Latest Entries »

CASE 2020-0024: BRIG. GEN. MARCIAL A. COLLAO IN HIS CAPACITY AS COMMANDING GENERAL HEADQUARTERS AND HEAD QUARTERS SUPPORT GROUP, PHILIPPINE ARMY VS. MOISES ALBANIA (G.R. NO. 228905, JULY 15, 2020, PERALTA, C. J.) (SUBJECT/S: UNLAWFUL DETAINER; REJOINDER OF PARTIES)

DISPOSITIVE:

SUBJECTS/DOCTRINES/DIGEST:

GEN. CABUSAO FILED A COMPLAINT FOR UNLAWFUL DETAINER AGAINST ALBANIA WHO WAS LESSEE IN PROPERTY OF PHILIPPINE ARMY. METC RULED IN FAVOR OF GENERAL CABUSAO. ON APPEAL RTC DISMISSED THE CASE ON THE GROUND THAT THE COMPLAINANT SHOULD BE PHILIPPINE ARMY BECAUSE GEN. CABUSAO DOES NOT STAND TO BE BENEFITED OR INJURED. IS RTC CORRECT?

NO. NON JOINDER OF INDISPENSABLE PARTY IS NOT A GROUND FOR DISMISSAL. RTC SHOULD HAVE ORDERED THE AMENDMENT OF THE PLEADINGS.

TO READ THE DECISION, JUST CLICK/DOWNLOAD THE FILE BELOW. IF FILE DOES NOT APPEAR ON SCREEN GO TO DOWNLOAD. IT IS THE FIRST ITEM. OPEN IT.

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

CASE 08: NENITA KO VS. ATTY. LADIMIR IAN G. MADURAMENTE and ATTY MERCY GRACE L. MADURAMENTE (A.C. NO. 11118 Formerly CBD Case No. 08-2140, JULY 14, 2020, PER CURIAM) (SUBJECT/S: DISBARMENT)

DISPOSITIVE:

SUBJECTS/DOCTRINES/DIGEST:

IN THIS CASE THE TWO LAWYERS WERE DISBARRED BY THE SUPREME COURT. SOME IMPORTANT LESSONS FOR LAWYERS:

FIRST, LAWYERS ARE DISCOURAGED FROM GOING INTO BUSINESS WITH CLIENTS; SECOND, NO INFLUENCE PEDDLING; THIRD, LAWYERS MUST NOT MINGLE THEIR CLIENT’S FUNDS WITH THEIR OWN FUNDS.

DO NOT ENGAGE IN BUSINESS TRANSACTIONS WITH CLIENTS

NO INFLUENCE PEDDLING:

DO NOT COMMINGLE FUNDS:

TO READ THE DECISION, JUST CLICK/DOWNLOAD THE FILE BELOW. IF FILE DOES NOT APPEAR ON SCREEN GO TO DOWNLOAD. IT IS THE FIRST ITEM. OPEN IT.

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

DISPOSITIVE:

“WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED. The Decision dated March 30, 2017 and the Resolution dated September 18, 2017 of the Court of Tax Appeals En Banc in CTA EB Nos. 1244 and 1345 are AFFIRMED.

So Ordered.”

SUBJECTS/DOCTRINES:

DKS IS PERFORMING SERVICES TO FOREIGN CLIENTS. CAN DKS CLAIM INPUT TAX CREDITS FOR THESE SERVICES.

YES. BECAUSE WHILE THESE ARE VAT ZERO RATED THEY ARE STILL VAT COVERED BUT ONLY THEIR VAT RATE IS ZERO.

WHAT ARE THE REQUIREMENTS SO DKS CAN AVAIL OF SUCH INPUT VAT CREDITS?

FIRST, DKS MUST BE VAT-REGISTERED. SECOND THE FOREIGN CLIENTS MUST BE COMPANIES REGISTERED ABROAD. THIRD THEY MUST NOT ENGAGE IN BUSINESS IN THE PHILIPPINES.

DID DKS CLAIM SUCH VAT INPUT CREDITS?

NOT ALL BECAUSE DKS FAILED TO SUBMIT PROOFS THAT ALL OF THEIR FOREIGN CLIENTS ARE NOT DOING BUSINESS IN THE PHILIPPINES.

TO READ THE DECISION, JUST CLICK/DOWNLOAD THE FILE BELOW. IF FILE DOES NOT APPEAR ON SCREEN GO TO DOWNLOAD. IT IS THE FIRST ITEM. OPEN IT.

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