Garcia vs Mata

FACTS:On September 17, 1969 the petitioner brought an action for

"Mandamus and Recovery of a Sum of Money" in the court a quo to compel the respondents Secretary of National Defense and Chief of Staff of the Armed Forces of the Philippines to reinstate him in the active commissioned service of the Armed Forces of the Philippines, to readjust his rank, and to pay all the emoluments and allowances due to him from the time of his reversion to inactive status.

Petitioner was a reserve officer on active duty with the Armed Forces of the Philippines until his reversion to inactive status on 15 November 1960, pursuant to the provisions of Republic Act No. 2332.

June 18, 1955, the date when Republic Act No. 1382 took effect, petitioner had a total of 9 years, 4 months and 12 days of accumulated active commissioned service in the Armed Forces of the Philippines;

On July 11, 1956, the date when Republic Act 1600 took effect, petitioner had an accumulated active commissioned service of 10 years, 5 months and 5 days in the Armed Forces of the Philippines;

Petitioner's reversion to inactive status on 15 November 1960 was pursuant to the provisions of Republic Act 2334, and such reversion was neither for cause, at his own request, nor after court-martial proceedings;

From 15 November 1960 up to the present, petitioner has been on inactive status and as such, he has neither received any emoluments from the Armed Forces of the Philippines, nor was he ever employed in the Government in any capacity;

As a consequence of his reversion to inactive status, petitioner filed the necessary petition.

ISSUE:WON claims of the petitioner for his reinstatement to active

duty and payment of all emoluments and allowances violates any constitutional appropriation provision.

HELD:Non-appropriation items inserted in an appropriation measure

shall be unconstitutional, invalid and inoperative; therefore, it confers no right and affords no protection.

Paragraph 11 of Republic Act 1600 has no relevance or pertinence to the budget in question or to any appropriation item contained therein. Par. 11 refers to government policy on calling to active duty and reversion to inactive status. Id violated Art. VI, Sec. 19, Par. 2 of 1935 Constitution: embracing provisions or enactments

relating specifically to appropriation. It also violated Art. VI, Sec. 21, Par.1 which provides for bills not embracing more than one subject expressed in the title. It is meant to preclude the insertion of riders in legislation; Riders are provisions not germane to the subject matter of the bill.

Commission of Internal Revenue vs CTA

FACTS:Herein private respondent, Manila Golf & Country Club, Inc. is

a non-stock corporation. True, it maintains a golf course and operates a clubhouse with a lounge, bar and dining room, but these facilities are for the exclusive use of its members and accompanied guests, and it charges on cost-plus-expense basis. As such, it claims it should have been exempt from payment of privilege taxes were it not for the last paragraph of Section 191-A of R.A. No. 6110, otherwise known as the "Omnibus Tax Law.

Republic Act No. 6110 took effect on September 1, 1969. By this virtue, petitioners assessed the club fixed taxes as operators of golf links and restaurants, and also percentage tax (caterer's tax) for its sale of foods and fermented liquors/wines for the period covering September 1969 to December 1970 in the amount of P32, 504.96.

The club protested claiming the assessment to be without basis because Section 42 was vetoed by then President Marcos.

ISSUE:WON the vetoed Section 42 of RA 6110 by the then President

Marcos is valid.

HELD:In Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Manila Hotel

Corporation, et al., G.R. No. 83250, September 26, 1989, We overruled a decision of the Court of Tax Appeals which declared the collection of caterer's tax under Section 191-A of Republic Act No. 6110 illegal because Sec. 42 of House Bill No. 17839, which carries that proviso, was vetoed by then President Ferdinand E. Marcos when the bill was presented to him and Congress had not taken any step to override the presidential veto. We held thus:

The power of the State to impose the 3% caterer's tax is not debatable. The Court of Tax Appeals erred, however, in holding that the tax was abolished as a result of the presidential veto of August 4, 1969. It failed to examine the law then, and up to now, existing on the subject which has always imposed a 3% caterer's tax on

operators of restaurants. Since the Manila Hotel operates restaurants in its premises, it is liable to pay the tax provided in paragraph (1), Section 206 of the Tax Code. (Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Manila Hotel Corporation and the Court of Tax Appeals, G.R. No. 83250, September 26, 1989).