Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1960 > October 1960 Decisions > G.R. No. L-12401 October 31, 1960 - MARCELO STEEL CORP. v. COLLECTOR OF INTERNAL REVENUE

109 Phil 921:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

EN BANC

[G.R. No. L-12401. October 31, 1960.]

MARCELO STEEL CORPORATION, Petitioner, v. COLLECTOR OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent.

Meer, Meer & Meer for Petitioner.

Asst. Solicitor General J. P. Alejandro and Atty. S. J. Javier for Respondent.


SYLLABUS


1. TAXATION; PURPOSE OF REPUBLIC ACT No. 35; DOES NOT APPLY To TAXABLE OR NON-EXEMPT INDUSTRY IN WHICH TAXPAYER IS ALSO ENGAGED. — The purpose or aim of Republic Act No. 35 is to encourage the establishment or exploitation of new and necessary industries to promote the economic growth of the country. It is a form of subsidy granted by the Government to courageous entrepreneurs staking their capital in an unknown venture. An entrepreneur engaging in a new and necessary industry faces uncertainty and assumes a risk bigger than one engaging in a venture already known and developed. Like a settler in an unexplored land who is just blazing a trail in a virgin forest, he needs all the encouragement and assistance from the Government. He needs capital to buy his implements, to pay his laborers and to sustain him and his family. Comparable to the farmer who has just planted the seeds of fruit bearing trees in his orchard, he does not expect an immediate return on his investment. Usually loss is incurred rather than profit made. It is for these reasons that the law grants him tax exemption to lighten onerous financial burdens and reduce losses. How ever these may be, Republic Act No. 35 has confined the privilege of tax exemption only to new and necessary industries. It did not intend to grant the tax exemption benefit to an entrepreneur engaged at the same time in a taxable or non-exempt industry and a new and necessary industry, by allowing him to deduct his gain or profits derived from the operation of the first from the losses incurred in the operation of the second. Unlike a new and necessary industry, a taxable or non-exempt industry is already a going concern, deriving profits from its operation, and deserving no subsidy from the Government. It is but fair that it be required to give the Government a share in its profits in the form of taxes.

2. ID.; TAXABLE INDUSTRIES TREATED SEPARATELY FROM NEW AND NECESSARY INDUSTRIES. — The fact that a corporation is organized with a single capital that answers for all its financial obligations including those incurred in the tax exempt industries is of no moment. The intent of the law is to treat taxable or non-exempt industries as separate and distinct from new and necessary industries which are tax-exempt for purposes of taxation.


D E C I S I O N


PADILLA, J.:


This is a petition to review under section 18, Republic Act No. 1125, a judgment of the Court of Tax Appeals upholding the assessment made by the respondent for income tax due during the years 1952 and 1953 from the petitioner (C.T.A. Case No. 172).

The parties have entered into a stipulation of facts which the Court summarized as follows:clubjuris

The petitioner is a corporation duly organized and existing under and by virtue of the laws of the Philippines, with offices at Malabon, Rizal. It is engaged in three (3) industrial activities, namely, (1) manufacture of wire fence, (2) manufacture of nails, and (3) manufacture of steel bars, rods and other allied steel products. During the years 1952 and 1953, the last two mentioned industrial operations, more specifically, the manufacture of nails and the manufacture of steel bars, rods and other allied steel products, enjoyed the benefits of tax exemption under Republic Act No. 35.

On May 21, 1953, the petitioner filed an income tax return for the year 1952, reflecting a net income of P34.386.58 realized solely from its business of manufacturing wire fence, an activity which is not tax exempt, and on March 31, 1954, it filed its income tax return for the year 1953, showing a net income of P58,329.00 realized from the same sources, i.e, the manufacture of wire fence.

On the basis of the said income tax returns filed by the petitioner for the years 1952 and 1953 which did not reflect the financial results of its tax exempt business activities, the respondent assessed the total sum of P12,750.00. Accordingly, the petitioner paid the said amount assessed against it on the following dates:clubjuris

TAX YEAR Date Amount

1952 May 30, 1953 P3,458.50

1952 August 15, 1953 3,458.50

1953 May 15, 1954 5,833.00

TOTAL P12,750.00

On October 1, 1954, the petitioner filed amended income tax returns for taxable years 1952 and 1953, showing that it suffered a net loss of P871,407.37 in 1952, and P104,956.29 in 1953. The said losses were arrived at by consolidating the gross income and expenses and/or deductions of the petitioner in all its business activities, as follows:clubjuris

For the year 1952

Net income, taxable industry:clubjuris

Wire fence P34,386.58

Net loss, tax exempt industries:clubjuris

Nails (P620,722.73) —————

Steel bars (285,071.22) (905,793.95)

—————

TOTAL NET LOSS (P871,407.37)

For the year 1953

Net income, taxable industry:clubjuris

Wire fence P58,329.11

Net loss, tax exempt industries:clubjuris

Nails (P60,950.20)

Steel bars (102,335.20) (163,285.40)

TOTAL NET LOSS (P104,956.29)

On October 1, 1954, the petitioner, claiming that instead of earning the net income shown in its original income tax returns for 1952 and 1953, it sustained the losses shown in its amended income tax returns for the same years, filed its request for refund of the income taxes for the said years amounting to P12,750.00 which it allegedly erroneously paid to the Respondent.

After more than ten months of waiting without any action being taken by the respondent on the claim for refund, and in order to protect its rights under Section 306 of the National Internal Revenue Code, the petitioner, on August 13, 1955, filed with this Court the instant petition for review.

There are two issues to be resolved in this case, namely, (1) whether or not the petitioner may be allowed to deduct from the profits realized from its taxable business activities, the losses sustained by its tax exempt industries, and (2) whether or not the action for refund, with regard to the sum of P3,458.50 which was paid on May 30, 1953, has already prescribed under Section 306 of the Tax Code.

The Court of Tax Appeals held that "the petitioner cannot deduct from the profits realized from its taxable industries, the losses sustained by its tax exempt business activities, . . ." clubjuris

The duration of the petitioner’s tax exemption with respect to the manufacture of nails is from 25 June 1949 to 25 June 1953 (Exhibit 7), later adjusted to be from 11 August 1949 to 11 August 1953, and with respect to the manufacture of steel bars, rods and other allied steel products, is from 16 March 1951 to 16 March 1955 (Exhibit 6). The exemption refers to the following internal revenue taxes: the fixed and privilege tax on business, the percentage tax on the sales of manufactured products, in respect to which exemption was granted, the compensating tax on the articles, goods or materials exclusively used in the new and necessary industry, the documentary stamp tax and the income tax with respect to the net income derived from the exempt industry (Exhibits 6 and 7).

The petitioner’s theory is that since it is a corporation organized with a single capital that answers for all its financial obligations including those incurred in the tax-exempt industries, the gross income derived from both its taxable or non-exempt and tax- exempt industries, and the allowable deductions from said incomes, should be consolidated and its income tax liability should be based on the difference between the consolidated gross incomes and the consolidated allowable deductions. It relies on the provisions of section 24, Commonwealth Act No. 466, as amended, providing that "There shall be levied, assessed, collected, and paid annually upon the total net income received in the preceding taxable year from all sources by every corporation organized in, or existing under the laws of the Philippines." a graduated tax (Italics supplied), and of section 30, subsection (d), paragraph (2), of the same Act providing that in computing the net income of a corporation, all losses actually sustained by it and charged off within the taxable year and not compensated for by insurance or otherwise, are allowed as deductions.

Republic Act No. 35, the law under which the petitioner was granted tax exemption for the manufacture of nails and steel bars, rods and other allied steel products, provides:clubjuris

SECTION 1. Any person, partnership, company, or corporation who or which shall engage in a new and necessary industry shall, for a period of four years from the date of the organization of such industry, be entitled to exemption from the payment of all internal revenue taxes directly payable by such person, partnership, company, or corporation in respect to said industry.

SEC. 2. The President of the Philippines, shall, upon recommendation of the Secretary of Finance, periodically determine the qualifications that the industries should possess to be entitled to the benefits of this Act.

SEC. 3. This Act shall take effect upon its approval.

(Approved, September 30, 1946.)

The purpose or aim of Republic Act No. 35 is to encourage the establishment or exploitation of new and necessary industries to promote the economic growth of the country. It is a form of subsidy granted by the Government to courageous entrepreneurs staking their capital in an unknown venture. An entrepreneur engaging in a new and necessary industry faces uncertainty and assumes a risk bigger than one engaging in a venture already known and developed. Like a settler in an unexplored land who is just blazing a trail in a virgin forest, he needs all the encouragement and assistance from the Government. He needs capital to buy his implements, to pay his laborers and to sustain him and his family. Comparable to the farmer who has just planted the seeds of fruit bearing trees in his orchard, he does not expect an immediate return on his investment. Usually loss is incurred rather than profit made. It is for these reasons that the law grants him tax exemption — to lighten onerous financial burdens and reduce losses. However these may be, Republic Act No. 35 has confined the privilege of tax exemption only to new and necessary industries. It did not intend to grant the tax exemption benefit to an entrepreneur engaged at the same time in a taxable or non-exempt industry and a new and necessary industry, by allowing him to deduct his gains or profits derived from the operation of the first from the losses incurred in the operation of the second. Unlike a new and necessary industry, a taxable or non-exempt industry is already a going concern, deriving profits from its operation, and deserving no subsidy from the Government. It is but fair that it be required to give to the Government a share in its profits in the form of taxes.

The fact that the petitioner is a corporation organized with a single capital that answers for all its financial obligations including those incurred in the tax exempt industries is of no moment. The intent of the law is to treat taxable or non-exempt industries as separate and distinct from new and necessary industries which are tax- exempt for purposes of taxation. Section 7, Executive Order No. 341, series of 1950, issued by the President of the Philippines pursuant to section 25, Republic Act No. 35, provides:clubjuris

Any industry granted tax exemption under the provisions of Republic Act No. 35 shall report to the Secretary of Finance at the end of every fiscal year a complete list and a correct valuation of all real and personal property of its industrial plant or factory; shall file a separate income tax return; shall keep separately the accounting records relative to the industry declared exempt; shall keep such records and submit such sworn statements as may be prescribed from time to time by the Secretary of Finance; 1 (Italics supplied.)

And when Congress revised the provisions of Republic Act No. 35 by enacting into law Republic Act No. 901 it incorporated similar provisions and provided that "Any industry granted tax exemption under the provisions of Republic Act No. 35" shall "file a separate income tax return." 1

The petitioner states that it is not liable to pay income tax on its industries of manufacturing nails and steel bars, rods and other allied steel products for the reason that it had incurred loss in their operation and not because it is exempt under the provision of Republic Act No. 35. It argues that by being allowed to deduct its gains derived from the operation of its taxable or non-exempt industry of manufacturing wire fence, from the losses incurred in the operation of its tax-exempt industries of manufacturing nails and steels bars, rods and other allied steel products, it would not receive the benefit of double exemption. While the purpose of tax exemption under Republic Act No. 35 is to lighten the onerous financial burdens and reduce the losses of the entrepreneur, yet it is not designed to assure him of a return on his capital invested. As already stated, the law intended to treat taxable or non-exempt industry as separate and distinct from new and necessary industry, which is tax exempt, and did not mean to grant an entrepreneur, engaged at the same time in a taxable or non-exempt industry and a new and necessary industry, the benefit or privilege of deducting his gains or profit derived from the operation of the first from the losses incurred in the operation of the second. Moreover, aside from its exemption from the payment of income tax on its profits derived from the operation of new and necessary industries, the petitioner is exempt from the payment of other internal revenue taxes directly payable by it, such as the fixed and privilege tax on business, the percentage tax on the sales of manufactured products, in respect to which exemption is granted, the compensating tax on the articles, goods or materials exclusively used in the new and necessary industry, and the documentary stamp tax (Exhibits 6 and 7). These exemptions alone are enough to lighten its onerous financial burdens and reduce losses.

The petitioner claims that unlike the United States Internal Revenue Code which expressly forbids the deduction of —

Any amount otherwise allowable as a deduction which is allocable to one or more classes of income other than interest (whether or not any amount of income of that class or classes is received or accrued) wholly exempt from the taxes imposed by this chapter. [(Section 24 (a) (5)]

our National Internal Revenue Code does not contain a similar prohibition. When in 1939 Commonwealth Act No. 466, the National Internal Revenue Code, was enacted into law, the idea of granting tax exemption to new and necessary industries in the Philippines had not yet been thought of because there were no new and necessary industries being established or exploited. It was only in 1946, after the last World War, and after the Philippines became a sovereign nation, that the establishment or exploitation of new and necessary industries was stimulated. Hence the absence of a similar provision in our National Internal Revenue Code. This absence, however, cannot be capitalized upon by the petitioner in support of its theory. For, as already stated, when Congress enacted Republic Act No. 35 into law, it intended to segregate income derived from the operation of new and necessary industries from that derived from the operation of taxable or non-exempt industries.

For the foregoing reasons, the judgment under review is affirmed, with costs against the petitioner. .

Paras, C.J., Bengzon, Bautista Angelo, Labrador, Reyes, J.B.L., Barrera, Gutierrez David, Paredes, and Dizon , JJ., concur.

Endnotes:



1. 46 Off. Gaz. 3527, 3529.

1. Section 7.




Back to Home | Back to Main


ClubJuris.Com



October-1960 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. L-15709 October 19, 1960 - IN RE: DAMASO CAJEFE, ET AL. v. HON. FIDEL FERNANDEZ, ET AL.

    109 Phil 743

  • G.R. Nos. L-12483 & L-12896-96 October 22, 1960 - NICOLAS JAVIER, ET AL. v. ENRIQUE DE LEON, ET AL.

    109 Phil 751

  • G.R. No. L-15477 October 22, 1960 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL. v. VICTORIANO MEDRANO, SR.

    109 Phil 762

  • G.R. No. L-14111 October 24, 1960 - NARRA v. TERESA R. DE FRANCISCO, ET AL.

    109 Phil 764

  • G.R. No. L-14524 October 24, 1960 - FELIX MOLINA v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

    109 Phil 769

  • G.R. No. L-14625 October 24, 1960 - IN RE: EULOGIO ON v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

    109 Phil 772

  • G.R. No. L-15192 October 24, 1960 - PNB v. TEOFILO RAMIREZ:, ET AL.

    109 Phil 775

  • G.R. No. L-15275 October 24, 1960 - MARIANO A. ALBERT v. UNIVERSITY PUBLISHING CO., INC.

    109 Phil 780

  • G.R. No. L-16006 October 24, 1960 - PERFECTO R. FRANCHE, ET AL. v. HON. PEDRO C. HERNAEZ, ETC., ET AL.

    109 Phil 782

  • G.R. No. L-11766 October 25, 1960 - SOCORRO MATUBIS v. ZOILO PRAXEDES

    109 Phil 789

  • G.R. No. L-14189 October 25, 1960 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. EUTIQUIO YAMSON, ET AL.

    109 Phil 793

  • G.R. No. L-15233 October 25, 1960 - JUAN L. CLEMENTE v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

    109 Phil 798

  • G.R. No. L-15326 October 25, 1960 - SEVERINO SAMSON v. DIONISIO DINGLASA

    109 Phil 803

  • G.R. No. L-15502 October 25, 1960 - AH NAM v. CITY OF MANILA, ET AL.

    109 Phil 808

  • G.R. No. L-16038 October 25, 1960 - AJAX INT’L. CORP. v. ORENCIO A. SEGURITAN, ET AL.

    109 Phil 810

  • G.R. No. L-16404 October 25, 1960 - SAMPAGUITA PICTURES, INC., ET AL. v. COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS, ET AL.

    109 Phil 816

  • G.R. No. L-16429 October 25, 1960 - ALEJANDRO ABAO v. HON. MARIANO R. VlRTUCIO, ET AL.

    109 Phil 819

  • G.R. No. L-14079 October 26, 1960 - METROPOLITAN WATER DIST. v. EDUVIGES OLEDAN NIRZA

    109 Phil 824

  • G.R. No. L-14157 October 26, 1960 - NEGROS OCCIDENTAL MUNICIPALITIES v. IGNATIUS HENRY BEZORE, ET AL.

    109 Phil 829

  • G.R. No. L-14724 October 26, 1960 - VICTORINO MARIBOJOC v. HON. PASTOR L. DE GUZMAN, ETC., ET AL.

    109 Phil 833

  • G.R. Nos. L-14973-74 October 26, 1960 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JUAN CASUMPANG

    109 Phil 837

  • G.R. Nos. L-15214-15 October 26, 1960 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. FELIPE C. CRUZ, ET AL.

    109 Phil 842

  • G.R. No. L-11302 October 28, 1960 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. BENJAMIN P. AGUILAR, ET AL.

    109 Phil 847

  • G.R. No. L-12659 October 28, 1960 - ABELARDO LANDINGIN v. PAULO GACAD

    109 Phil 851

  • G.R. No. L-14866 October 28, 1960 - IN RE: ANDRES ONG KHAN v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

    109 Phil 855

  • G.R. No. L-15573 October 28, 1960 - RELIANCE SURETY & INS. CO. INC. v. LA CAMPANA FOOD PRODUCTS, INC., ET AL.

    109 Phil 861

  • G.R. No. L-17144 October 28, 1960 - SERGIO OSMEÑA, JR. v. SALIPADA K. PENDATUN, ET AL.

    109 Phil 863

  • G.R. No. L-8178 October 31, 1960 - JUANITA KAPUNAN, ET AL. v. ALIPIO N. CASILAN, ET AL.

    109 Phil 889

  • G.R. No. L-11536 October 31, 1960 - TOMAS B. VILLAMIN v. COURT OF TAX APPEALS, ET AL.

    109 Phil 896

  • G.R. No. L-11745 October 31, 1960 - ROYAL INTEROCEAN LINES, ET AL. v. COURT OF INDUSTRlAL RELATIONS, ET AL.

    109 Phil 900

  • G.R. No. L-11892 October 31, 1960 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. YAKAN LABAK, ET AL.

    109 Phil 904

  • G.R. No. L-11991 October 31, 1960 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. PORFIRIO TAÑO, ET AL.

    109 Phil 912

  • G.R. No. L-12226 October 31, 1960 - DAMASO DISCANSO, ET AL. v. FELICISIMO GATMAYTAN

    109 Phil 916

  • G.R. No. L-12401 October 31, 1960 - MARCELO STEEL CORP. v. COLLECTOR OF INTERNAL REVENUE

    109 Phil 921

  • G.R. No. L-12565 October 31, 1960 - ANTONIO HERAS v. CITY TREASURER OF QUEZON CITY

    109 Phil 930

  • G.R. No. L-13260 October 31, 1960 - LINO P. BERNARDO v. EUFEMIA PASCUAL, ET AL.

    109 Phil 936

  • G.R. No. L-13370 October 31, 1960 - IN RE: CHAN CHEN v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHILS.

    109 Phil 940

  • G.R. No. L-13666 October 31, 1960 - FORTUNATO LAYAGUE, ET AL. v. CONCEPCION PEREZ DE ULGASAN

    109 Phil 945

  • G.R. No. L-13677 October 31, 1960 - HUGH M. HAM v. BACHRACH MOTOR CO., INC., ET AL.

    109 Phil 949

  • G.R. No. L-13875 October 31, 1960 - DANIEL EVANGELISTA v. COURT OF AGRARIAN RELATIONS OF ILOILO, ET AL.

    109 Phil 957

  • G.R. No. L-13891 October 31, 1960 - JOAQUIN ULPIENDO, ET AL. v. COURT OF AGRARIAN RELATIONS, ET AL.

    109 Phil 964

  • G.R. No. L-13900 October 31, 1960 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. BLAS ABLAO, ET AL.

    109 Phil 976

  • G.R. No. L-14174 October 31, 1960 - PHILIPPINE BANK OF COMMERCE v. HIGINIO B. MACADAEG, ET AL.

    109 Phil 981

  • G.R. No. L-14362 October 31, 1960 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. HERNANI ACANTO, ET AL.

    109 Phil 993

  • G.R. No. L-14393 October 31, 1960 - COLLECTOR OF INTERNAL REVENUE v. CANTILAN LUMBER COMPANY

    109 Phil 999

  • G.R. No. L-14474 October 31, 1960 - ONESIMA D. BELEN v. BANK OF THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS, ET AL.

    109 Phil 1008

  • G.R. No. L-14598 October 31, 1960 - MARIANO ACOSTA, ET AL. v. CARMELINO G. ALVENDIA, ET AL.

    109 Phil 1017

  • G.R. No. L-14827 October 31, 1960 - CHUA YENG v. MICHAELA ROMA

    109 Phil 1022

  • G.R. No. L-14902 October 31, 1960 - COLLECTOR OF INTERNAL REVENUE v. COURT OF TAX APPEALS

    109 Phil 1027

  • G.R. No. 15086 October 31, 1960 - NARRA v. FELIX M. MAKASIAR, ETC., ET AL.

    109 Phil 1030

  • G.R. No. L-15178 October 31, 1960 - ROSENDA FERNANDEZ, ET AL. v. CATALINO V. FERNANDEZ

    109 Phil 1033

  • G.R. No. L-15234 October 31, 1960 - ANTONIO PIMENTEL v. JOSEFINA GOMEZ, ET AL.

    109 Phil 1036

  • G.R. No. L-15253 October 31, 1960 - IN RE: ODORE LEWIN v. EMILIO GALANG

    109 Phil 1041

  • G.R. Nos. L-15328-29 October 31, 1960 - RUBEN L. VALERO v. TERESITA L. PARPANA

    109 Phil 1054

  • G.R. No. L-15391 October 31, 1960 - BOARD OF DIRECTORS v. DR. LUIS N. ALANDY

    109 Phil 1058

  • G.R. No. L-15397 October 31, 1960 - FELIPE B. OLLADA v. SECRETARY OF FINANCE

    109 Phil 1072

  • G.R. No. L-15434 October 31, 1960 - DIONISIO NAGRAMPA v. JULIA MARGATE NAGRAMPA

    109 Phil 1077

  • G.R. No. L-15459 October 31, 1960 - UNITED STATES LINES COMPANY v. COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS

    109 Phil 1081

  • G.R. No. L-15594 October 31, 1960 - RODOLFO CANO v. COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS

    109 Phil 1086

  • G.R. No. L-15643 October 31, 1960 - LIGGETT & MYERS TOBACCO CORP. v. ASSOCIATED INSURANCE & SURETY CO., INC.

    109 Phil 1093

  • G.R. No. L-15695 October 31, 1960 - MATILDE GAERLAN v. CITY COUNCIL OF BAGUIO

    109 Phil 1100

  • G.R. No. L-15697 October 31, 1960 - MARIA SALUD ANGELES v. PEDRO GUEVARA

    109 Phil 1105

  • G.R. No. L-15707 October 31, 1960 - JESUS GUARIÑA v. AGUEDA GUARIÑA-CASAS

    109 Phil 1111

  • G.R. No. L-15745 October 31, 1960 - MIGUEL TOLENTINO v. CEFERINO INCIONG

    109 Phil 1116

  • G.R. No. L-15842 October 31, 1960 - DOÑA NENA MARQUEZ v. TOMAS P. PANGANIBAN

    109 Phil 1121

  • G.R. No. L-15926 October 31, 1960 - BERNABE RELLIN v. AMBROSIO CABlGAS

    109 Phil 1128

  • G.R. No. L-16029 October 31, 1960 - STANDARD VACUUM OIL COMPANY v. LORETO PAZ

    109 Phil 1132

  • G.R. No. L-16098 October 31, 1960 - ANDREA OLARTE v. DIOSDADO ENRIQUEZ

    109 Phil 1137

  • G.R. No. L-16160 October 31, 1960 - MAGDALENA SANGALANG v. PEOPLE OF THE PHIL.

    109 Phil 1140

  • G.R. Nos. L-16292-94, L-16309 & L-16317-18 October 31, 1960 - KAPISANAN NG MGA MANGGAGAWA SA MRR., CO. v. YARD CREW UNION

    109 Phil 1143

  • G.R. No. L-16672 October 31, 1960 - ASSOCIATED LABOR UNION v. JOSE S. RODRIGUEZ

    109 Phil 1152