RSS

Monthly Archives: March 2016

Garcia v. J.G. Summit Petrochemical Corporation, G.R. No. 127925, 27 February 2007

[CARPIO-MORALES, J.]

 

FACTS

The petitioner’s motion for partial reconsideration asks this Court to rule on his contention that the transfer of the Bataan (now Luzon) Petrochemical plant site from Bataan to Batangas violates PD Nos. 949 and 1803 reserving a 576-hectare site in Limay, Bataan as a “petrochemical industrial zone” and placing it under the administration, management and ownership of the Philippine National Oil Company (PNOC).

ISSUE

Whether Presidential Decree (P.D.) Nos. 949 and 1803, the laws creating a petrochemical complex in Limay, Bataan, prohibit the establishment of a petrochemical facility outside of it.

 

HELD

NO.[P].D. Nos. 949 and 1830 do not prohibit the establishment of a petrochemical plant outside of Limay, Bataan. A meticulous perusal of the two decrees reveals that nowhere in their provisions is it stated or can it be inferred that all petrochemical plants must be established in Limay, Bataan or, stated differently, that Bataan is intended to be the only site for all petrochemical plants.What is clear then is that the law reserved an area for a petrochemical industrial zone in Bataan and that PNOC was to operate, manage and develop it. There is, however, nothing further in the law to indicate that the choice of Limay, Bataan as a petrochemical zone was exclusive.

Advertisements
 
Leave a comment

Posted by on March 5, 2016 in Case Digests, Investment Law

 

Tags: , , , ,

Toshiba Information Equipment (Phils.) Inc. v. CIR, G.R. No. 157594, 09 March 2010

[LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.]

 

FACTS

Toshiba is a domestic corporation registered with the Philippine Economic Zone Authority (PEZA) as an Economic Zone (ECOZONE) export enterprise.It filed two separate applications for tax credit/refund of its unutilized input VAT payments. The CIR denied the application. On appeal, the CTA ruled that Toshiba is entitled to the credit/refund of the input VAT paid on its purchases of goods and services relative to such zero-rated export sales. The Court of Appeals reversed the decision of the CTA in the petition for review stating that Toshiba is a tax exempt entity under R.A. No. 7916 thus not entitled to refund the VAT payments made in the domestic purchase of goods and services.

ISSUE

Is Toshiba entitled to VAT refund?

 

HELD

YES.Such export sales took place before October 15, 1999, when the old rule on the VAT treatment of PEZA-registered enterprises still applied. Under this old rule, it was not only possible, but even acceptable, for Toshiba, availing itself of the income tax holiday option under Section 23 of Republic Act No. 7916, in relation to Section 39 of the Omnibus Investments Code of 1987, to be subject to VAT, both indirectly (as purchaser to whom the seller shifts the VAT burden) and directly (as seller whose sales were subject to VAT, either at ten percent [10%] or zero percent [0%])

 
 

Tags: , , , ,

Phillips Seafood (Philippines) Corp. v. The Board of Investment, G.R. No. 175787, 04 February 2009

[TINGA, J.]

 

FACTS

Phillips Seafood is a domestic corporation engaged in the export of processed crabmeat and seafood products. Respondent BOI informed petitioner that the ITH previously granted would be applicable only to the period from 13 August 1999 to 21 October 1999 or before petitioner’s transfer to a “not less-developed area.” Petitioner wrote respondent BOI requesting for a reconsideration of its decision but was denied.petitioner filed a petition for review before the Court of Appeals, questioning the dismissal of its appeal before the Office of the President. The appellate court dismissed the petition for review for having been filed out of time as petitioner opted to appeal to the Office of the President instead of filing a Rule 43 petition to the Court of Appeals within the reglementary period.

 

ISSUE

Is the decision of the BOI denying the ITH appealable to the Office of the President or to the Court of Appeals?

 

HELD

It is to the latter.

[P]etitioner should have immediately elevated to the Court of Appeals the denial by respondent BOI of its application for an ITH. From the letter dated 09 October 2003 of respondent BOI, which informed petitioner that its ITH would be extended only from 13 August 1999 to 21 October 1999, petitioner appealed to the Office of the President, a recourse that is not sanctioned by either the Rules of Civil Procedure or by the Omnibus Investments Code of 1987.

 
Leave a comment

Posted by on March 5, 2016 in Case Digests, Investment Law

 

Tags: , ,

Garcia v. The Board of Investments, et al., G.R. No.88637, 07 September 1989

[GRINO-AQUINO, J.]

FACTS

Congressman Garcia assails the approval by the Board of Investments (BOI) and the Department of Trade and Industry (DTI) of the amended application for registration of the Bataan Petrochemical Corporation (BPC), which seeks to transfer the site of its petrochemical complex from Bataan, the original situs of choice, to the province of Batangas. The BPC’s original application for registration was published in Philippine Daily Inquirer but the amended application, changing the site from Bataan to Batangas, was not.

ISSUE

Is there still a need to publish the amended application in a newspaper of general circulation?

 

HELD

YES. The law requires the “publication of applications for registration,” hence, the payment of publication and other necessary fees … prior to the processing and approval of such applications (Art. 7, subpar. 3, Omnibus Investments Code).Since the BPC’s amended application (particularly the change of location from Bataan to Batangas) was in effect a new application, it should have been published so that whoever may have any objection to the transfer may be heard. The BOI’s failure to publish such notice and to hold a hearing on the amended application deprived the oppositors, like the petitioner, of due process and amounted to a grave abuse of discretion on the part of the BOI.

 

 
Leave a comment

Posted by on March 5, 2016 in Case Digests, Investment Law

 

Tags: , ,