Access over 20 million homework & study documents

99174348_case_digested.doc

Content type
User Generated
Rating
Showing Page:
1/20
TOPIC : VI. LAWS
Classifications
General, Specific/Special or Local
TITLE : Garcia vs Pascual, et al., 3 SCRA 655, G.R. No. L-16950,
December 22, 1961
FACTS : This is an appeal from the decision of the Court of First Instance of Nueva
Ecija declaring the appointment of petitioner-appellee, Simeon T. Garcia as clerk of court of the
justice of the peace court of San Jose, Nueva Ecija valid, and, ordering the respondents to
approve the vouchers previously returned by the treasurer with the information that they be first
approved by the municipal mayor who refused to approve them for reason that Rep. Act No.
1551 has repealed Section 75 of Rep. Act No. 296, otherwise known as the Judiciary Act
because section 1 of Rep. Act No. 1551 provides that all employees whose salaries are paid by
the general funds of the municipality shall be appointed by the mayor upon recommendation of
the chief of office, so that, as the clerk of court of the justice of the peace is paid out of the
general funds of the municipality the power to appoint the said clerk should be lodged in the
mayor as with all other subordinate officials of the municipality.
ISSUE : Whether or not a specific provision or Section 75 of the Judiciary Act (RA 296)
has been repealed by a general law or Rep. Act No. 1551.
HELD : No. Pursuant to the separation of powers among the three departments of the
government, what Rep. Act No. 1551 intended to be made subject to appointment by the
municipal mayor are subordinate officials in the municipality, like employees in the executive
branch and employees in the municipal council or board. The court further stated that when the
provisions of a general law, applicable to the entire state, are repugnant to the provisions of a
previously enacted special law, applicable in a particular locality only, the passage of such
general law does not operate to modify or repeal the special law, either wholly or in part, unless
such modification or repeal is provided for in express words, or arises by necessary implication
( Black on Interpretation of Laws).
Decision affirmed with costs against the appellants.
TOPIC : VI. LAWS
Classifications
General, Specific/Special or Local
TITLE : Butuan Sawmill vs City of Butuan, 16 SCRA 755, G.R. No. L-
21516 , April 29, 1966
FACTS : This is an appeal from the decision of the Court of First Instance of Agusan
declaring Ordinance Nos. 7, 11, 131, and 148 as unconstitutional and ultra vires and annulling
Ordinance No. 104 as unconstitutional, arbitrary, unreasonable and oppressive.
The City of Butuan claims that the franchise of Butuan Sawmill is subject
to 2% tax on the gross sales or receipts of the business of electric light , heat and power
system as empowered and authorized by the city’s Charter (RA 523 approved on June 15,
1950) and the Local Autonomy Act (RA 2264 approved on June 19,1959). Considering that
Butuan Sawmill, Inc. was granted a legislative franchise by virtue of RA 399 approved on June
18, 1949 for an electric light, heat and power system at Butuan and Cabadbaran, Agusan,
subject to the terms and conditions under Act 3636, as amended by Commonwealth Act 132
and the Constitution; it, on the other hand, disputes the constitutionality of the taxing
ordinances and maintains that the said ordinances are ultra vires and void.

Sign up to view the full document!

lock_open Sign Up
Showing Page:
2/20
ISSUE : Whether or not the City of Butuan has the authority to impose the 2% tax on the
gross sales or receipts of the business of electric light, heat and power system.
HELD : No. The inclusion of the franchised business of the Butuan Sawmill, Inc. by the
City of Butuan within the coverage of the questioned taxing ordinances is beyond the city’s taxing
power under its charter nor an authority delegated to the city to amend or alter the franchise since
the charter did not expressly or specifically provide any such power. The Local Autonomy Act did
not authorize the City of Butuan to tax the franchised business citing Sec.2, par.(j) of said act that
withholds the imposition of taxes on persons paying franchise tax like Butuan Sawmill, Inc.
because the internal revenue code already imposes a franchise tax. The court further noted that
“where there are two statutes, the earlier special and the later general the terms of the general
broad enough to include the matter provided for in the special……. the special is to be considered
as remaining an exception to the general, one as a general law of the land, the other as the law of
a particular case.”
Decision affirmed. Costs against appellant City of Butuan.
TOPIC : VI. LAWS
Classifications
General, Specific/Special or Local
TITLE : City of Manila vs Teotico, 22 SCRA 267 G.R. No. L-
23052, January 29, 1968
FACTS : This is an appeal filed by the City of Manila from a decision of the Court of
Appeals. On January 27, 1958, at about 8:00 p.m., Genaro N. Teotico, who was about to
board a jeepney, fell inside an uncovered and unlighted catch basin or manhole on P. Burgos
Avenue. He suffered injuries: head hit the rim of the manhole breaking his eyeglass and
causing broken pieces to pierce his left eyelid, contusions on the left thigh, the left upper arm,
right leg and upper lip, abrasion on the right infra-patella region, and allergic eruption caused by
anti-tetanus injections administered to him in the hospital. As a consequence, he filed before
the Court of First Instance of Manila a complaint / claim for damages against the City of Manila,
its mayor, city engineer, city health officer, city treasurer, and chief of police. In defense, the
City of Manila presented evidence to prove that they immediately act on reports of loss
catchbasin cover and diligently perform their duty to install, repair and care of storm drains in
the City of Manila. The Court of First Instance of Manila sustained the defendants’ theory and
dismissed complaint without costs. Plaintiff Teotico filed an appeal before the Court of Appeals
(CA). CA affirmed except in so far as the City of Manila to pay P6,750.00 for damages.
Hence,this appeal.
ISSUE : Whether or not Republic Act 409 should prevail over Article 2189 of the Civil
Code considering that it is a special law intended for the City of Manila
HELD : Not intended as a basis of the present action. Section 2 of RA 409 establishes
a general rule regulating liability of the City of Manila for the damages or injury to persons or
property arising from negligence in general while Article 2189 of the Civil Code includes a
particular prescription due to defective streets in particular. Thus, Article 2189 is decisive
thereon considering that the present action is based on the alleged defective condition of the
street.
Decision affirmed with costs against the City of Manila.
TOPIC : VII. AIDS TO STATUTORY CONSTRUCTION
A. Title

Sign up to view the full document!

lock_open Sign Up
Showing Page:
3/20

Sign up to view the full document!

lock_open Sign Up
End of Preview - Want to read all 20 pages?
Access Now
Unformatted Attachment Preview
TOPIC              :               VI.               LAWS Classifications General, Specific/Special or Local   TITLE              : Garcia vs Pascual, et al., 3 SCRA 655,                             G.R. No. L-16950, December 22, 1961   FACTS              : This is an appeal from the decision of the Court of First Instance of Nueva Ecija declaring the appointment of petitioner-appellee, Simeon T. Garcia as clerk of court of the justice of the peace court of San Jose, Nueva Ecija valid, and, ordering the respondents to approve the vouchers previously returned by the treasurer with the information that they be first approved by the municipal mayor who refused to approve them for reason that Rep. Act No. 1551 has repealed Section 75 of Rep. Act No. 296, otherwise known as the Judiciary Act because section 1 of Rep. Act No. 1551 provides that all employees whose salaries are paid by the general funds of the municipality shall be appointed by the mayor upon recommendation of the chief of office, so that, as the clerk of court of the justice of the peace is paid out of the general funds of the municipality the power to appoint the said clerk should be lodged in the mayor as with all other subordinate officials of the municipality. ISSUE              : Whether or not a specific provision or Section 75 of the Judiciary Act (RA 296) has been repealed by a general law or Rep. ...
Purchase document to see full attachment
User generated content is uploaded by users for the purposes of learning and should be used following Studypool's honor code & terms of service.

Anonymous
Excellent! Definitely coming back for more study materials.

Studypool
4.7
Trustpilot
4.5
Sitejabber
4.4