Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
Page |2
Page |3
If the plain meaning of the word is not found to be clear, resort to other aids is
availableconstrue the Constitution from what appears upon its face. The
proper interpretation, therefore, depends more on how it was understood by the
people adopting it than in the framers understanding thereof.
In case of doubt, the provision should be considered as self-executing;
mandatory rather than directory; and prospective rather than retroactive.
Page |4
Procedure
1. Proposal- generally made either directly by the Congress or by a constitutional
convention.
a. Direct legislative action- of all the members of the Congress is needed;
suited for a mere amendment or change of particular provisions only
b. Constitutional Convention- may be made by a 2/3 of all the members of
the Congress; suited if there is a need to overhaul the entire Constitution
Occena v. COMELEC: the choice of method of proposal is
discretionary upon the legislature
Imbong v. COMELEC: Congress as constituent body- may with the
concurrence of 2/3 votes call a constitutional convention; legislative
body- may pass the necessary implementing law providing the details
of the constitutional convention
c. People through Initiative- upon the petition of at least 12 per centum of
the total number of registered voters, of which every legislative district must
be represented by at least 3 percentum of the registered voters therein
(Sec. 2, Art. 17)
Position of the Constitutional Convention
Loomis
v.
Jackson:
THEORY
OF
CONVENTIONAL
SOVEREIGNTY- the constitutional convention is supreme over
the other departments of the government because the powers it
exercises are in nature of sovereign powers.
Woods Appeal: considers the constitutional convention inferior
to the other departments of the government since it is merely a
creation of the legislature.
Frantz v. Autry: the constitutional convention must be
considered independent and co-equal with the other
departments of the government.
1. Ratification- any amendment to or revision shall be valid when ratified by a
majority of the votes cast in a plebiscite held not earlier than 60 days nor later
than 90 days after the approval of such change by the Congress or the
constitutional convention or after the certification by the COMELEC of the
sufficiency of the petition under Section 2.
Staute: enacted by the chosen representatives pursuant to their
mandate
Constitution: approval will come directly from the people themselves
Page |5
Chapter 3
The Constitution and the Courts
Role of Judiciary
1. ultimate guardian of the Constitution
2. to rectify the wrong
3. sacred and solemn duty: to uphold the Constitution and the laws of the land
4. to protect the individual liberties guaranteed by the Bill of Rights
Voting (see Art. 8, Sec. 4)
Requisites of a Judicial Inquiry
1. there must be an actual case or controversy;
2. the question of constitutionality must be raised by the proper party;
3. the question of constitutionality must be raised at the earliest possible opportunity;
and
4. the decision of the constitutional question must be necessary to the determination
of the case itself.
1. Actual Case - involves a conflict of legal rights, an assertion of opposite legal
claims susceptible of judicial adjudication
-must not be moot or academic or based on extra-legal or other similar
considerations not cognizable by a court of justice
Justiciable Controvery: must be definite and concrete, touching, the legal
relations of parties having adverse legal interests; real and substantial controvery
admitting a specific relief through a decree that is conclusive in character.
request for advisory opinion: not an actual case or controversy
Page |6
Page |7
or
the
Page |8
1. Orthodox view
Norton v. Shelby: unconstitutional act- a. not a law, b. confers no
rights, c. imposes no duties, d. affords no protection, e. creates no
office; total nullity
2. Modern view- less stringent; it does not repeal, supersede, revoke or annul
the statute if it finds it in conflict with the Constitution.
Manila Motors Co. vs. Flores: due to equity, the SC relaxed the
operation of the general rule.
Partial Unconstitutionality (separability clause)
Requisites
1. the legislature is willing to retain the valid portions even if the rest of
the statute is declared illegal;
2. that the valid portions can stand independently as a separate statute.
Bar Flunkers Case: the law was sustained in so far as it amended the Rules
of Court prospectively but reducing the passing average in the bar exam was
declared unconstitutional; Rationale: encroachment upon judicial
functions.
Macalintal Case: unconstitutional- Congress interfering with COMELECs
duties.
Chapter 4
The Fundamental Powers of the State
3 Powers of the State
1. Police Power- power of the State to regulate liberty and property for the
promotion of the general welfare.
2. Power of Eminent Domain- enables the State to forcibly acquire private
property, upon payment of just compensation, for some intended public use.
3. Power of Taxation- the State is able to demand from the members of society
their proportionate share or contribution in the maintenance of the Government.
Similarities
1. They are inherent in the state and may be exercised by it without need of
express constitutional grant
2. They are not only necessary but indispensable. The State cannot continue or
be effective unless it is able to exercise them.
3. They are methods by which the State interferes with private rights.
4. They all presuppose an equivalent compensation for the private rights
interfered with.
5. They are exercised primarily by the legislature.
Differences
Police Power
Power of Eminent
Power of Taxation
Page |9
Domain
1. regulates both property affect only property of
and liberty
rights
may be exercised by
some private entities
-same with PP
4. compensation:
intangible altruistic
feeling that he has
contributed to the general
welfare
P a g e | 10
6. it is not deemed exhausted and may be exercised often as it is necessary for the
protection or the promotion of public welfare.
7. must conform to every changes of conditions
8. may sometimes use the taxing power as an implement for the attainment of a
legitimate police objective
Powell v. Pennsylvania: exorbitant tax for a margarine industry which
products are being mistaken for butter as well as massage parlors or sauna
baths if they are found to be fronts for prostitution.
Lutz v. Araneta: legitimate exercise of police power- imposition of a
special tax on sugar producers.
Association of Small Landowners v. Secretary of Agrarian Reform:
the power of eminent domain could be used as an implement of the police
power; police power- prescribe retention limits for landowners; eminent
domain- depriving such owners f whatever lands they may own in the
excess of the maximum area allowed.
Exercise of the Police Power
1. lodged primarily in the national legislature
2. by virtue of a valid delegation of legislative power, it may also be exercised by the
President and administrative boards as well as the lawmaking bodies on all
municipal levels, including the barangay
Municipal governments- exercise their power under the general welfare
clause.
3. no mandamus is available to coerce the exercise of the police power
Remedy to legislative inaction- to resort to the bar of public opinion: a
refusal of the electorate to return to the legislature members, who, in their
view, have been remiss in the discharge of their duties; political questions
Third remedies as regards to prostitution are questions that only the
legislature can decide in the exercise of its sound discretion.
The courts are powerless to intervene and compel decisive action as regards
to cigarette smoking as a cause of lung cancer.
4. the ascertainment of facts upon which the police power is to be based is a
legislative prerogative
Debatable questions are for the legislature to decide. The courts DO NOT
sit to resolve the matters on conflicting theories.
Jacobson v. Massachusetts: a convicted person cannot question the
dubious efficacy of a remedy
Tests of the Police Power
justiciable- the question of the validity of legislative enactments as
determined by the criterion of their conformity to the Constitution
1. The interests of the public generally, as distinguished from those of a particular
class, require the exercise of the police power (lawful subject); and
2. The means employed are reasonably necessary for the accomplishment of the
purpose and not unduly oppressive upon individuals (lawful means).
1. Lawful Subject- within the scope of the police power; the activity or property
P a g e | 11
pass the test of reasonableness and must conform to the safeguards embodied
in the Bill of Rights
Taxicab Operators of Metro Manila v. Board of Transportation:
phasing out taxicabs more than 6 yrs. old- to protect the riding public and
promote their comfort and convenience
Velasco v. Villegas: prohibition of barber shop operators from rendering
massage services in a separate room- to prevent immorality and enable
the authorities to properly assess license fees.
Bautista v. Junio: prohibition of heavy and extra-heavy vehicles from
using public streets on weekends and legal holidays- to conserve energy
Tio Case: Video Regulatory Board- 1. to regulate the video industry;
2.to prevent piracy, flagrant violation of intellectual property rights and
the proliferation of pornographic videotapes
Lozano v. Martinez: BP22- to preserve the integrity of the banking
system
DepEd v. San Diego: it is not enough to simply invoke the right to
quality education as a guaranty of the Constitution; one must show that
he is entitled to it because of his preparation and promise.
Sangalang v. IAC: opening of two erstwhile private roads in Bel Air
Village- to prevent traffic decongestion and for public convenience
Del Rosario v. Bengzon: Generics Act- to promote and require the use
of generic products
TeleBAP v. COMELEC: a franchise is merely a privilege; Sec. 29 of BP
Blg. 881- valid
Ople v. Torres: National Computerized Identification Reference
System- unconstitutional; it pressures the people to surrender their
privacy by giving information about themselves on the pretext that it will
facilitate the delivery of basic services.
2. Lawful Means- both the end and the means must be legitimate
Ynot v. IAC: the prohibition of the interprovincial transport of carabaos
cannot prevent the indiscriminate slaughter because they can be killed
anywhere.
castration of convicted rapist- invalid; Rationale- affront to the
integrity of the persons body as guaranteed by due process.
Integrity of the Police Power
- effective instrument for the furtherance of the public welfare
Chapter 6
Eminent Domain
Definition and Scope
-power of expropriation
- the highest and the most exact idea of property remaining in the government
that may be acquired from some public purpose through a method in the nature of a
compulsory sale to the State.
Article III, Sec. 9: Private property shall not be taken for public use without
just compensation.
P a g e | 12
P a g e | 13
Taking- may include trespass without actual eviction of the owner, material impairment
of the value of the property or prevention of the ordinary uses for which the property
was intended.
U.S v. Causby: there is no diverstiture of title rather merely an intrusion into the
superjacent rights of the owner.
Ayala de Roxas v. Vity of Manila: there must be a just compensation for the
imposition of ones property
P. v. Fajardo: a just compensation must be given to the owner affected with the
ordinance prohibiting the construction of the building which would destroy the view
of the public plaza.
NAPOCOR v. Aguirre-Paderanga: right-of-way easement falls within the ambit
of the term expropriation.
Taking may be justified under police power- aimed at improving the
general welfare, and whatever damages are sustained by the property
owners are regarded as merely incidental to a proper execution of such
power; loss- damnm obsque injuria; recompensation- altruistic feeling
special injury- if he suffers more than his aliquot part of the damages, he
will be entitled to payment of the corresponding compensation.
Richards v. Washington Terminal: if the petitioner sustained more than the
damage incurred bu the other houses in the vicinity, he is entitled to just
compensation.
Republic v. Castellvi: the just compensation shall commence during the actual
occupancy and deprivation which was in 1959; mere notice of the intention to
expropriate a particular property does not bind its owner and inhibit him from
disposing of it or otherwise dealing with it.
Requisites of Taking in Eminent Domain
1. The expropriator must enter a private property.
2. The entry must be for more than a momentary period.
3. The entry must be under warrant or color of legal authority.
4. The property must be devoted to public use or otherwise informally
appropriated or injuriously affected.
5. The utilization of the property for public use must be in such a way as to
oust the owner and deprive him of beneficial enjoyment of the property.
Amigable v. Cuenca: the owner may immediately file a complaint with the proper
court for payment of his property as the arbitrary action of the government shall
be deemed a waiver of its immunity from suit.
City Government of Quezon City v. Ericta: if it is intended for public use, then
the principle that governs is eminent domain.
Philippine Press Institute v. COMELEC: compulsory donation was a taking of
private property without payment of the just compensation required in
expropriation cases.
Public Use- any use directly available to the general public as a matter of right and not
merely of forbearance or accommodation.
res communes- subject to direct enjoyment by any and all members of the
public indiscriminately
telephone or light companies- such services are demandable as a matter of
right by any one prepared to pay for them.
P a g e | 14
Any member of the general public, as such, can demand the right to use the
converted property for his direct and personal convenience.
If the lot is transferred already, it ceases to be public property and come under
the exclusive ownership of the transferees; the promotion of social objectives is
more paramount.
slum clearance- valid object of expropriation under the modern expanded
interpretation of public use.
Province of Camarines Sur v. CA: if it is for public purpose, expropriation
can take place.
Just Compensation-full and fair equivalent of the property taken from the private
owner by the expropriator; intended to indemnify the owner fully for the loss he has
sustained as a result of the expropriation.
if it is prejudicial to rge public, it will not satisfy the requirement
of just compensation.
Knetch v. CA: owner- refers to all those who have lawful interest in the
property to be condemned, eg. mortgagee, lessee, vendee
Steps in Ascertaining Just Compensation
1. the court shall determine the actual or basic value of the property;
2. if the entire property is not expropriated, there should be added to the
basic value of the owners consequential damages after deducting there
from the consequential benefits arising from the expropriation.
3. if the consequential benefits exceed the consequential damages, these
items should be disregarded altogether as the basic value of the
property should be paid in every case/
market value- price that may be agreed upon by the parties willing but not
compelled to enter into a contract of sale.
Factors to be considered in Ascertaining Fair Market Value
1. cost of acquisition
2. current value of like properties
3. actual or potential uses
4. size, shape or location, tax declarations
consequential damages- consist of injuries directly caused on the residue of the
private property taken by reason of the expropriation
consequential benefits- must be direct and particular and not merely shared
with the rest of the properties in the area, as where there is a general appreciation
of land values because of the public use to which the condemned properties are
devoted.
EPZA v. Dulay: the court simply state the lower value of the property as
declared either by the owner or the assessor; courts still have the power and
authority to determine just compensation, independent of what is stated by
the decree and to this effect, to appoint commissioners for such purpose.
CARP Cases: revolutionary expropriation; the contention and the manner
of the just compensation provided in Sec. 18 of the CARP Law is not violative
of the Constititution; the invalidation of said section will result in the
nullification of the entire program.
P a g e | 15
P a g e | 16
the legislature
Scope
1. citizen abroad and his income earned from sources outside his State
2. all income earned in the taxing State
a. citizens or aliens
b. all immovable and tangible properties found in its territory
c. tangible property owned by persons domiciled
3. shares of stock issued by a foreign corporation
Principle
1. power to tax may include the power to destroy- if it is used validly as
an implement of the police power in discouraging and in effect ultimately
prohibiting certain things or enterprises inimical to public welfare.
2. power to tax does not include the power to destroy- if the purpose is
to raise revenues, it cannot be allowed to confiscate or destroy.
Exercise
1. it is inherent in the State
2. it may now also be exercised not only by the national legislature but also by the
local legislative bodies
3. it is pursuant to a direct authority conferred by Article X, Sec. 5 of the Constitution
4. its exercise may be reversed in proper cases specifically when it violates the due
process and equal protection clauses or the particular restriction on the power of
taxations as prescribed in Article VI, Sec. 28 of the Constitution
Due Process and Taxation
1. taxes will not be allowed if they are confiscatory except when they are intended
precisely for destruction as an instrument of the police power.
2. due process- where the tax to be collected is to be based on the value of the
taxable property, the taxpayer is entitled to be notified of the assessment
proceedings and to be heard therein on the correct valuation to be given the
property.
Equal Protection and Taxation
uniformity in taxation- means that persons or things belonging to the same
class shall be taxed at the same rate
equality in taxation- means that the tax shall be strictly proportional to the
relative value of the property
Rule- higher taxes
a. commercial or industrial lands than on residential lands
b. practitioners in urban centers than in rural areas
c. luxury items than on prime commodities
d. non-useful enterprises than on useful enterprises
e. persons with high income than on those with low income
equitable taxation- connotes that taxes should be apportioned among the
people according to their capacity to pay
Double Taxation- when additional taxes laid on the same subject by the same taxing
jurisdiction during the same taxing period and for the same purpose
P a g e | 17
Public Purpose- include even indirect public advantage or benefit; as long as some link
to the public welfare is established
Tax Exemptions
Constitutional- religious and charitable institutions
Lladoc v. CIR: gift tax- an excise tax imposed on the transfer of property by way
of gift inter vivos, the imposition of which on property used exclusively for religious
purposes does not constitute an impairment of the Constitution.
Statutory- granted in the discretion of the legislature
1. granted gratuitously
2. in pursuant to economic policy
3. General Rule- it may be validly revoked at will, with or without cause;
Exemption- granted for valuable consideration, it is deemed to partake of
the nature of a contract and obligation thereof is protected against
impairment
Casanova v. Hord: if the contract was impaired by the enactment of Section 134
of the Internal Revenue Law thereby infringing the impairment clause.
In-depth Discussion and Other Cases (Source: Ma. Luis Angeles Ramos)
In Ericta vs. City Government of Quezon City, 122 SCRA 759, the City
Government of QC was not exercising police power when they required private cemetery
owners to reserve 6% of the burial lots for paupers burial ground. The SC held that in
police power, the property to be taken is to be destroyed. The 6% are private property of
the cemetery owners. This is a taking of private property. Sec. 9, Art. III: Private
property shall not be taken for public use without just compensation.
Clearly, this is an invalid exercise of police power. The City was made to pay the
owners just compensation.
In Philippine Press Institute vs. COMELEC, 244 SCRA 272, Sec. 2 of COMELEC
Resolution No. 2772, which mandates newspapers of general circulation in every
province or city to provide free print space of not less than page as COMELEC space,
was held to be an invalid exercise of police power there being no showing of the
existence of a national emergency or imperious public necessity for the taking of print
P a g e | 18
space, nor that the resolution was the only reasonable and calibrated response to such
necessity. This was held to be an exercise of the power of eminent domain, albeit invalid,
because the COMELEC would not pay for the space to be given to it by the newspapers.
Police Power- It is the power to prescribe regulations to promote the health,
morals, peace, education, good order or safety and general welfare of the people (now
common good). (Binay vs. Domingo, 201 SCRA 508)
It has been described as the most essential, insistent and the least limitable
of powers, extending as it does to all the great public needs. It is the power vested in
the legislature to make, ordain, and establish all manner of wholesome and reasonable
laws, statutes and ordinances, either with penalties or without, not repugnant to the
Constitution, as they shall judge to be for the good and welfare of the commonwealth,
and for the subjects of the same. (Carlos Superdrug Corp. vs. DSWD, G.R.
No.166494, June 29, 2007)
Cabrera vs. Lapid, G.R. No. 129098, December 6, 2006, a careful
reading of the questioned Resolution reveals that the Ombudsman dismissed petitioners
criminal complaint because respondents had validly resorted to the police power of the
State when they effected the demolition of the illegal fishpond in question following the
declaration thereof as a nuisance per se. in the words of the Ombudsman, those who
participated in the blasting of the subject fishpond were only impelled by their desire to
serve the best interest of the general public; for the good and the highest good.
In Chavez vs. Romulo, 431 SCRA 534, the right to bear arms is merely
statutory privilege. The license to carry firearm is neither a property nor a property right.
Neither does it create a vested right. A permit to carry outside ones residence may be
revoked at any time. Even if it were a property right, it cannot be considered as absolute
as to be beyond the reach of the police power.
CANORECO vs. Torres, G.R. no. 127249, February 27, 1998, while
police power may be delegated to the President by law, RA 6939 and PD 260, as
amended, do not authorize the President or any other administrative body, to take over
the internal management of a cooperative. Accordingly, Memorandum Order No. 409,
issued by the President, constituting an ad hoc committee to temporarily take over and
manage the affairs of CANORECO is invalid.
In MMDA vs. Bel-Air Village Association, G.R. No. 135962, March 27,
2000, there is no provision in RA 7924 that empowers the MMDA or its council to enact
ordinance, approve resolutions and appropriate funds for the general welfare of the
inhabitants of Metro Manila. Thus, MMDA may not order the opening of Neptune St. in
the Bel-Air Subdivision to public traffic, as it does not possess delegated police power.
MMDA is not a special metropolitan political subdivision.
However, in MMDA vs. Garin, G.R. No. 130230, April 15, 2005, although
the law (RA 7924) does not grant the MMDA the power to confiscate and suspend or
revoke drivers licenses without need of any legislative enactment, the same law vests
the MMDA the duty to enforce existing traffic rules and regulations. Thus, where there is
a traffic law or regulation validly enacted by the legislature or those agencies to whom
legislative power has been delegated, the MMDA is not precludedand in fact is duty-
P a g e | 19
bound to confiscate and suspend or revoke drivers licenses in the exercise of its
mandate of transport and traffic management, as well as the administration and
implementation of all traffic enforcement operations, traffic engineering services and
traffic education programs.
Additional Limitations (When exercised by delegate):
a. express grant by law
b. within territorial limits (for local government units, except when exercised
to protect water supply)
c. must not be contrary to law
For municipal ordinance to be valid:
1. it must not contravene the Constitution or any statute;
2. it must not be unfair or oppressive;
3. it must not be partial or discriminatory;
4. it must not prohibit, but may regulate, trade;
5. it must not be unreasonable; and
6. it must be general in application and consistent with public policy.
In City of Manila vs. Judge Laguio, G.R. No. 118127, April 12, 2005,
the SC declared as an invalid exercise of the police power the City of Manila Ordinance
No. 7783, which prohibited the establishment or operation of businesses providing
certain forms of amusement, entertainment, services and facilities in the Ermita-Malate
area, for being contrary to the Constitution, infringing the guarantees of due process
and equal protection of the laws.
In Centeno vs. Villalon-Pornillos, 236 SCRA 197 (1994), solicitation for
religious purposes may be subject to proper regulation by the State in the exercise of
police power.
In Acebedo Optical Company, Inc. vs. CA, 329 SCRA 314 (2000), the
issuance of business licenses and permits by a municipality or city is essentially
regulatory in nature. The authority, which devolved upon local government units, to
issue or grant such licenses or permits, is essentially in the exercise of the police power
of the State within the contemplation of the general welfare clause of the LGC.
The implementation of the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law (CARL) is an
exercise of police power and the power of eminent domain. To the extent that the CARL
prescribes retention limits to the landowners, there is an exercise of police power for the
regulation of private property in accordance with the Constitution. But where, to carry
out such regulation, the owners are deprived of lands they own in excess of the
maximum area allowed, there is also taking under the power of eminent domain. The
taking contemplated is not a mere limitation of the use of the land. What is required is
the surrender of the title to and physical possession of the said excess and all beneficial
rights accruing to the owner in favor of the farmer beneficiary. The Bill of rights provides
that no person shall be deprived of life, liberty and property without due process of
law. The CARL was not intended to take away property without due process of law. The
exercise of power of eminent domain requires that due process be observed in the
taking of private property. [Roxas and Co., vs. CA, 321 SCRA 106 (1999)]
P a g e | 20
P a g e | 21
CANORECO vs. CA, G.R. No. 109338, November 20, 2000, The owner of
the property cut the electric lines alleging that it impaired him of the use of his property.
The SC held that the property owner was not justified in cutting the electric lines. His
property becomes the servient estate subject to the encumbrance, and the acquisition of
an easement of right of way filed by an electric power company for the construction of
transmission lines falls within the purview of the power of eminent domain. However,
since there was an impairment of the use of the property, he is entitled to the payment
of just compensation.
The establishment of an easement is a form of compensable taking. In
NAPOCOR vs. Sps. Gutierrez, G.R. No. 60077, January 18, 1991, the owner of the
land was awarded full compensation against the NAPOCORs argument that the owners
were not totally deprived of the use of the land and could still plant the same crops as
long as they did not come into contact with the wires. The Court said: the right of way
easement perpetually deprives defendants of their proprietary rights as manifested by
the imposition by the plaintiff upon defendants that below said transmission lines no
plant higher than 3 meters is allowed. Furthermore, because of the high-tension current
conveyed through the transmission lines, danger to life and limbs that may be caused
beneath said wires cannot altogether be discounted, and to cap it all, plaintiff only pays
the fee to defendant once, while the latter shall continually pay the taxes due on said
affected portion of their property.
In People vs. Fajardo, 104 Phil. 44, a municipal ordinance prohibiting a
building which would impair the view of the plaza from the highway was considered
taking. The property owner was held to be entitled to payment of just compensation.
In Velarma vs. CA, 252 SCRA 400, the owner of the property can recover
possession of the property from squatters, even if he agreed to transfer the property to
the Government, until the transfer is consummated or the expropriation case is filed.
PPI vs. COMELEC
Shifting argument alleged in TELEBAP: both PPI and TELEBAP are media of
communication and information. Equal protection clause was raised as an issue. The SC
ruled that equal protection clause does not guarantee absolute equality. There may be
classification. Persons or things ostensibly similarly situated may, nonetheless, be
treated differently if there is a basis for valid classification.
May eminent domain be barred by res judicata or law of the
case?- NO!
P a g e | 22
TAX
1. basis- to raise revenue
2. limitation- Rate or amount to be collected
is unlimited provided it is not confiscatory
3. object- Imposed on persons or property
4. effect of non-payment- Business or
activity does not become illegal
TAX
-due to the government in its sovereign
capacity
LICENSE
- to regulate
- Amount is limited to cost of: a)issuing the
license; and b)necessary inspection of police
surveillance
- Paid for privilege of doing something but
privilege is revocable
Business becomes illegal
DEBT
- due to the government in its corporate
capacity
Taxes cannot be subject to off-setting or compensation for the simple reason that
the government and the taxpayers are not creditors and debtors of each other. (Philex
Mining Corp. vs. CIR, 294 SCRA 687)