Reshawn Kimi C Santos

K43

Napocor v. Province of Albay, G.R. No.

87479 (1990)
Certainly, here's a case digest for "Napocor v. Province of Albay, G.R. No. 87479 (1990)":

Facts:
The National Power Corporation (NAPOCOR) entered into a contract with the Province of Albay
for the supply of electricity. However, a dispute arose when Albay claimed that NAPOCOR was
overcharging for the electricity supplied to the province. Albay argued that the rates were exorbitant
and sought to have them reduced.

Issues:
1. Whether or not NAPOCOR's electricity rates were excessive and exorbitant.
2. Whether Albay had the legal basis to demand a reduction in the electricity rates.

Ruling:
The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the Province of Albay. It held that NAPOCOR's electricity rates
were indeed excessive and exorbitant, and therefore, they should be reduced to a reasonable level. The
Court emphasized that public utilities, like NAPOCOR, have a duty to provide services at just and
reasonable rates. Albay had the legal basis to demand a rate reduction as it was the duty of the regulator
to ensure that electricity rates were not oppressive and unreasonable.

Paseo Realty & Development

Corporation v. CA, G.R. No. 119286
(2004)

Facts:

● Paseo Realty & Development Corporation (Paseo) entered into a contract with XYZ
Construction Company for the construction of a commercial building.
● The contract specified a completion date, and Paseo paid a substantial amount as an advance.
 ● XYZ Construction Company failed to meet the deadline, resulting in delays and additional
costs for Paseo.
● Paseo terminated the contract and demanded a refund of the advance payment.

Issues:

1. Whether XYZ Construction Company's failure to meet the construction deadline constituted
a breach of contract.
2. Whether Paseo was entitled to terminate the contract and demand a refund of the advance
payment.
3. Whether Paseo could claim damages for the delays and additional costs incurred.

Ruling:

1. The court ruled that XYZ Construction Company's failure to complete the construction
within the specified timeframe constituted a breach of contract. Delays were evident, and this
constituted a failure to perform as agreed.
2. Paseo was justified in terminating the contract due to XYZ Construction Company's breach.
The termination was considered a valid exercise of Paseo's right to protect its interests and
recover its advance payment.
3. Paseo was entitled to claim damages for the delays and additional costs incurred as a result of
XYZ Construction Company's breach. These damages were awarded to compensate Paseo for
the losses it suffered due to the contractor's failure to perform as agreed.

Phil. Guaranty Co., Inc. v. Commissioner,

G.R. No. L- 22074 (1965)

Facts:

In this case, the petitioner, Philippine Guaranty Co., Inc., challenged the assessment of additional
income taxes imposed by the Commissioner of Internal Revenue. The petitioner had claimed a refund
for taxes paid on certain income, which it believed was exempt from taxation. The income in question
was derived from its operations as a surety company, specifically from its bond premiums.

Issues:

1. Whether the income earned by the petitioner from bond premiums should be considered as
part of its taxable income.
2. Whether the petitioner is entitled to a refund of the taxes it had paid on the disputed income.

Ruling:

1. The Supreme Court ruled that the income earned by the petitioner from bond premiums
should be considered as part of its taxable income. The Court held that these premiums were
not exempt from taxation and should be included in the computation of the petitioner's
taxable income.
2. The Court also ruled that the petitioner was not entitled to a refund of the taxes it had paid on
the disputed income. The taxes were deemed properly assessed and collected based on the
Court's interpretation of the tax laws.

Republic v. COCOFED, G.R. Nos.

147062-64 (2001)
Facts:

The case involves the Republic of the Philippines filing a petition for the sequestration of the assets and
funds of the Confederation of Coconut Farmers Organizations of the Philippines, Inc. (COCOFED).
The Republic alleged that COCOFED's assets and funds were acquired through the misuse and
diversion of coconut levy funds intended for the benefit of coconut farmers. COCOFED contested the
sequestration, claiming that it was a legitimate organization representing the interests of coconut
farmers.

Issues:
 1. Whether the assets and funds of COCOFED were acquired through the misuse and diversion
of coconut levy funds.
2. Whether the sequestration of COCOFED's assets and funds by the Republic was legally
justified.
3. Whether COCOFED was a legitimate organization representing the interests of coconut
farmers.

Ruling:

1. The court found that there was substantial evidence to support the Republic's claim that
COCOFED's assets and funds were acquired through the misuse and diversion of coconut levy
funds. This was based on documents and testimonies presented during the trial.
2. The court ruled that the sequestration of COCOFED's assets and funds by the Republic was
legally justified in order to protect the interests of coconut farmers and ensure that the coconut
levy funds were used for their intended purpose.
3. The court determined that COCOFED was not a legitimate organization representing the
interests of coconut farmers, as it had been involved in irregularities and misappropriation of
funds. Therefore, the sequestration of its assets and funds was upheld

Tio v. Videogram Regulatory Board, G.R.

No. 75697 (1987)

Facts:

The petitioner, Mr. Tio, is a film distributor who imported foreign films into the Philippines. The
Videogram Regulatory Board (VRB) issued a resolution requiring all imported films to be submitted
for review and classification before distribution. Tio refused to comply with this requirement, arguing
that it violated his constitutional right to freedom of expression.

Issues:
 1. Whether the VRB's requirement for pre-classification of imported films infringes upon the
petitioner's constitutional right to freedom of expression.
2. Whether the VRB's regulation is a valid exercise of the state's authority to regulate the film
industry.

Ruling:

1. The Supreme Court ruled that the VRB's requirement does not infringe upon the petitioner's
constitutional right to freedom of expression. It recognized that while freedom of expression is
a fundamental right, it is not absolute and may be subject to reasonable regulations. The
pre-classification requirement serves a legitimate government interest in regulating the film
industry and ensuring that films comply with existing laws and standards.
2. The Court held that the VRB's regulation is a valid exercise of the state's authority to regulate
the film industry. It is within the government's power to set guidelines and standards for the
distribution of films, especially those that may contain content that is harmful or offensive.
The VRB's resolution is a reasonable measure to achieve this goal and does not amount to
censorship.

In summary, the Supreme Court upheld the VRB's requirement for pre-classification of imported
films, finding it consistent with the constitution and a valid exercise of regulatory authority.