Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 124 views

    Position Paper Stare Decisis

    Uploaded by

    Raymond Andes
    1) The Supreme Court ruled in NGCP v. Oliva (2016) that all real properties used in NGCP's franchise are exempt from real property taxes, contrary to its earlier ruling in Digitel v. City of Batangas (2008) which interpreted an identical provision differently. 2) Under the stare decisis doctrine, the NGCP ruling is still binding and its interpretation has retroactive effect from the date of NGCP's franchise, even if it was erroneous. 3) The LGU may file a petition for declaratory relief with the Supreme Court to revisit NGCP v. Oliva, but there is no guarantee it will be reversed. Any reversal would only apply prospectively from the

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Position Paper Stare Decisis

    Uploaded by

    Raymond Andes
    124 views3 pages
    1) The Supreme Court ruled in NGCP v. Oliva (2016) that all real properties used in NGCP's franchise are exempt from real property taxes, contrary to its earlier ruling in Digitel v. City of Batangas (2008) which interpreted an identical provision differently. 2) Under the stare decisis doctrine, the NGCP ruling is still binding and its interpretation has retroactive effect from the date of NGCP's franchise, even if it was erroneous. 3) The LGU may file a petition for declaratory relief with the Supreme Court to revisit NGCP v. Oliva, but there is no guarantee it will be reversed. Any reversal would only apply prospectively from the

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    1) The Supreme Court ruled in NGCP v. Oliva (2016) that all real properties used in NGCP's franchise are exempt from real property taxes, contrary to its earlier ruling in Digitel v. City of Batangas (2008) which interpreted an identical provision differently. 2) Under the stare decisis doctrine, the NGCP ruling is still binding and its interpretation has retroactive effect from the date of NGCP's franchise, even if it was erroneous. 3) The LGU may file a petition for declaratory relief with the Supreme Court to revisit NGCP v. Oliva, but there is no guarantee it will be reversed. Any reversal would only apply prospectively from the

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    124 views3 pages

    Position Paper Stare Decisis

    Uploaded by

    Raymond Andes
    1) The Supreme Court ruled in NGCP v. Oliva (2016) that all real properties used in NGCP's franchise are exempt from real property taxes, contrary to its earlier ruling in Digitel v. City of Batangas (2008) which interpreted an identical provision differently. 2) Under the stare decisis doctrine, the NGCP ruling is still binding and its interpretation has retroactive effect from the date of NGCP's franchise, even if it was erroneous. 3) The LGU may file a petition for declaratory relief with the Supreme Court to revisit NGCP v. Oliva, but there is no guarantee it will be reversed. Any reversal would only apply prospectively from the

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    You are on page 1of 3

    Position Paper

    Binding Effect of NGCP v. Oliva (2016)

    Background

    In January, this year, the undersigned wrote a position paper regarding the taxability of
    NGCP’s properties, arguing that the Supreme Court in NGCP v. Oliva (2016) erred in ruling that
    all real properties used in the exercise of NGCP’s franchise are exempt from real property taxes.

    It was submitted by the undersigned that NGCP v. Oliva is contrary to the earlier en banc
    ruling of the Supreme Court in Digitel v. City of Batangas (2008) where an identically-worded
    provision was interpreted differently, that is, only the franchise is exempt from real property
    taxes.

    Both the franchise of NGCP and the franchise of Digitel contain the same wordings so
    the Supreme Court in NGCP v. Oliva should not have departed from the principle laid down in
    Digitel v. City of Batangas.

    The Court may have erred in NGCP v. Oliva but this paper discusses the binding effect of
    the said decision.

    The Stare Decisis Doctrine

    ATTY. RAYMOND M. ANDES | CONSULTANT FOR


    PAGE 1 OF 3
    ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES
    It is the opinion of the undersigned that the NGCP case is still binding on the LGU
    despite the error. In Ting v. Velez-Ting,1 it was said that:

    The above ruling has two parts. First, any interpretation made by the Supreme
    Court of a statute constitutes a part of the said statute as of the date of its effectivity.
    Second, when the said interpretation is overruled, the new doctrine is to be applied
    prospectively, or after the promulgation of the new ruling.

    In other words, the first interpretation has retroactive effect but the second one
    can only be applied prospectively. The reason for this principle is the protection of parties
    who have relied on the old-but-mistaken interpretation in good faith.

    Application of the Stare Decisis


    Doctrine to NGCP v. Oliva

    The Stare Decisis doctrine, when applied to NGCP v. Oliva, results in the said
    case’s retroactive application in the sense that all properties used in the exercise of its
    franchise are exempted from real property taxes from the date of the effectivity of
    NGCP’s franchise until today. These properties will only be subject to real property taxes
    when the NGCP ruling is reversed or overruled.

    Inapplicability of Digitel v.
    City of Batangas

    [W]e explained that the interpretation or construction of a law by courts constitutes a part of
    the law as of the date the statute is enacted. It is only when a prior ruling of this Court is
    overruled, and a different view is adopted, that the new doctrine may have to be applied
    prospectively in favor of parties who have relied on the old doctrine and have acted in good
    faith, in accordance therewith under the familiar rule of lex prospicit, non respicit.

    1
    G.R. No. 166562, March 31, 2009.

    ATTY. RAYMOND M. ANDES | CONSULTANT FOR


    PAGE 2 OF 3
    ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES
    No doctrine or principle of law laid down by the court in a
    decision rendered en banc or in division may be modified or
    reversed except by the court sitting en banc. – 1987
    Constitution, Art. VIII, Sec. 4, Par. 3.

    The Digitel case may pertain to an identically-worded provision but the fact
    remains that it involves a different franchise, that of Digitel’s. The case of NGCP v.
    Oliva, meanwhile, involves the very franchise of NGCP.

    However, the undersigned maintains that NGCP v. Oliva is erroneous,


    considering previous rulings decided, and long-standing principles laid down, by the
    Supreme Court.

    Proposed Solution

    The LGU may institute a petition for declaratory relief with the Supreme Court.
    Declaratory reliefs are ordinarily instituted before the regional trial courts under Rule 63
    but because of the following constitutional provision –
    …the said petition must be filed before the Supreme Court. 2 However, in case of
    reversal, the decision will have retroactive effect only, that is, it will be applied beginning
    from the year after the promulgation of the decision.

    It must be noted, however, that there is no guaranty NGCP v. Oliva will be


    reversed. It is nevertheless suggested that the said case be revisited considering its
    divergence from previous rulings and doctrines.

    2
    The court mentioned in the said constitutional provision refers to the Supreme Court.

    ATTY. RAYMOND M. ANDES | CONSULTANT FOR


    PAGE 3 OF 3
    ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES

    You might also like