Philippine Savings Bank v Chowking Food Corp. GR No. 177526, July 4, 2008

Facts:

Rino Manzano, acting accounting manager of Chowking, endorsed and encashed from the petitioner 5 checks amounting to a total of P556,981.86. The checks were encashed without the signatures of the other authorized officials of Chowking but was accepted and honored by Santos. Manzano misappropriated the amount and when Chowking found out it demanded reimbursement from the bank. The bank refused thus the respondent filed a complaint for the sum of money with damages. It impleaded the bank president, Antonio Abacan and the bank branch manager, Santos who in turn filed a cross claim and third party complaint against Manzano. But summon was not served to Manzano and the third party complaint was archived when Santos did not take any further action. The bank maintained it exercised due diligence in the supervision of its employees while Santos denied to be negligent on her job. Abacan invokes that the respondent does not have any cause of action against him because he has no involvement to the transaction. Santos and Abacan both contend that Chowking is estopped from claiming reimbursement and damages because of its negligence for allowing Manzano to take hold, endorse and encash its checks.

First Planters Pawnshop, Inc. v Commissioner of Internal Revenue, GR No. 174134, July 30, 2008

Facts:

The BIR informed the petitioner on its VAT and Documentary Stamp Tax (DST) deficiency for the year 2000. The petitioner protested after receiving the formal assessment notice from the BIR directing it to pay its VAT deficiencies with surcharges and interest. They contend they are not a lending investor within the scope of Section 108 (A) of the National Internal Revenue Code therefore not subject to Vat and that a pawn ticket is not subject to DST because it is not a proof of pledge of transaction. Their protest was denied by the BIR Regional Director and their appeal was likewise denied by the Court of Tax Appeal hence this petition for review.