Sy Kiong v.

Sarmiento
Case No. 150
G.R. No. L-2934 (November 29, 1951)

FACTS: Petitioner is the owner of a duly licensed grocery store located in the City of Manila and an importer of
flour who sells either to bakeries or to retail dealers for purposes of retail. Sometime in September 1948, the
Treasurer of the City of Manila assessed against him the sum of 566.50php which represents the alleged
deficiency municipal license tax due from him on his gross sales of flour to bakeries after
deducting the sales made to retail dealers for purposes of resale.

ISSUE: W/N the sales of flour made by the Petitioner to bakeries to be manufactured into bread are retail or
wholesale.

HELD: The sale of flour to bakeries to be manufactured into bread and to be resold to the public, in the absence
of any express provision of law on the matter, should be treated as a sale at retail and should subject the vendor
to the retail tax law.



Floresca v. Philex Mining Corporation
Case No. 47
G.R. No. L- 30642 (April 30, 1985)

FACTS: Petitioners are the surviving family of deceased employees of Respondent Corporation who died as a
result of a cave-in while working in underground mining operations. Petitioners, with the exception of Floresca,
recovered damages under the Workmens Compensation Act. However, a later report on the accident showed
there was negligence on the part of Respondent Corporation. Thereafter, Petitioners filed a civil suit to recover
damages for Respondent Corporations reckless and wanton negligence.

ISSUE: W/N Petitioners have the right to choose between availing of the workers right under the Workmens
Compensation Act or suing in the regular courts under the Civil Code for higher damages.

HELD: Petitioners may sue in the regular courts under the Civil Code for higher damages. However, in light of
the fact that they have already recovered damages from the Workmens Compensation Act, if they are awarded
a greater amount in the regular courts, the amount received from this Act shall be deducted to prevent the
instance of double recovery. An injured party cannot pursue both courses of action simultaneously. In allowing
Petitioners to sue in regular courts, the Court stated that it did not legislate in this case but rather, applied and
gave effect to the constitutional guarantees of social justice.



De Jesus v. City of Manila
Case No. 86
G.R. No. L-9337 (December 24, 1914)
Chapter IV, Page 134, Footnote No.41

FACTS: In 1907, Petitioner bought from an original owner a piece of land in Manila which was under the
Torrens system. Apparently, the original owner incorrectly declared the size of the land. So, from 1901 1907,
the original owner was paying lesser taxes than he should have and same for Petitioner from 1907 1910. Upon
finding out that he was not paying the correct amount of taxes, Petitioner paid the taxes, fees, and interest of P2,
096.49 for the unpaid balance of the years 1901-1910.Soon after, he protested and filed an action to recover the
same amount. Petitioner was awarded P1, 649.82. Petitioner contends that the supposed taxes from before 1910
were not actually taxes because they had not yet been assessed. Taxes may not be due and payable until they are
assessed.

ISSUE: W/N Petitioner should still pay the taxes which were not assessed before.

HELD: Petitioner should only pay the taxes when he was the owner of the property.