Archive for June, 2015


CASE 2015-0006: REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, REPRESENTED BY THE DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS AND HIGHWAYS, PETITIONERS, -VERSUS – ARLENE R. SORIANO, RESPONDENT (G.R. NO. 211666, 25 FEBRUARY 2015, PERALTA, J.) SUBJECTS: EXPROPRIATION; INTEREST RATE; CAPITAL GAINS TAX; DOCUMENTARY STAMP TAX; CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES (BRIEF TITLE: REPUBLIC VS. SORIANO)

 

DISPOSITIVE:

 

“WHEREFORE, premises considered, the instant pet1t10n 1s PARTIALLY GRANTED. The Decision and Order, dated November 15, 2013 and March 10, 2014, respectively, of the Regional Trial Court, Valenzuela City, Branch 270, in Civil Case No. 140-V-10 are hereby MODIFIED, in that the imposition of interest on the payment of just compensation as well as the award of consequential damages are deleted. In addition, respondent Arlene R. Soriano is ORDERED to pay for the capital gains tax due on the transfer of the expropriated property, while the documentary stamp tax, transfer tax, and registration fee shall be for the account of petitioner.

 

SO ORDERED.”

 

SUBJECTS/DOCTRINES/DIGEST:

 

PETITIONER CONTENDS THAT THE PAYMENT TO RESPONDENT IS NOT FOREBEARANCE OF MONEY OR CREDIT BUT PAYMENT OF JUST COMPENSATION FOR EXPROPRIATED PROPERTY. THEREFORE THE IMPOSITION OF 12% INTEREST HAS NO BASIS. RATHER ART. 2209 OF THE CIVIL CODE APPLIES WHICH FIXES THE INTEREST AT 6% PER ANNUM. IS THIS CONTENTION CORRECT?

 

NO.

 

THE RULING ON NATIONAL POWER CORPORATION V. ANGAS HAS ALREADY BEEN OVERTURNED BY THE RULING IN REPUBLIC V. COURT OF APPEALS, WHEREIN THE SUPREME COURT HELD THAT THE PAYMENT OF JUST COMPENSATION FOR THE EXPROPRIATED PROPERTY AMOUNTS TO AN EFFECTIVE FORBEARANCE ON THE PART OF THE STATE.

 

IF PAYMENT OF JUST COMPENSATION IS FORBEARANCE WHAT IS THE APPLICABLE INTEREST?

 

6% PER ANNUM.

 

IN LINE WITH THE RECENT CIRCULAR OF THE MONETARY BOARD OF THE BANGKO SENTRAL NG PILIPINAS (BSP-MB) NO. 799, SERIES OF 2013, EFFECTIVE JULY 1, 2013, THE PREVAILING RATE OF INTEREST FOR LOANS OR FORBEARANCE OF MONEY IS SIX PERCENT (6%) PER ANNUM, IN THE ABSENCE OF AN EXPRESS CONTRACT AS TO SUCH RATE OF INTEREST.”

 

IS THE IMPOSITION OF INTEREST WARRANTED IN THIS CASE?

 

NO BECAUSE PETITIONER INCURRED NO DELAY IN THE PAYMENT OF JUST COMPENSATION.

 

AS EVIDENCED BY THE ACKNOWLEDGMENT RECEIPT SIGNED BY THE BRANCH CLERK OF COURT, PETITIONER WAS ABLE TO DEPOSIT WITH THE TRIAL COURT THE AMOUNT REPRESENTING THE ZONAL VALUE OF THE PROPERTY BEFORE ITS TAKING.

 

ARE CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES PROPER IN THIS CASE?

 

NO BECAUSE THE ENTIRE AREA OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY AND NOT ONLY A PORTION THEREOF IS EXPROPRIATED.

 

CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES ARE AWARDED IF AS A RESULT OF THE EXPROPRIATION, THE REMAINING PROPERTY OF THE OWNER SUFFERS FROM AN IMPAIRMENT OR DECREASE IN VALUE.

 

PETITIONER CONTENDS THAT IT IS THE PROPERTY OWNER THAT IS LIABLE FOR CAPITAL GAINS TAX AND DOCUMENTARY STAMP TAX. IS THIS CONTENTION CORRECT.

 

RESPONDENT LAND OWNER IS LIABLE FOR CAPITAL GAINS TAX BECAUSE IT HAS BEEN HELD THAT SINCE CAPITAL GAINS IS A TAX ON PASSIVE INCOME, IT IS THE SELLER, NOT THE BUYER, WHO GENERALLY WOULD SHOULDER THE TAX. ALSO, THE BIR, IN ITS BIR RULING NO. 476-2013, DATED DECEMBER 18, 2013, CONSTITUTED THE DPWH AS A WITHHOLDING AGENT TO WITHHOLD THE SIX PERCENT (6%) FINAL WITHHOLDING TAX IN THE EXPROPRIATION OF REAL PROPERTY FOR INFRASTRUCTURE PROJECTS.

 

BUT PETITIONER IS LIABLE FOR FOR DOCUMENTARY STAMP TAX. UNDER THE NIRC BOTH BUYER AND SELLER ARE HELD LIABLE UNLESS THERE IS AN AGREEMENT. BUT ACCORDING TO PETITIONER’S CITIZEN’S CHARTER,28 WHICH FUNCTIONS AS A GUIDE FOR THE PROCEDURE TO BE TAKEN BY THE DPWH IN ACQUIRING REAL PROPERTY THROUGH EXPROPRIATION UNDER RA 8974 ISSUED BY PETITIONER DPWH ITSELF ON DECEMBER 4, 2013, EXPLICITLY PROVIDES THAT THE DOCUMENTARY STAMP TAX, TRANSFER TAX, AND REGISTRATION FEE DUE ON THE TRANSFER OF THE TITLE OF LAND IN THE NAME OF THE REPUBLIC SHALL BE SHOULDERED BY THE IMPLEMENTING AGENCY OF THE DPWH.

 

TO READ THE DECISION, JUST CLICK/DOWNLOAD THE FILE BELOW.

 SCD-2015-0006-FEB-2015-SORIANO

NOTE: TO RESEARCH ON A TOPIC IN YAHOO OR GOOGLE SEARCH JUST TYPE “jabbulao and the topic”. EXAMPLE: TO RESEARCH ON FORUM SHOPPING JUST TYPE “jabbulao and forum shopping”.

 

 

 

TRIVIA 0041: WHO IS GRACE PO?

TRIVIA 0041: WHO IS GRACE PO?

 

FULL NAME:           

 

MARY GRACE SONORA POE-LLAMANZARES

 

DATE OF BIRTH:           

 

03 SEPTEMBER 1968

 

PLACE OF BIRTH:

 

ILOILO CITY

 

PARENTS:

 

FERNANDO POE, JR. AND SUSAN ROCES

 

SIBLINGS:

LOVI POE, RONNIAN POE

 

SPOUSE:

 

TEODORO MISAEL LLAMANZARES (MARRIED IN 1991)

 

CHILDREN:

 

HANNA LLAMANZARES, NIKKA LLAMANZARES AND BRIAN LLAMANZARES

 

EDUCATION:

 

UNIVERSITY OF THE PHILIPPINES, BOSTON COLLEGE

 

WORK:

 

CHAIRPERSON OF THE MOVIE AND TELEVISION REVIEW AND CLASSIFICATION BOARD FROM 2010 TO 2012.       

                       

BEFORE HER STINT IN GOVERNMENT, SHE WORKED AT FPJ PRODUCTIONS AND FILM ARCHIVES, INC.

 

SHE ALSO WORKED IN THE UNITED STATES AS A TEACHER, A PRODUCT LIAISON OFFICER, AND A PRODUCT MANAGER.

 AS SENATOR:

RECENTLY, HAVING BEEN ELECTED AS SENATOR, SHE HAS FILED A NUMBER OF BILLS, ONE OF WHICH SEEKS TO ADDRESS THE PROBLEM OF HUNGER AND POVERTY AMONG FILIPINO SCHOOL CHILDREN THROUGH THE ESTABLISHMENT OF A STANDARD LUNCH PROGRAM IN PUBLIC SCHOOLS.

 

CASE 2015-0004: OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMANVISAYAS AND EMILY ROSE KO LIM CHAO, PETITIONERS, -VERSUS – MARY ANN T. CASTRO (G.R. NO. 172637, 22 APRIL 2015, BRION, J.) BRIEF TITLE: OMBUDSMAN VS. CASTRO

 

DISPOSITIVE:

 

“WHEREFORE, premises considered, we MODIFY the decision and resolution of the Court of Appeals dated February 13, 2006 and May 2, 2006, respectively, in CA-G.R. SP No. 78933. Respondent Mary Ann. T. Castro is declared guilty of conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service and is suspended from service for six ( 6) months and one ( 1) day.

SO ORDERED.”

 

SUBJECTS/DOCTRINES/DIGEST:

 

“Conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service is classified as a grave offense with a corresponding penalty of suspension for six ( 6) months and one ( 1) day to one ( 1) year for the first offense, and the penalty of dismissal for the second offense. Since this is the first time that the respondent had committed these acts, we deem it proper to impose on her the penalty of suspension for six ( 6) months and one ( 1) day.”

 

TO READ THE DECISION, JUST CLICK/DOWNLOAD THE FILE BELOW.

 

SCD-2015-0004-APR-2015-CASTRO

NOTE: TO RESEARCH ON A TOPIC IN YAHOO OR GOOGLE SEARCH JUST TYPE “jabbulao and the topic”. EXAMPLE: TO RESEARCH ON FORUM SHOPPING JUST TYPE “jabbulao and forum shopping”.