VERA vs.

CUEVAS

The issue in this case is WON Whether or not skimmed milk is included in the scope of Section 169 of the Tax
Code. - NO
The law provides that all condensed skimmed milk and all milk in whatever form, from which the fatty part has
been removed totally or in part, sold or put on sale in the Philippines shall be clearly and legibly marked on its immediate
containers, and in all the language in which such containers are marked, with the words, "This milk is not suitable for
nourishment for infants less than one year of age," or with other equivalent words.
In this case Private respondents herein, are engaged in the manufacture, sale and distribution of filled milk products
throughout the Philippines. The products of private respondent, Consolidated Philippines Inc. are marketed and sold under
the brand Darigold whereas those of private respondent, General Milk Company (Phil.), Inc., under the brand "Liberty;" and
those of private respondent, Milk Industries Inc., under the brand "Dutch Baby." Private respondent, Institute of Evaporated
Filled Milk Manufacturers of the Philippines, is a corporation organized for the principal purpose of upholding and
maintaining at its highest the standards of local filled milk industry, of which all the other private respondents are
members.CIR required the respondents to withdraw from the market all of their filled milk products which do not bear the
inscription required by Section 169 of the Tax Code within fifteen (15) days from receipt of the order. Failure to comply will
result to penalties. Section 169 talks of the inscription to be placed in skimmed milk wherein all condensed skimmed milk
and all milk in whatever form, from which the fatty part has been removed totally or in part, sold or put on sale in the
Philippines shall be clearly and legibly marked on its immediate containers, and in all the language in which such containers
are marked, with the words, "This milk is not suitable for nourishment for infants less than one year of age," or with other
equivalent words.The CFI Manila ordered the CIR to perpetually restrain from requiring the respondents to print on the
labels of their product the words "This milk is not suitable for nourishment for infants less than one year of age.". Also, it
ordered the Fair Trade Board to perpetually restrain from investigating the respondents related to the manufacture/sale of
their filled milk products.
Therefore, Section 169 of the Tax Code is not applicable to filled milk. The use of specific and qualifying terms
"skimmed milk" in the headnote and "condensed skimmed milk" in the text of the cited section, would restrict the scope of
the general clause "all milk, in whatever form, from which the fatty pat has been removed totally or in part."Following
ejusdem generis, the provision specifically stated skimmed milk which implies a restriction in scope of the classes of milk.

DE LA FUENTE vs. DE VEYRA

The issue in this case is WON the CFI has jurisdiction over complaint for the release of the vessel which is the subject of a seizure and
forfeiture proceedings before the Collector of Customs. – NO
The law provides that It is well-settled that the exclusive jurisdiction over seizure and forfeiture cases vested in the Collector of Customs
precludes a CFI from assuming cognizance over such cases. The Collector of Customs constitutes a tribunal when sitting in forfeiture proceedings
beyond the interference of the CFI Moreover, on grounds of public policy, it is more reasonable to conclude that the legislators intended to divest the CFI
of the prerogative to replevin a property which is a subject of a seizure and forfeiture proceedings for violation of the Tariff and Customs Code.
Otherwise, actions for forfeiture of property for violation of Customs laws could easily be undermined by the simple device of replevin
In this case M/V Luck Star I was caught in the act of smuggling cigarettes by the Coast Guard off the coast of Zambales. The Collector of
Customs issued a warrant of seizure and detention against the vessel and the cigarettes. The owners of the ship and the cigarettes went to the CFI to seek
the release of the ship and the cigarettes. CFI issued an order wherein they were gonna allow the filing of a bond to secure the release of the vessel. With
their MR denied, the Collector of Customs et al. filed a petition for certiorari and prohibition in the SC. SC ruled the exclusive jurisdiction over seizure
and forfeiture cases vested in the Collector of Customs precludes a CFI from assuming cognizance over such cases. The remedy is by appeal to the
Commissioner of Customs, and then to the CTA
Therefore, petition is hereby granted. The questioned orders of the respondent court are set aside.

CARINO vs. COMMISSION ON HUMAN RIGHTS

The issue in this case is WON CHR has the power to adjudicate alleged human rights violations.- NO
The law provides that The most that may be conceded to the Commission in the way of adjudicative power is that it may investigate, i.e.
receive evidence and make findings of fact as regards claimed human rights violations involving civil and political rights. But fact-finding is not
adjudication, and cannot be likened to judicial function of a court of justice, or even a quasi judicial agency or official. The function of receiving
evidence and ascertaining therefrom the facts of a controversy is not a judicial function, properly speaking. To be considered such, the faculty of
receiving evidence and making factual conclusions in a controversy must be accompanied by the authority of applying the law to those factual
conclusions to the end that the controversy be decided or determined authoritatively, finally and definitely, subject to such appeals or modes of review as
may be provided by law. This function, to repeat, the Commission does not have.
In this case some 800 public school teacher, among them the 8 herein private respondents who were members of the Manila Public School
Teachers Association (MPSTA) and Alliance of Concerned Teachers (ACT) undertook “mass concerted actions” to “dramatize and highlight” their
plight resulting from the alleged failure of the public authorities to act upon grievances that had time and again been brought to the latter’s attention. The
respondents were preventively suspended by the Secretary of Education. They complained to CHR.
 Therefore, HR having merely the power to “investigate,” cannot and not “try and resolve on the merits”
(adjudicate) the matters involved in Striking Teachers HRC Case No. 90-775, as it has announced it means to do; and cannot
do so even if there be a claim that in the administrative disciplinary proceedings against the teachers in question, initiated
and conducted by the DECS, their human rights, or civil or political rights had been transgressed.

SIMON JR. vs. CHR

The issue in this case is WON the issuance of an "order to desist" within the extent of the authority and power of
the CRH
The law provides that the power and functions of the CHR to "investigate, on its own or on complaint by any part,
all forms of human rights violation, involving civil and political rights".
The "order to desist" however is not investigatory in character but an adjudicative power that the it does not possess. The
Constitutional provision directing the CHR to provide for preventive measures and legal aid services to the underprivileged
whose human rights have been violated or need protection may not be construed to confer jurisdiction on the Commission to
issue an restraining order or writ of injunction, for it were the intention, the Constitution would have expressly said so. Not
being a court of justice, the CHR itself has no jurisdiction to issue the writ, for a writ of preliminary injunction may only be
issued by the Judge in any court in which the action is pending or by a Justice of the CA or of the SC.
In this case Commission on Human Rights (CHR) issued and order, directing the petitioners "to desist from demolishing the stalls and
shanties at North EDSA pending the resolution of the vendors/squatters complaint before the Commission" and ordering said petitioners to appear
before the CHR. Petitioner filed a motion to dismiss questioning CHR's jurisdiction and supplemental motion to dismiss was filed on September 18,
1990 stating that Commissioners' authority should be understood as being confined only to the investigation of violations of civil and political rights,
and that "the rights allegedly violated in this case were not civil and political rights, but their privilege to engage in business". CHR issued and Order
denying petitioners' motion and supplemental motion to dismiss. And petitioners' motion for reconsideration was denied also in an Order, dated April 25,
1991.The Petitioner filed a a petition for prohibition, praying for a restraining order and preliminary injunction. Petitioner also prayed to prohibit CHR
from further hearing and investigating CHR Case No. 90-1580, entitled "Ferno, et.al vs. Quimpo, et.al".
Therefore, the issuance of an "order to desist" is not within the extent of authority and power of the CHR. The writ prayed for the petition is
granted. The CHR is hereby prohibited from further proceeding with CHR Case No. 90-1580.

Laguna Lake Development Authority vs. CA

The issue in this case is WON LLDA have the power and authority to issue a "cease and desist" order. - YES
The law provides that While it is a fundamental rule that an administrative agency has only such powers as are expressly granted to it by
law , it is likewise a settled rule that an administrative agency has also such powers as are necessarily implied in the exercise of its ex press
powers. In the exercise, therefore, of its express powers under its charter as a regulatory and quasi-judicial body with respect to
pollution cases in the Laguna Lake region, the authority of the LLDA to issue a "cease and desist order" is, perforce, implied. NOTE:
HOWEVER, writs of mandamus and injunction are beyond the power of the LLDA to issue.
In this case The LLDA Legal and Technical personnel found that the City Government of Caloocan was maintaining an open dumpsite
at the Camarin area without first securing an Environmental Compliance Certificate (ECC) from the Environmental Management Bureau
(EMB) of the Department of Environment and Natural Resources, as required under Presidential Decree N o. 1586, and clearance from
LLDA as required under Republic Act N o. 4850 and issued a CEASE and DESIST ORDER (CDO) for the City Government of Caloocan to stop
the use of the dumpsite.
Therefore, the petition is GRANTED. The temporary restraining order issued by the Court on July 19, 1993 enjoining the City Mayor of
Caloocan and/or the City Government of Caloocan from dumping their garbage at the Tala Estate, Barangay Camarin, Caloocan City is hereby made
permanent.