CASE DIGEST: COLGATE PALMOLIVE PHILIPPINES, Inc., petitioners, vs. HON. BLAS F. OPLE, COLGATE PALMOLIVE SALES UNION, respondents. G.R. No. 73681 June 30, 1988

Concept:

The Constitutional mandate that the State shall "assure the rights of the workers to self-organization, collective bargaining, security of tenure and just and humane conditions of work," should be achieved under a system of law such as the aforementioned provisions of the pertinent statutes. When an overzealous official by-passes the law on the pretext of retaining a laudable objective, the intendment or purpose of the law will lose its meaning as the law itself is disregarded.

Petitioner pointed out that the allegations regarding dismissal from employment due to union membership were false. It also averred that the suspension and eventual dismissal of the three employees were due to infractions committed by them and that the management reserves the right to discipline erring employees. Petitioner also assailed the legality of the Union, among others.

The minister rendered its decision, ruling that there was no merit in the Union’s complaint. It also ruled that the three dismissed employees were “not without fault” but nonetheless ordered the reinstatement of the same.  At the same time, respondent Minister directly certified the respondent Union as the collective bargaining agent for the sales force in petitioner company and ordered the reinstatement of the three salesmen to the company on the ground that the employees were first offenders.

Issue: W/ON  the minister erred in directly certifying the Union based on the latter’s self-serving assertion that it enjoys the support of the majority of the sales force in petitioner’s company and in ordering the reinstatement of the three dismissed employees.

Held: Yes.  the minister failed to determine with legal certainty whether the Union indeed enjoyed majority representation. The Court held that by relying only on the Notice of Strike, the minister had encouraged disrespect of the law. He had also erroneously vested upon himself the right to choose the collective bargaining representative which ought to have been upon the employees.

The Court held that the reinstatement of the three employees despite a clear finding of guilt on their part is not in conformity with law. Ruling otherwise would only encourage unequal protection of the laws with respect to the rights of the management and the employees.

Source and Full Text: http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1988/jun1988/gr_73681_1988.html

CASE DIGEST: Commissioner on Internal Revenue vs Engineering Equipment G.R. No. L-27044 June 30, 1975

Facts:

·      Engineering Equipment and Supply Co. (Engineering for short), a domestic corporation, is an engineering and machinery firm. As operator of an integrated engineering shop, it is engaged, among others, in the design and installation of central type air conditioning system, pumping plants and steel fabrications.

·      On July 27, 1956, one Juan de la Cruz, wrote the then Collector, now Commissioner, of Internal Revenue denouncing Engineering for tax evasion by misdeclaring its imported articles and failing to pay the correct percentage taxes due thereon in connivance with its foreign suppliers. Engineering was likewise denounced to the Central Bank (CB) for alleged fraud in obtaining its dollar allocations. Acting on these denunciations, a raid and search was conducted by a joint team of Central Bank, (CB), National Bureau of Investigation (NBI) and Bureau of Internal Revenue (BIR) agents on September 27, 1956, on which occasion voluminous records of the firm were seized and confiscated

·      On September 30, 1957, revenue examiners Quesada and Catudan reported and recommended to the then Collector, now Commissioner, of Internal Revenue that Engineering be assessed for P480,912.01 as deficiency advance sales tax on the theory that it misdeclared its importation of air conditioning units and parts and accessories thereof which are subject to tax under Section 185(m)  of the Tax Code,

·      On March 3, 1959. the Commissioner assessed against, and demanded upon, Engineering payment of the increased amount and suggested that P10,000 be paid as compromise in extrajudicial settlement of Engineering's penal liability for violation of the Tax Code. The firm, however, contested the tax assessment and requested that it be furnished with the details and particulars of the Commissioner's assessment

·      Engineering appealed to the Court of Tax Appeals. CTA rendered  a decision in favor of Engineering, declared exempt from the deficiency manufacturers sales tax covering the period from June 1, 1948. to September 2, 1956. However, petitioner is ordered to pay respondent, or his duly authorized collection agent, the sum of P174,141.62 as compensating tax and 25% surcharge for the period from 1953 to September 1956. With costs against petitioner.

·      Not satisfied, both appealed before the SC. Since the two cases are similar, both will be tried together.

Issue:  W/ON Engineering is a manufacturer of air conditioning units under Section 185(m), supra, in relation to Sections 183(b) and 194 of the Code, or a contractor under Section 191 of the same Code.

Held:  Contractor.  The distinction between a contract of sale and one for work, labor and materials is tested by the inquiry whether the thing transferred is one not in existence and which never would have existed but for the order of the party desiring to acquire it, or a thing which would have existed and has been the subject of sale to some other persons even if the order had not been given.
The word "contractor" has come to be used with special reference to a person who, in the pursuit of the independent business, undertakes to do a specific job or piece of work for other persons, using his own means and methods without submitting himself to control as to the petty details. The true test of a contractor, would seem to be that he renders service in the course of an independent occupation, representing the will of his employer only as to the result of his work, and not as to the means by which it is accomplished.

Engineering, in a nutshell, fabricates, assembles, supplies and installs in the buildings of its various customers the central type air conditioning system; prepares the plans and specifications therefor which are distinct and different from each other; the air conditioning units and spare parts or accessories thereof used by petitioner are not the window type of air conditioner which are manufactured, assembled and produced locally for sale to the general market; and the imported air conditioning units and spare parts or accessories thereof are supplied and installed by petitioner upon previous orders of its customers conformably with their needs and requirements.

Source and Full Text: http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1975/jun1975/gr_27044_1975.html

CASE DIGEST: Celestino Co vs Collector G.R. No. L-8506 (99 PHIL 841) (Yellow Pad Digest)

Celestino Co vs Collector

Facts:

·      Celestino Co doing business under the name of “Oriental Sash Factory”. From 1956-1951 it paid percentage tax of 7% (National Revenue Code sec. 186) on the gross receipts of its sash, door, and window factory. However on 1952 it began to claim liability only to contractor’s 3% tax (Instead of 7%) under sec. 191.

·      Celestino claims that they do not manufacture ready made doors, sah, and windows for the public. He claims hat they only do Special Orders for customers, thus, contending they are not manufacturers.  This did not convince the BIR and the Court of Tax Appeals.

·      CTA said that their tradename gives an impression they do engage in manufacturing and their records suggest that their huge earnings (P188, 754.69) cannot be from special orders from ther few customers, but because it was from ready made products.  They also offered themselves as a “factory” to the public.

Issue: W/ON Petitioner is in engaged in manufacturing

Held: Yes. The company habitualy makes Sash, windows, and doors as it has been represented to the public. The fact that the windows and doors are made only when customers place their orders, does not alter the nature of the establishment, for it is obvious that they accept special orders other than making ready made products. The factory does nothing more than sell the goods that it mass produces or habitually makes.

Source and Full Text: http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1956/aug1956/gr_l-8506_1956.html

CASE DIGEST: Alfonso Quijada vs CA, Regalado Mondejar G.R. No. 126444. December 4, 1998(299 SCRA 695) (Yellow Pad Digest)

Alfonso Quijada vs CA, Regalado Mondejar (299 SCRA 695)

Facts:

·      Petitioners are heirs of the late Trinidad Quijada. Trinidad inherited a 2 hectare land. April 5,1956, Trininad along with her siblings, executed a DEED OF DONATION in favor of the Municipality of Talacogon, with  condition that the land shall be used exclusively as part of the campus of the  PROPOSED Provincial High School in Talacogon.

·      Despite the donation, Trininad still has possession of the land and sold 1 hectare to Regalado. Subsequently, Trinidad sold the remaining 1 hectare to Regalado but this time verbally, no Deed of Sale but it evidenced by receipts of payment.

·      Regalado sold portions of the land to respondents.

·      The Municipality was not able to finish the school thus returning the ownership of the property to the donors.

·      July 5,1988. Petitioners (heirs) filed against the respondents stating that their late mother did sell the property. If it was true that she (Trinidad) sold the property, it would be null and void since it was already donated to the Municipality thus the ownership is with the Municipality.

·      RTC ruled in favor of the heirs, ruling that Trinidad had no capacity to sell because the ownership of the land was already with the Municipality. CA reversed.

Issue: W/ON the sale is valid

Held: Yes. When the property was donated to the Municipality, the ownership was transferred to them but wait there’s more, there was a condition. A RESOLUTORY CONDITION, tho it was not stated in the condition on how long the condition was, it was evident that the Municipality had intended to build the school. Again, tho not stated how long, the Municipality still gave back the property to the donors thus the ownership was transferred. Making the sale valid since ownership was returned.  

Source and Full Text: http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1998/dec1998/126444.htm