RONALD BUDOMO LLB 1 Case digest for Statutory Construction Jul 19, 2012
FACTS The personalities involved: (1) Republic Flour Mills (petitioner) is a domestic corporation engaged in the manufacture of wheat flour and in the process of milling said product, produces pollard (darak) and bran (ipa); (2) Respondents are the Commisioner of Customs and the Court of Tax Appeals. The comp compla laint int:: Pe Peti titi tion oner er ques questi tion onss resp respon onde dent nts’ s’ de deci cisi sion on to charg charge e the the corp corpor orat atio ion n P7,9 P7,948 48 in whar wharfa fage ge dues dues on expo export rted ed polla pollard rd an and/ d/or or bran bran.. Petitioner paid this amount in protest. Petitioner sent the case to Court of Tax Appeals Appeals who decided decided in favour favour of responden respondentt (sustained (sustained the actions actions of the Commis Commissio sioner ner of Custom Customs). s). Petiti Petitione onerr ele elevat vated ed the ma matte tterr to the SC and requested that the decision of the Court of Tax Appeals be reviewed. Petit Petitio ioner ner clai claims ms:: Se Sect ctio ion n 2802 2802 of the the Tari Tariff ff Cu Cust stom om Code Code (whic (which h was was respondent’s basis for the collection of wharfage dues) is not applicable in the case at bar because the bran and pollard are actually not "products of the Philippines" because they came from wheat grain which were imported from abroad. ISSUES Is respondent liable for wharfage dues on its exportation of bran and pollard as they are not "products of the Philippines”? HELD The SC denied the petition; It re-affirmed the Court of Tax Appeals’ decision. Rationale: The petitioner erred in its construction of the Act. As per section 2802 of the Tariff and Custom Code, "There shall be levied, collected and paid on all articles imported or brought into the Philippines, and on products of the Philippines exported from the Philippines, a charge of two pesos per gross metric ton as a fee for wharfage. The meaning and intent of the Act is precisely to collect tariffs on anything imported and exported to and from the Philippines.
FACTS The personalities in this case: Petitioners Floresca et al are the heirs of the deceased employees of Philex Mining Corporation (hereinafter referred to as Philex), Philex), respondent respondent.. The employee employees, s, while working working at Philex’ copper copper mines underground operations at Tuba, Benguet on June 28, 1967, died as a result of the cave-in that buried them in the tunnels of the mine. The original complaint: Petitioner alleges that Philex, in violation of government rules and regulations, negligently and deliberately failed to take the required precautions for the protection of the lives of its men working underground. The case was filed at the Court of First Instance of Manila. Petitioner asks for damages as covered in the Civil Code. Respondent claims that the damages are already covered by the Workmen’s Compensation Act and an d he henc nce e the the case case shou should ld not not be trie tried d in the the said said court court (citin (citing g lack lack of jurisdictio jurisdiction). n). Said Court dismissed petitioner’s complaint for damages on grounds that it has no juri jurisd sdic icti tion on over over the the case case.. The The case case shou should ld go to the the Workm orkmen en’s ’s Compensation Commission. Petitioners then elevated the matter to the SC and asked for a review of the Court of First Instance of Manila’s decision. ISSUES 1. Whether or not the lower court erred in failing to distinguish between: Claims for damages under the Civil Code and Claims for compensation under the Workmen’s Compensation Act. 2. Does the Court of First Instance have jurisdiction over the case? 3. Can petitioner claim for damages under both the Civil Code and Workmen’s Compensation Act? HELD The Court of First Instance of Manila’s decision is reversed and set aside. The case is remanded to it for further proceedings (note: 3 justices have dissenting opinions). On issue number 1: Yes, the lower lower court failed to distinguish distinguish the claims in the correct correct manner. manner. It should have been that: a) The claim under the Workmen's Compensation Act refers to liability for compensation for loss resulting from injury, disability or death of the working man throug through h indust industria riall accide accident nt or diseas disease, e, withou withoutt reg regard ard to the fau fault lt or negligence of the employer; while
b) The claim for damages – actual, exemplary and moral - under the Civil Code (which the petitioners pursued in the regular court), refers to the employer's liabi liabilit lity y for for reckl reckles esss an and d want wanton on ne negl glig igenc ence e resul resulti ting ng in the the de deat ath h of the the employees. On issue number 2: Yes, the court has jurisdictio jurisdiction n over the case. The complaint complaint is for claims claims for damages (in the amount of P825,000) due to Philex’ negligence which resulted to the death of its workers – something that is to be adjudicated by said court as a de deci cisi sion on woul would d upho uphold ld prov provis isio ions ns in the the Civi Civill Code Code an and d not not in the the Workmen’s Compensation Act. On issue number 3: Yes the the petitio petitioner ner can. can. The petitioner actually did not indicate anything about their claims under the Workmen’s Compensation Compensation Act because they are also entitled to it. Unlike in the Civil Code, the Workmen's Compensation Act did not contain any provision for an award of actual, moral and exemplary damages. What the Act provided was merely the right of the heirs to claim limited compensation for the death of the worker plus burial expenses, and medical expenses when incurred, and an additional compensation of only 50% if the complaint alleges failure on the part of the employer to "install and maintain safety appliances or to take other precautions for the prevention of such accident".
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
