1 PERLAS-BERNABE RULINGS 31-40

CASE DONTRINES

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW
En Banc; Public Official; Productivity Incentive Benefits
VELASCO VS. COMMISSION ON AUDIT
681 SCRA 102, G.R. No. 189774, SEPTEMBER 18, 2012
The blatant failure of the petitioners to abide by the orders laid down in AO 161 which rationalize the grant of
productivity incentive benefits under a uniform set of rules amounts to gross negligence making them liable for
the refund of the said benefits they received.

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW
Second Division; Court Personnel
DIONISIO P. PILOT, vs. RENATO B. BARON, SHERIFF IV, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT,
BRANCH 264, PASIG CITY
681 SCRA 481, A.M. No. P-12-3087, SEPTEMBER 24, 2012
Sheriffs as ministerial officers are expected to faithfully perform what is incumbent upon him even in the
absence of instruction and respondent violated such duty when he failed to observe the proper procedure in
collecting execution expenses and conducting an execution sale.

LABOR LAW
Second Division; Termination of Employment
THE NEW PHILIPPINE SKYLANDERS, INC. and/or JENNIFER M. EÑANO-BOTE, vs.
FRANCISCO N. DAKILA
681 SCRA 658, G.R. No. 199547, SEPTEMBER 24, 2012
Dakila was illegally dismissed a day before his compulsory retirement, thus his backwages are computed only
for days prior to his retirement which is only one day, he is entitled to the payment of his retirement benefits
in accordance to the CBA and his reinstatement is no longer feasible.

TAXATION
Second Division; Tax Amnesty
ASIA INTERNATIONAL AUCTIONEERS, INC., vs. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL
REVENUE
682 SCRA 49, G.R. No. 179115, SEPTEMBER 26, 2012
CIR deems AIA to be disqualified of availing tax amnesty because AIA is a withholding agent that failed to
withhold or remit the deficiency VAT and excise tax to the BIR but the court ruled that indirect taxes like VAT
and excise tax are different from withholding taxes.

REMEDIAL LAW
Second Division; Civil Procedure; Indispensable Parties
LIVING @ SENSE, INC., vs. MALAYAN INSURANCE COMPANY, INC.,
682 SCRA 59, G.R. No. 193753, SEPTEMBER 26, 2012
The nature of the solidary obligation under the surety does not make one an indispensable party and even if
DMI was an indispensable party, failure to implead such an indispensable party is not a ground for the dismissal
of an action.