Sugar producers challenged a regulation that imposed VAT on raw sugar, arguing it was unconstitutional. The trial court issued an injunction against the regulation. However, a subsequent regulation restored the VAT exemption for raw sugar. The Supreme Court dismissed the case as moot due to this supervening event.
The Supreme Court dismissed the Department of Science and Technology’s (DOST) petition challenging the Commission on Audit’s (COA) disallowance of step increment differentials paid alongside longevity pay to 101 employees from 2005 to 2008. The Court ruled the petition was filed too late, as the COA’s decision had become final years earlier. Additionally, only those directly held liable under the Notice of Disallowance had the legal standing to appeal. This case underscores the importance of adhering to procedural deadlines and clarifies that government personnel cannot receive both step increments and longevity pay simultaneously.
The Supreme Court upheld the Sandiganbayan’s dismissal of graft and malversation charges against former Mexico, Pampanga Mayor Teddy Tumang and businessman William Colis. The Court found that the Office of the Ombudsman violated their right to a speedy disposition of cases due to inordinate delays in the preliminary investigation and filing of charges.
In People v. Estregan, the Supreme Court ruled that violations of procurement laws don’t automatically result in a public officer’s conviction under Section 3(e) of RA 3019. The prosecution must prove the officer’s role, evident bad faith or gross negligence, and that such actions caused undue injury or unwarranted benefits.
In Suarez Jr. y Banua v. People, the Supreme Court ruled that an accused is disqualified from plea bargaining for illegal sale of shabu if the crime involves 1.00 grams or above of the said dangerous drugs. However, failure to raise such disqualification in the pleadings before the trial and appellate courts, as well as the Supreme Court, may be deemed a waiver of such disqualification.
The Supreme Court found that Walter Manuel Prescot is a natural-born Philippine citizen, hence, he may not be legally deported. The Court found that the Oath of Allegiance executed by Prescott in 2008 when he re-acquired Philippine citizenship under Republic Act No. 9225 constitutes substantial compliance with the formal election requirements under Commonwealth Act No. 625. Further, his consistent and deliberate actions throughout his entire life evinced his loyalty, love, and fealty to the Philippines.
Prescott v. Bureau of Immigration [December 5, 2023] Read More »
In Calleja v. Executive Secretary, the Supreme Court addressed challenges to the Anti-Terrorism Act of 2020. The Court upheld most provisions but struck down the proviso “which are not intended to cause death or serious physical harm” in Section 4, deeming it unconstitutional for being overbroad and infringing on freedom of expression.
Calleja vs. Executive Secretary [December 7, 2021] Read More »
In Sobrejuanite-Flores v. Pilando, Jr., the Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of requiring psychologists seeking licensure without examination to complete 100 hours of professional education. This requirement ensures practitioners maintain updated knowledge, aligning with the Philippine Psychology Act’s standards for public safety and professional competence.
Sobrejuanite-Flores v. Pilando, Jr. [November 23, 2021] Read More »
In De Leon v. PLDT, the Supreme Court upheld PLDT’s redemption of preferred shares, ruling it lawful and compliant with the Constitution’s foreign ownership limits for public utilities. The Court also noted that the petitioner lacked sufficient interest to challenge PLDT’s corporate actions.
The Supreme Court disqualified Albay Governor Noel Rosal and Legazpi City Mayor Carmen Rosal for violating election laws. They were found guilty of releasing public funds during the election campaign period, which is prohibited under the Omnibus Election Code. This decision highlights the importance of compliance with election regulations to ensure fairness.
Rosal v. Commission on Elections [October 22, 2024] Read More »
