Latest Posts

Tuesday, April 26, 2016

Do you have a crush?


I'll tell you mine then your turn later.

I like his brutal frankness.

I like his sense of integrity.

I like the way he writes.

I like his sarcasm.

I like his inability to smile.

I like his selflessness.

Most of all, I like his Intelligence.

How about you? Was there a time you admired someone just because of your interactions on a site or because of how he/she writes? What are some of the things you like about him/her?
read more...

Sunday, April 24, 2016

She only wanted a love letter

He always knew that she's the most frugal person in the entire planet and that they would fight if he'll spend on a thing not considered a necessity. One of the things he loved about her, aside from the facts that she's not after his money, marriage or visa. He knows that she's capable of buying anything she needs because she's financially independent.

But he wants to give her something for New Year. Given the personality of the girl, he just asked what she wants for New Year. She said love letter. She never received a love letter from anyone. Again, the guy's feelings for the girl got deeper.

He wrote a love letter on New Year's Eve while at work. When the letter reached the girl's place, she kept on crying and held the love letter like a precious cargo.

She kept it and read it every time she misses him.

Would you prefer receiving love letters than any gift of value from your significant other?
read more...

Tuesday, April 19, 2016

Both are beyond happy

It was an online long distance relationship. During their first month, they fought on a daily basis. Both are stubborn introverts. After 30 days, she broke up with him by sending him an email attaching a 2-page breakup letter. He sent his response attaching a same length answer to the breakup letter. The guy still wanted them to be friends no matter what. She said yes. Though they talked 4 times since the breakup, all were plainly on a professional level lasting for 5 minutes.

She kept on stalking him. He likewise did the same. Both focused on their respective works. But in truth and in fact, they used the work to keep them from getting lonely, sad and frustrated. With the breakup, both learned a lot of lessons on how to accept one's quirks.

After 3 months, they finally had a long serious talk. They finally saw each other again in skype and cried. They missed each other. They never stopped loving, caring and thinking of each other. No one ventured out into the dating scene. It was not difficult for both of them to reconcile because the reason for the breakup has nothing to do with cheating. They are just both stubborn individuals.

Now, they are both together again though not physically together. There are no more rules. They'll just go with the flow. Rules made their one- month relationship in the past a hell. Now, they're changing the rules to no more rules. The guy told the girl that he's getting a tattoo. The girl said it's fine with her.

Also, there are plans to meet and more.

I hope these two people will still end up together though they are both introverts and they met each other through a dating site.
read more...

Tuesday, April 12, 2016

Do you display or use your phones in public places or when inside public utility vehicles?

I live in a place where crimes are rampant. It's just annoying to see people holding, displaying, and using their gadgets and high-end phones in public places, more so in public utility vehicles. Some people complain of thieves and robbers around but they don't help in minimizing crimes in their place.

Devices can be kept inside our bags. Assuming the person doesn't have one, why is there a need to hold or display them in public places/public utility vehicles when our pants/jeans/shirt have pockets where they could keep their phones?

I am under the impression that these people just want to show off to the detriment of their co-passengers. Worst, they give phone snatchers a chance to do the crime.
read more...

Thursday, March 03, 2016

University of Immaculate Conception vs National Labor and Relations Commission (NLRC) [GR No. 181146, January 26, 2011]

FACTS:Teodora Axalan is a regular faculty member in the University of the Immaculate Conception holding the position of Associate Professor II. Aside from being a regular faculty member, Axalan is the elected President of the Employees' Union from 18 November to 22 November 2002. Axalan attended a seminar in Quezon City on website development. Axalan then received a memorandum from Dean Maria Rosa Celestial asking her to explain in writing why she should not be dismissed for having been absent without official leave. Axalan claimed that she held online classes while attending the seminar. She explained that she was under the impression that faculty members would not be marked absent even if they were not physically present in the classroom as long as they conducted online classes. From 28 January to 3 February 2003, Axalan attended a second seminar in Baguio City on advanced paralegal training on which dates Axalan was absent. An Ad Hoc Grievance Committee was created, and upon its recommendation Axalan was suspended for a year for her AWOL charges. On 1 December 2003, Axalan filed a complaint against the University for illegal suspension and constructive dismissal in the Labor Arbiter. The University moved to dismiss on the ground that the Labor Arbiter had no jurisdiction over the subject matter of the complaint. The university maintained that jurisdiction lay in the voluntary arbitrator.

ISSUE: Whether or not the labor arbiter has jurisdiction in the case at bar

RULING: No. Although Article 217 of the Labor Code states that unfair labor practices and termination disputes fall within the original and exclusive jurisdiction of the Labor Arbiter. Article 262 of the same Code provides the exception. For the exception to apply, there must be an agreement between the parties clearly conferring jurisdiction to the voluntary arbitrator. Such agreement may be stipulated in a collective bargaining agreement. However, in the absence of a collective bargaining agreement, it is enough that there is evidence on record showing that the parties have agreed to resort to voluntary arbitration. As can be gleaned from the transcript of stenographic notes of the administrative hearing held on 20 February 2003, the parties in this case clearly agreed to resort to voluntary arbitration.
read more...

Tuesday, March 01, 2016

Marc II Marketing, Inc. vs. Alfredo M. Joson [GR No. 171993, December 12, 2011]

FACTS: Respondent Alfredo Joson was the General Manager, incorporator, director and stockholder of Marc II Marketing (petitioner corporation). Before petitioner corporation was officially incorporated, respondent has already been engaged by petitioner Lucila Joson, in her capacity as President of Marc Marketing Inc., to work as the General Manager of petitioner corporation through a management contract.

However, petitioner corporation decided to stop and cease its operation wherein respondent's services were then terminated. Feeling aggrieved, respondent filed a Complaint for Reinstatement and Money Claim against petitioners before the Labor Arbiter which ruled in favor of respondent. The National Labor and Relations Commission (NLRC) reversed said decision. The Court of Appeals (CA) however, upheld the ruling of the Labor Arbiter. Hence, this petition.

ISSUE: Whether or nor the Labor Arbiter has jurisdiction over the controversy at bar

RULING: Yes. While Article 217(a) 229 of the Labor Code, as amended, provides that it is the Labor Arbiter who has the original and exclusive jurisdiction over cases involving termination or dismissal of workers when the person dismissed or terminated is a corporate officer, the case automatically falls within the province of the Regional Trial Court (RTC). The dismissal of a corporate officer is always regarded as a corporate act and/or an intra-corporate controversy.

In conformity with Section 25 of the Corporation Code, whoever are the corporate officers enumerated in the by-laws are the exclusive officers of the corporation and the Board has no power to create other officers without amending first the corporate by-laws. However, the Board may create appointive positions other than the positions of the corporate officers, but the persons occupying such positions are not considered as corporate officers within the meaning of Section 25 of the Corporation Code and are not empowered to exercise the functions of the corporate officers, except those functions lawfully delegated to them. Their functioning and duties are to be determined by the Board of Directors/Trustees.

In the case at bar, the respondent was not a corporate officer of petitioner corporation because his position as General Manager was not specifically mentioned in the roster of corporate officers in its corporate by-laws. Thus respondent, can only be regarded as its employee or subordinate official. Accordingly, respondent's dismissal as petitioner corporation's General Manager did not amount to an intra-corporate controversy. Jurisdiction therefore properly belongs with the Labor Arbiter and not with the RTC.
read more...

Monday, February 29, 2016

Commissioner of Internal Revenue (CIR) vs Kudos Metal Corporation

FACTS: CIR assessed Kudos Metal Corporation for taxable year 1998. A Waiver of the Statute of Limitations was executed on December 2001. The Court of Tax Appeals (CTA) issued a Resolution cancelling the assessment notices issued against petitioner for having been issued beyond the prescriptive period as the waiver purportedly failed to (a) have the valid officer execute the same (i.e., only the Assistant Commissioner signed it and not the CIR); (b) the date of acceptance was not indicated; (c) the fact of receipt by the taxpayer was not indicated in the original copy.

ISSUE: Whether or not the CIR's right to assess has prescribed

RULING: Yes. The requirements for a valid waiver as laid down in Revenue Memorandum Order No. (RMO) 20-90 and RDAO No. 5-01 are mandatory to give effect to Section 222 of the Tax Code. Specifically, the flaws in the waiver executed by Kudos Metal were as follows: (a) there was no notarized written authority in favor of the signatory for the company; (b) there is no stated date of acceptance by the Commissioner or his representative; and (c) the fact of the receipt of the copy was not indicated in the original waivers.

Neither can it be said that by merely executing the waiver the taxpayer is already estopped from disputing an action by the CIR beyond the statutory three (3) year period since the exception under the Suyoc case (i.e., when the delays were due to taxpayer's acts) does not apply.

Note: Requisites of a valid waiver: (i) acceptance date; (ii) expiry date; (iii) signed date by authorized officer of taxpayer and Bureau of Internal Revenue (BIR); (iv) notarized; (v) fact of receipt must be indicated in the copies

read more...

Wednesday, February 24, 2016

Fluor Daniel vs Commissioner of Internal Revenue (CIR)

FACTS: Fluor Daniel was initially assessed for deficiency Expanded Withholding Tax (EWT) on its software maintenance fees paid to an offshore affiliate. In response to petitioner's protest, the Commissioner of Internal Revenue (CIR) issued a Final Decision on Disputed Assessment (FDDA) cancelling the deficiency EWT but issuing an assessment for Final Withholding Tax (FWT) on the same software fees albeit using a lower 15% rate under the RP-US Tax Treaty.

ISSUE:
Whether or not petitioner was deprived of due process when the FDDA changed the assessment from deficiency EWT to deficiency FWT

RULING: Yes. The change of the assessment in the FDDA itself constituted a new assessment. As such, the taxpayer should have given the chance to dispute the same via the process laid down in the Tax Code which is by way of filing a protest. Given that this is was not complied with and what was issued was already an FDDA, the circumstances certainly deprived the petitioner of a reasonable opportunity to be heard and submit evidence in support of its defense which is a clear violation of due process requirements.
read more...

Tuesday, February 23, 2016

Accenture, Inc. vs Commissioner of Internal Revenue (CIR)

FACTS: Accenture filed a Value-Added Tax (VAT) claim for refund on unutilized input VAT premised on its claim that its sales were zero-rated for being in connection with services rendered to non-resident recipients. The Commissioner of Internal Revenue (CIR) denied the claim stating that Accenture failed to prove that its foreign clients did business outside the Philippines.

ISSUE: Whether or not Accenture is entitled to the VAT refund

RULING: No. Accenture failed to prove that services were rendered for non-residents. The Amex case did not rule that the services to recipients need not be doing business outside the Philippines but only that the consumption need not be abroad. However, Accenture failed to prove that the clients/service recipients are doing business outside the Philippines as they only submitted the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) certifications showing that their clients have not established any branch offices in the Philippines and billing statements issued to the said clients. The Court ruled that while it did prove that its clients are foreign, there was no proof that they were doing business outside the Philippines.
read more...

KEPCO vs Commissioner of Internal Revenue (CIR)

FACTS: KEPCO filed a claim for refund of unutilized input Value-Added Tax (VAT) based on its zero-rated sale of power to NPC. A substantial portion of the claim was disallowed for having been supported by VAT invoices which only had the TIN-VAT stamped and not imprinted. There were also certain sales by KEPCO which failed to indicate the words “zero-rated.” Lastly, they also alleged that invoices and receipts are interchangeable and either should suffice as proof of purchase and consequently as support for a claim for refund.

ISSUE: Whether or not petitioner is entitled to the claim for refund on the disallowed portion

RULING: No. The requirement that the Tax Identification Number (TIN) be imprinted and not merely stamped is a reasonable requirement imposed by the Bureau of Internal Revenue (BIR). More importantly, the requirement of the appearance of the words “zero-rated” on the face of the invoice prevents buyers from falsely claiming input VAT from their purchases when no VAT was actually paid. The failure to adhere to the said rules will not only expose the taxpayer to penalties but should also serve to disallow the claim. Finally, the Court disagreed with the portion that invoices and receipts are interchangeable since the former clearly refer to  sale of goods while the latter to services.

read more...

Monday, February 22, 2016

Medicard Philippines, Inc. vs. Commissioner of Internal Revenue (CIR)

FACTS: Petitioner provides services to its members by arranging for the provision by the affiliated hospitals and clinics of medical and/or hospital services. They also provide, on their own, medical and laboratory services and only endorse to the hospitals those that are beyond the competence of the doctors hired by petitioner. For their services, petitioner is compensated in either of two ways – Cost-Plus Program (CPP) which is an administrative expense over and above the covered expenses of the members or Standard Corporate Program which imposes management fee of 20% of the total premiums paid. For both cases, petitioner claims that the amounts eventually paid to the affiliated doctors and hospitals are just funds held in trust and earmarked for such purpose and should not form part of its gross receipts for VAT purposes as the same do not redound to their benefit.

ISSUE: Whether or not petitioner is liable for VAT on the amounts which are paid by it to its affiliate doctors and hospitals

RULING: Yes. The Court distinguished this from the earlier case of Tours Specialists Inc.where the payments for hotel lodging by tourists where turned over/paid to travel agents just for the convenience and economy of the said tourists. In short, the travel agents merely accommodated the tourists and they (agents) had nothing to do with the contract between the tourists and the hotels. This is different in the case of HMOs since all the moneys are paid to them lump sum in exchange for the provision of medical services. Thus, the arrangement negates the concept of “money in trust.” Neither can the regulation stating that “amounts earmarked for payment to unrelated 3rd parties” are excluded from the gross receipts be used as basis since it is not the members who are obligated to the doctors and hospitals but it is actually the HMOs since the contractual vinculum is between them (HMO and hospitals).
read more...