CITY OF MANILA HEALTH DEPARTMENT Tondo Health Center Programs I. THRUST PROGRAM A. Maternal and Child Health 1. Maternal care 2. Safe Motherhood and Women’s Health 3. Expanded Progra...
rety5ye5ryger
City of Manila vs IACFull description
Meralco v. City Assessor GR No. 166102, Capitol Wireless Inc. vs. Provincial Treasurer of Batangas G.R. no. 180110, Property
Full description
case law
consti case
Commissioner of Internal Revenue v Manila Bankers DigestFull description
Property Case
Digested CaseFull description
Digest in Torts
Diaz, Jayson Paolo DM. Civil Procedure Case Digest nd 2 Year - Wesleyan Law School
City of Manila V. Grecia – Cuerdo FACTS:
City of Manila through its treasurer Liberty Toledo assessed taxes from Jan. to Dec. 2002 against private respondent M Mart !nc. et al. "n Jan. 2#$ 200#$ respondents filed %ith the &TC the complaint “Refund or Recovery of Illegally andor !rroneously Collected Local "usiness ta#$ Prohi%ition with &rayer to issue 'R( and writ of &reli)inary in*unction+ before 'recia(s sala. )rivate respondents even amended the complaint alleging that$ in relation to ec. *#+2* of &evised &evenue Code of Manila %ere violative of double taxation. &TC granted the in,unction of the respondents$ then the petitioners filed Motion for &econsideration but the &TC denied it. )etitioners then filed a pecial Civil -ction for certiorari under &ule / of &ules of Court C- dismissed the petition holding that it has no ,urisdiction over the petition$ saying that the ,urisdiction is vested on the Court of Tax -ppeals. ISSUE:
hether or not Court of Tax -ppeals has ,urisdiction over the pecial Civil -ction for certiorari assailing an interlocutory order issued by the &TC in a local tax case. RULING:
The upreme Court agrees %ith the ruling of the C-. ince the appellate ,urisdiction for tax refund is vested in the CT-. )etition for Certiorari see1ing nullification of an interlocutory order issued in the case should be li1e%ise be filed in CT-. To rule other%ise %ould lead to an absurd situation %here 2 courts decides on the same case. !n order for any appellate court to effectively exercise its appellate ,urisdiction$ it must have the authority to issue$ among others$ a %rit of certiorari. !n transferring exclusive ,urisdiction ,urisdiction over appealed appealed tax cases cases to the the CT-$ CT-$ it can reasonably reasonably be assumed that the la% intended to transfer also such po%er as is deemed necessary$ if not indispensable$ in aid of such appellate ,urisdiction. There is no perceivable reason %hy the transfer should only be considered as partial$ not total. Consistent %ith the above pronouncement$ the Court has held as early as the case of J.M. Tuason Co.$ !nc. v. Jaramillo$ et al. 3**4 )hil. *022 5*6789 that :if a case may be appealed to a particular court or ,udicial tribunal or body$ then said court or ,udicial tribunal or body has ,urisdiction to issue the extraordinary %rit of certiorari$ in aid of its appellate ,urisdiction.; This principle %as affirmed in De Jesus v. Court of -ppeals 5'.&.
)age of !
Diaz, Jayson Paolo DM. Civil Procedure Case Digest nd 2 Year - Wesleyan Law School
