Dissension in the Court: June 2011

The following relates to select decisions promulgated by the High Court in June 2011 where at least one Justice felt compelled to express his dissent from the decision penned by the ponente.

1.         Informed Consent (Villarama vs. Carpio)

In essential issue in the case of Dr. Rubi Li vs. the Spouses Reynaldo and Lina Soliman was whether or not Dr. Li, a medical oncologist, should be held liable for damages on account of medical malpractice.  According to the majority decision penned by Justice Martin S. Villarama, Jr., the answer is no.  According to the dissenter, Justice Antonio T. Carpio, the answer is yes.

Sometime in July 1993, Angelica Soliman, the 11-year old daughter of Reynaldo and Lina Soliman, was diagnosed with a highly malignant form of bone cancer that usually afflicts teenage children.  This condition required Angelica’s leg to be amputated.  To eliminate any remaining cancer cells, minimize the chances of recurrence and prevent the disease from spreading to other parts of Angelica’s body, chemotherapy was suggested and eventually, Angelica was referred Dr. Li.

In August of 1993, Angelica was administered the first cycle of the chemotherapy regimen.  However, 11 days later, Angelica passed away.

The Soliman spouses filed an action for damages against Dr. Li, claiming, among other things, that Dr. Li had assured them that Angelica would recover in view of 95% chance of healing with chemotherapy.  And that wwhen they had inquired about side effect, they claim that Dr. Li mentioned only slight vomiting, hair loss and weakness. Angelica had, however, suffered far greater side effects from the chemotherapy and accordingly, the Solimans claimed that they would not have given their consent to chemotherapy had petitioner not falsely assured them of its side effects.

June 2011 Philippine Supreme Court Decisions on Tax Law

Here are selected June 2011 rulings of the Supreme Court of the Philippines on tax law:

National Internal Revenue Code

National Internal Revenue Code; irrevocability of option to carry-over excess income tax payments. The last sentence of Section 76 of the National Internal Revenue Code, stating that “[o]nce the option to carry-over and apply the excess quarterly income tax against income tax due for the taxable quarters of the succeeding taxable years has been made, such option shall be considered irrevocable for that taxable period and no application for cash refund or issuance of a tax credit certificate shall be allowed therefor,” is clear in its mandate. Once the corporation exercises the option to carry-over and apply the excess quarterly income tax against the tax due for the taxable quarters of the succeeding taxable years, such option is irrevocable for that taxable period. Having chosen to carry-over the excess quarterly income tax, the corporation cannot thereafter choose to apply for a cash refund or for the issuance of a tax credit certificate for the amount representing such overpayment. Commissioner of Internal Revenue vs. Mirant (Philippines) Operations, Corporation, G.R. No. 171742; Mirant (Philippines) Operations, Corporation vs. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, G.R. No. 176165; June 15, 2011.

National Internal Revenue Code; requisites for claiming tax credit or refund of creditable withholding taxes. The requisites for claiming a tax credit or a refund of creditable withholding tax are as follows: (1) the claim must be filed with the Commissioner of Internal Revenue within the two-year period from the date of the payment of the tax; (2) it must be shown on the return that the income received was declared as part of the gross income; and (3) the fact of withholding must be established by a copy of a statement duly issued by the payor to the payee showing the amount paid and the amount of the tax withheld. Commissioner of Internal Revenue vs. Mirant (Philippines) Operations, Corporation, G.R. No. 171742; Mirant (Philippines) Operations, Corporation vs. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, G.R. No. 176165; June 15, 2011.

May 2011 Philippine Supreme Court Decisions on Criminal Law and Procedure

Here are selected May 2010 rulings of the Supreme Court of the Philippines on criminal law and procedure:

1. CRIMINAL LAW

Conspiracy; proof. Conspiracy requires the same degree of proof required to establish the crime — proof beyond reasonable doubt. Thus, mere presence at the scene of the crime at the time of its commission without proof of cooperation or agreement to cooperate is not enough to constitute one a party to a conspiracy. Michael San Juan y Cruz v. People of the Philippines, G.R. No. 177191, May 30, 2011.

Continued crimes; foreknowledge to prove single intent. Petitioner’s theory, fusing his liability to one count of Grave Threats because he only had “a single mental resolution, a single impulse, and single intent” to threaten the Darongs assumes a vital fact: that he had foreknowledge of Indalecio, Diosetea, and Vicente’s presence near the water tank in the morning of 8 April 1999. The records, however, belie this assumption. Moreover, petitioner went to the water tank not to execute his “single intent” to threaten Indalecio, Diosetea, and Vicente but to investigate a suspected water tap. Not having known in advance of the Darongs’ presence near the water tank at the time in question, petitioner could not have formed any intent to threaten any of them until shortly before he inadvertently came across each of them. Petitioner’s theory holds water only if the facts are altered – that is, he threatened Indalecio, Diosetea, and Vicente at the same place and at the same time. Santiago Paera v. People of the Philippines, G.R. No. 181626, May 30, 2011.

May 2011 Philippine Supreme Court Decisions on Legal and Judicial Ethics

Here are selected May 2011 rulings of the Supreme Court of the Philippines on legal and judicial ethics:

Court personnel; gross dishonesty and gross misconduct. It is the clerks of court’s duty to faithfully perform their duties and responsibilities as such “to the end that there was full compliance with function, that of being custodians of the court’s funds and revenues, records, properties and premises.”  They are the chief administrative officers of their respective courts. It is also their duty to ensure that the proper procedures are followed in the collection of cash bonds. Clerks of court are officers of the law who perform vital functions in the prompt and sound administration of justice. Their office is the hub of adjudicative and administrative orders, processes and concerns. Thus, the unwarranted failure to fulfill these responsibilities deserves administrative sanction and not even the full payment of the collection shortages will exempt the accountable officer from liability. By failing to properly remit the cash collections constituting public funds, Recio violated the trust reposed in her as disbursement officer of the Judiciary.  Her failure to explain satisfactorily the fund shortage, and to restitute the shortage and fully comply with the Court’s directives leave us no choice but to hold her liable for gross neglect of duty and gross dishonesty. Office of the Court Administrator v. Recio, A.M. No. P-11-2932. May 30, 2011

Court personnel; duty of sheriff. A court sheriff’s act of distorting the facts in his Officer’s Return during the implementation of a writ issued by a trial court is a matter that remains within the supervisory control of the court. The alleged errors committed by the court’s ministerial officers, like the respondent sheriff, should be correctible by the court. The alleged irregularities should have been brought first to the RTC for its resolution. The same is true with the writ of possession itself. It was the judge’s responsibility as the writ was issued by the court. The respondent sheriff’s duty, it must be stressed, is only to implement the writ and this duty is ministerial. Maylas v. Esmeria, A.M. No. P-11-2932. May 30, 2011

Dissension in the Court: April 2011

The following is a summary of a recent decision promulgated by the High Court in April 2011 where one Justice felt compelled to express his dissent from the decision penned by the ponente.

1.         Negligence or No Negligence? (Carpio-Morales vs. Bersamin)

On April 13, 2011, the Supreme Court issued its ruling in the case of Ocean Builders Construction Corp. and/or Dennis Hao vs. Spouses Antonio and Anicia Cubacub.  Justice Conchita Carpio-Morales penned the majority decision.  Although the decision was rendered by the Supreme Court from the cool comforts of its Baguio City summer sanctuary, Justice Lucas Bersamin opted to turn up the heat as sole dissenter.

Ocean Builders, of which petitioner Dennis Hao was general manager, employed Bladimir Cubacub as a maintenance man.  On April 9, 1995, Bladimir fell ill to chicken pox as a result of which Hao advised him to rest for three days, which Bladimir promptly did at the company’s barracks.  Three days later, according to the ponente, Bladimir proceeded with his usual chores of manning the gate of the company premises and even cleaned company vehicles.

Apparently still not feeling well, he asked a co-worker to accompany him to his house in the province of Tarlac.  Upon being informed of this request, Hao gave Bladimir P1,000.00 and instructed Bladimir’s co-worker to instead bring Bladimir to the nearest hospital.  Thus, on April 12, 1995, Bladimir was taken to the Caybiga Community Hospital, a primary-care hospital around one kilometer away from the office of the company, and in which Bladimir was confined.

At the request and suggestion of the attending physician, Bladimir’s parents, respondent spouses Antonio and Anicia Cubacub, together with a friend, Dr. Hermes Frias, arrived at the hospital the following day and transferred Bladimir to the Quezon City General Hospital (QCGH) where he was placed in the intensive care unit.  Bladimir died the following day, April 14, 1995.

The death certificate issued by the QCGH recorded Bladimir’s immediate cause of death as cardio-respiratory arrest and the antecedent cause as pneumonia. On the other hand, the death certificate issued by Dr. Frias recorded the causes of death as cardiac arrest, multiple organ system failure, septicaemia and chicken pox.

Around four months after Bladimir’s death, his parents filed a tort action for damages before the Regional Trial Court of Tarlac alleging that Hao was guilty of negligence which resulted in the deterioration of Bladimir’s condition leading to eventual his death.

April 2011 Philippine Supreme Court Decisions on Tax Law

Here are selected April 2011 rulings of the Supreme Court of the Philippines on tax law:

National Internal Revenue Code; irrevocability of option to carry-over excess income tax payments. When the taxpayer opted to carry over its unutilized creditable withholding tax from 1997 to taxable year 1998, the carry-over could no longer be converted into a claim for tax refund because of the irrevocability rule provided in Section 76 of the National Internal Revenue Code of 1997. Thereby, the taxpayer became barred from claiming the refund. Commissioner of Internal Revenue vs. PL Management International Philippines, Inc., G.R. No. 160949, April 4, 2011.

National Internal Revenue Code; carrying-over excess income tax payments; prescription.  In view of its irrevocable choice, taxpayer remained entitled to utilize that amount of excess creditable withholding tax as tax credit in succeeding taxable years until fully exhausted. In this regard, prescription did not bar it from applying the amount as tax credit considering that there was no prescriptive period for the carrying over of the amount as tax credit in subsequent taxable years. Commissioner of Internal Revenue vs. PL Management International Philippines, Inc., G.R. No. 160949, April 4, 2011.