Archive for July, 2017


CASE 2017-0024–EDRON CONSTRUCTION CORPORATION AND EDMER Y. LIM VS. THE PROVINCIAL GOVERNMENT OF SURIGAO DEL SUR, REPRESENTED BY GOVERNOR VICENTE T. PIMENTEL, JR. (G.R. NO. 220211, 05 JUNE 2017, PERLAS-BERNABE, J.) (SUBJECT/S: DEFENSES NOT RAISED IN THE ANSWER DEEMED WAIVED; COMPUTATION OF INTEREST ON JUDGMENT AMOUNT) (BRIEF TITLE: EDRON CONSTRUCTION ET AL VS. PROV GOVERNMENT OF SURIGAO DEL SUR)

 

 DISPOSITIVE:

  

“WHEREFORE, the petition is GRANTED. The Decision dated November 26, 2014 and the Resolution dated September 8, 2015 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No. 99539 are hereby REVERSED and SET ASIDE. Accordingly, the Decision dated December 28, 2010 and the Order dated September 16, 2011 of the Regional Trial Court of Quezon City, Branch 77 in Civil Case No. Q-08-63154 are hereby REINSTATED with MODIFICATION, in that respondent the Provincial Government of Surigao Del Sur, represented by Governor Vicente T. Pimentel, Jr., is liable to petitioners Edron Construction Corporation and Edmer Y. Lim for the amounts of: (a) ?4,326,174.50 plus legal interest of twelve percent (12%) per annum, computed from first demand on June 20, 2000 to June 30, 2013, and six percent (6%) per annum from July 1, 2013 until finality of the Decision; (b) PS0,000.00 as attorney’s fees; and (c) the costs of suit. Furthermore such amounts shall earn an additional six percent ( 6%) per annum from finality of the Decision until fully paid.

 

SO ORDERED.”

  

SUBJECTS/DOCTRINES/DIGEST:

 

THE COURT OF APPEALS REVERSED RTC GRANTING RELIEF TO PETITIONER BECAUSE PETITIONER FAILED TO SUBMIT A CERTAIN SWORN AFFIDAVIT THAT WORKERS ARE PAID ETC PURSUANT TO CONTRACT. BUT SUCH GROUND WAS NOT RAISED IN THE ANSWER OF RESPONDENT BUT IN A MOTION TO DISMISS FILED MUCH LATER. IS CA CORRECT?

 

CA IS WRONG.

 

ANY DEFENSE NOT RAISED IN THE ANSWER IS DEEMED WAIVED PURSUANT TO THE RULES OF COURT.

 

In the instant case, a judicious review of the records reveals that respondent’s Answer with Counterclaim31 dated January 6, 2009 did not raise as an issue or as a defense petitioners’ non-execution of the sworn statement pertained to in Paragraph 4.3, Article IV of the construction agreements. In fact, such matter was only raised in its Motion to Dismiss32 filed more than a year later after the Answer, or on May 24, 2010, to support the ground relied upon in the said Motion, which is failure to state a cause of action. However, it must be pointed out that the Motion and the arguments supporting it can no longer be considered since it was filed out of time as Section 1, Rule 16 of the Rules of Court explicitly provides that motions to dismiss should be filed “[w]ithin the time for but before the filing the answer to the complaint or pleading asserting a claim.” More importantly, such matter/ defense raised in the motion does not fall within the exceptions laid down in Section 1, Rule 9 of the Rules of Court. As such, respondent was already precluded from raising such issue/defense. Hence, the RTC cannot be faulted in: (a) issuing an Order33 dated August 11, 2010 denying the Motion to Dismiss; and (b) not including a discussion of said issue/defense in its Decision34 dated December 28, 2010 and Order35 dated September 16, 2011.

 

In light of the foregoing, the CA erred in dismissing petitioners’ complaint on a ground belatedly and improperly raised by respondent. Thus, the Court is constrained to overturn said dismissal and in tum, uphold the RTC’s finding of liability on the part of respondents, especially considering that it issued Certificates of Final Acceptance36 essentially stating that the projects were satisfactorily completed, free from major defects, and that it was formally accepting the same. As a result, respondent is hereby adjudged to be liable to petitioners in the amount of P4,326,174.50, which is the valuation of such liability according to the Presidential Flagship Committee’s valuation accepted by petitioners.

 

THE VALUATION OF LIABILITY TO PETITIONER PER GOVT COMMITTEE IS P4,326,174.50. HOW MUCH INTEREST SHALL IT EARN?

 

12% PER ANNUM COMPUTED FROM FIRST DEMAND ON 20 JUNE 2000 TO 30 JUNE 2013. THEN 6% FROM 01 JULY 2013 TO FINALITY OF DECISION. THEN SUCH SUM AND OTHER AMOUNTS AWARDED SHALL EARN INTEREST OF 6% PER ANNUM FROM FINALITY OF DECISION UNTIL FULLY PAID.

 

Finally and in line with prevailing jurisprudence, such amount shall earn legal interest of twelve percent (12%) per annum, computed from first demand on June 20, 2000 to June 30, 2013, and six percent (6%) per annum from July 1, 2013 until finality of the Decision. Said sum, as well as the other amounts awarded by the RTC (i.e., PS0,000.00 as attorney’s fees and the costs of suit) shall then earn legal interest of six percent (6%) per annum from finality of the Decision until fully paid. 37

  

TO READ THE DECISION, JUST CLICK/DOWNLOAD THE FILE BELOW. THEN OPEN YOUR DOWNLOAD FOLDER, LOOK FOR THE DOWNLOADED FILE AND OPEN IT.

 

SCD-2017-0024-Edron Construction Corporation and Edmer Y. Lim Vs. The Provincial Government of Surigao Del Sur, represented by Governor Vicente T. Pimentel, Jr.

 

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”.

 

 

CASE 2017-0023-REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, REPRESENTED BY THE DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS AND HIGHWAYS (DPWH) VS. SPOUSES SENANDO F. SALVADOR AND JOSEFINA R. SALVADOR (G.R. NO. 205428, 07 JUNE 2017, DEL CASTILLO, J.) (SUBJECT/S: WHO SHOULDER CAPITAL GAINS IN EXPROPRIATION PROCEEDINGS; WHEN CAN ONE CLAIM CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES IN EXPROPRIATION PROCEEDINGS) (BRIEF TITLE: REPUBLIC VS. SPOUSES SALVADOR)

 

DISPOSITIVE:

 

“WHEREFORE, we GRANT the Petition for Review on Certiorari. The Decision dated August 23, 2012 and the Order dated January 10, 2013 of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 270, Valenzuela City, in Civil Case No. 175-V-11, are hereby MODIFIED, in that the award of consequential damages is DELETED. fa addition, spouses Senando F. Salvador and Josefina R. Salvador are hereby ORDERED to pay for the capital gains tax due on the transfer of the expropriated property.

 

SO ORDERED.”

 

SUBJECTS/DOCTRINES/DIGEST:

 

IN EXPROPRIATION PROCEEDINGS, WHO SHOULDERS THE CAPITAL GAINS TAX?

 

IT IS THE SELLER. CAPITAL GAINS TAX IS A TAX ON PASSIVE INCOME. THUS THE SELLER IS LIABLE TO SHOULDER THE TAX.

 

“This is clearly an error. It is settled that the transfer of property through expropriation proceedings is a sale or· exchange within the meaning of Sections 24(D) and 56(A)(3) of the National Internal Revenue Code, and profit from the transaction constitutes capital gain.32 Since capital gains tax is a tax on passive income, it is the seller, or respondents in this case, who are liable to shoulder the tax.33’

 

In fact, the Bureau of Internal Revenue (BIR), in BIR Ruling No. 476-2013 dated December 18, 2013, has constituted the DPWH as a withholding agent tasked to withhold the 6’% final withholding tax in the expropriation of real prope1ty for infrastructure projects. 11ms, as far as the government is concerned, the capital gains tax in expropriation proceedings remains a liability of the seller, as it is a tax on the seller’s gain from the sale of real property.34

 

WHEN IS CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES AWARDED IN EXPROPRIATIATION PROCEEDINGS?

 

ONLY IF AS A RESULT OF THE EXPROPRIATION, THE REMAINING PROPERTY OF THE OWNER SUFFERS FROM IMPAIRMENT OR DECREASE IN VALUE.

 

“Besides, as previously explained, consequential damages are only awarded if as a result of the expropriation, the remaining property of the owner suffers from an impairment or decrease in value.15 In this case, no evidence was submitted to prove any impairment or decrease in value of the subject property as a result of the expropriation. More significantly, given that the payment of capital gains tax on the transfer· of the subject property has no effoct on the increase or decrease in value of the remaining property, it can hardly be considered as consequential damages that may be awarded to respondents.”

 

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

 

SCD-2017-0023-Republic of the Philippines, represented by the Department of Public Works and Highways (DPWH) Vs. Spouses Senando F. Salvador and Josefina R. Salvador

 

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”.

 

CASE 2017-0022-REP. EDCEL C. LAGMAN, ET AL. VS. EXECUTIVE SECRETARY SALVADOR C. MEDIALDEA, ET AL./EUFEMIA C. CULLAMAT, ET AL. VS. PRESIDENT RODRIGO DUTERTER, ET AL. / NORKAYA S. MOHAMAD, ET AL. VS. EXECUTIVE SECRETARY SALVADOR C. MEDIALDEA, ET AL.

 

DISPOSITIVE:

 

“WHEREFORE, the Court FINDS sufficient factual bases for the issuance of Proclamation No. 216 and DECLARES it as CONSTITUTIONAL. Accordingly, the consolidated Petitions are hereby  DISMISSED.

 

SO ORDERED.”

  

 

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

 

SCD-2017-0022-REP. EDCEL C. LAGMAN, ET AL. VS. EXECUTIVE SECRETARY SALVADOR C. MEDIALDEA, ET AL.

 

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”.