is no other plain and speedy remedy. Here there was one as instead of going directly to the SC, an appeal from the CSC decision finding her guilty of grave misconduct could have been taken to the CA by appeal. Prohibition -reviewer notes It is preventive and not for acts already performed, must be timely availed of like certiorari. Requisites: 1.) Ground raised is lack of jurisdiction or GAD 2.) No plain, adequate and speedy remedy available 3.) Applies to agencies performing quasi-judicial and ministerial functions. Chua Hiong vs Deportation Board Chua Hiong allegedly secured Filipino citizenship by fraudulently claiming to be son of a Filipino mother, board sought his deportation. He sought to enjoin deportation proceedings on the ground that he is a Filipino citizen. Here there was substantial evidence tending to show he was of Filipino descent and the court said prohibition would lie against the deportation proceeding pending the judicial determination of his citizenship. Co vs Deportation Board (not discussed in class, supposedly supra) Deportation Board filed charges against the Cos for being Chinese citizens who resided in the Philippines without registering as Chinese Nationals in Bureau of Immigration, MD on the ground that they were Filipinos, not granted. Cos then filed action with CFI to prohibit the Board from continuing to take cognizance of the case, it was granted. SC said it was proper, reiterated doctrine in Chua Hiong, there was substantial evidence tending to prove citizenship, in fact the Board could not refute it. Simon vs CHR (not discussed in class, supposedly supra) Demolition of stalls of QC vendors ordered by Mayor, head vendor then filed a complaint with CHR praying for cease and desist which CHR granted. However, demolition continued, CHR cited QC Mayor in contempt for not obeying cease and desist. SC held that the above circumstance falls outside contempt powers as the CHR is not a QJA but merely an investigatory body, it can only hold other in contempt in furtherance of its powers of investigation. Paredes vs CA (supra) Regarding the AO which revised the rules of procedure of the Bureau of Patents increasing fees payable to the bureau, a petition for prohibition was filed by petitioners to prohibit the director of the Bureau of Patents from implementing the new rules on procedure. Petition was denied, the petitioners could have resorted to a remedy other than prohibition, SC said that prohibition is granted only where no other remedy which is sufficient to afford redress is available. Here, the law itself provided that increases of rates would still have to be approved by the cabinet, since the approval was not yet given, prohibition is premature. Mandamus

Reviewer- compelling a party to perform an act arising out of positive duty enjoined by law Requisites: 1.) Duty is ministerial 2.) Petitioner has clear and controlling right 3.) No other plain, speedy and adequate remedy Pointers accdg to reviewer may lie against discretionary duty when official/agency refuses to exercise its discretionary duty From self: I remember one case saying that it shall compel the duty to be done, but not how it is to be done Blanco vs Board of Medical Examiners Aspiring physicians who took the board exam, they passed, but they were suspected of cheating, supposedly there were leaks. Secretary of Interior annulled the results of the examinations, hence petitioners sought mandamus to compel the Secretary to release the confirmation of the exam results so they could be sworn in as physicians. SC said that mandamus does not lie, duty of the Secretary was discretionary to confirm or not confirm the results, he had to determine w/n the results were credible. (memory aid misogynist court says that the manly route would be to take the exam again) Ng Gioc Lu vs DFA Commissioner of immigration sent a letter to DFA to authorize the consulate in China to issue a returning resident visa to Ng Gioc Lu who was studyng in China. Denied by DFA hence mandamus by petitioner. It was denied by the SC saying that the act of issuing a visa is discretionary, particularly because the consular office in China is in the best position to determine w/n the return of Ng Gioc Lu to the Philippines is a threat to public safety. Policarpio vs Philippine Veterans Board Policarpio's husband was killed in WW2, she was being given pension but such was discontinued, so an application for resumption was filed with resp. Sec of Board issued a memo stating that the pension was resumed, however, delivery of pension was held in abeyance as the board has not granted its restoration yet, it was later show that the petition was not yet being acted upon. Hence, mandamus filed by Policarpio to compel their release, but the SC said that mandamus will only lie to compel the board to take action when it refuses to do so (in this case to give the petition for restoration of pension due course) but shall not prescribe the action to be taken (to release it or not). Tan vs Veterans Backpay Commission Tan is the widow of Lt. Tan Chiat Bee, a member of a guerilla organization recognized by the US army, Tan filed for the release of backpay, but the request was denied as Tan was an alien. Mandamus was brought by Tan to compel the Commission to give due course to the application. SC said mandamus lies because after proving that Tan was a member of a guerilla organization recognized by the US army, it becomes ministerial to approve the release of backpay. Pangasinan vs Reparation Commission Reparations goods were not transferred to Pangasinan because respondent did not yet sign the contract to convey the goods to the province. SC said mandamus will not lie to enforce contractual obligations. Meralco Securities vs Savellano Meralco was supposedly evading taxes, Maniago reported this to the CIR (because person who reports evasion would be given a cash reward), CIR found this to be untrue. Maniago filed mandamus to compel the CIR to collect the supposed deficiency tax, SC said mandamus will not lie as it was discretionary upon the CIR to determine w/n Meralco was deficient in paying its tax by the interpretation of relevant revenue laws. Cruz vs CA Cruz's position was reclassified by an executive order, giving her a lower wage, she felt she was

demoted, so she filed an action with the Merit Systems Protection Board which upgraded her rank. DBM would not enforce the MSPB decision hence mandamus by Cruz. SC said mandamus does not lie because the MSPB did not have jurisdiction over the issue and also mandamus was filed only 2 years after DBM did not implement the decision, hence it negates the claim that mandamus was the most expeditious and speedy remedy available. (note: Mandamus here could be availed of w/in 3 months, rule now is 60 days) PRC vs de Guzman Medical board exam case regarding Fatima College which had an unusually high passing rate, they weren't sworn in because of such anomalies. Filed petition for mandamus to compel the PRC to register them as licensed physicians, but SC said that mandamus will not lie as such registration is discretionary because licenses shall be issued only to those who have satisfactorily complied with the requirements of the Board, the operative word is satisfactorily, the determination of satisfactory compliance is discretionary. Declaratory Relief May be brought by a person interested under a deed, will, contract or other written instrument or by a person whose rights are affected by a statute, executive order or regulation or ordinance before breach or violation of his right. Requisites: 1. Judicial controversy 2. Between persons with adverses interests 3. must have legal interst 4. ripe for adjudication Also, accdg to Velarde vs SJS, breach of right must be impending, imminent or even threatened. Azajar vs Ardalles Azajar was denied right to purchase land as he was not a Filipino citizen, hence Azajar brought an action for declaratory relief to declare his citizenship. SC said declaratory relief is the improper remedy, there is a proper administrative procedure for the declaration of citizenship, it must be what must be resorted to. (Sir said that one does not seek a declaration of citizenship out of interest, I forgot part of the lecture but this could mean that breach of a right has already occurred, hence declaratory relief would be ruled out as it is for an impending breach) De Borja vs Villadolid Re: license requirement for catching fish or else there would be a criminal action, Villadolid required Borja to secure a license, he refused to secure one saying that it is not necessary. Case was turned over to the prosecutor for appropriate action , de Borja then sought declaratory relief of w/n a license is required of him. SC said declaratory relief would not lie since it should be filed before the breach of law, here there has already been a breach, he proceeded to catch fish without a license, he should have sought declaratory relief first before proceeding without a license. It is sufficient that there was already an act which could constitute a breach to bar declaratory relief. NDSC vs Meer NDSC sought declaratory relief to determine w/n sales of gold and other alloys for dental purposes falls within a tax provision. At issue is CA 55 which provides that declaratory relief will not lie when taxpayer questions his liability for the payment of any tax, however, such proviso was removed in the subsequent amendment of CA 55. SC said that the removal of the proviso was to make the application discretionary, the law would allow the taxpayer the remedy of declaratory relief when the tax is not yet due, but not when it is due. Mirando vs Wellington Ty Doctrine: requisites for declaratory relief (1) there must be a justifiable controversy; (2) the controversy must be between persons whose interests are adverse; (3) the party seeking declaratory relief must have a legal interest in the controversy; and (4) the issue involved must be ripe for judicial determination

Habeas Corpus Speedy remedy to secure release of persons deprived of liberty. Applies where there is illegal confinement. Mejoff vs Director of Prisons Mejoff was a Russian spy working for the Japanese, he was detained pending deportation. 2 Habeas Corpus cases 1st, denied because his detention was necessary for the process of his deportation, 2nd was granted because it was for an unreasonable length of time (2 years), the government could have adequately found ways to repatriate him to Russia. Here, it was shown that the writ does not apply to Philippine citizens alone. Co vs Deportation Board (Supra) Habeas corpus may issue in deportation cases "in cases when the courts themselves believe that there is substantial evidence supporting the claim of citizenship, so substantial that there are reasonable grounds for the belief that the claim is correct, In other words, the remedy should be allowed only in sound discretion of a competent court in a proper proceeding." Lucien Tran Van Nghia vs Liwag (supra) Warrantless arrest of Tran Van Nghia, he was merely invited then seized by CID agents, hence petition for habeas corpus. Habes corpus petition mooted by the fact that he posted bail and hence is already granted liberty. Also, other events have supervened, deportation proceedings have actually taken place and hence his arrest, although initially illegal, is now legal as it is for the purpose of the proceedings.