Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1924 > February 1924 Decisions > G.R. No. 21186 February 27, 1924 - FREDERICK C. FISHER v. WENCESLAO TRINIDAD

045 Phil 751:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

FIRST DIVISION

[G.R. No. 21186. February 27, 1924. ]

FREDERICK C. FISHER, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. WENCESLAO TRINIDAD, Collector of Internal Revenue, Defendant-Appellant.

Attorney-General Villa-Real for Appellant.

Fisher, DeWitt, Perkins & Brady and Johns R. McFie, jr., for Appellee.

SYLLABUS


LEGAL EFFECT OF WITHDRAWAL OF PROTEST. — Where an income tax is paid under protest, and pending an action brought to recover the money paid, the protestant withdraws his protest, in the absence of a counterclaim, the legal effect of the withdrawal is to dismiss the action and leave the parties in the same situation as if no protest was ever made.

STATEMENT

October 19, 1920, the plaintiff, a resident of the City of Manila, filed a complaint against the defendant as Collector Internal Revenue, in which he alleged that he was a shareholder in the Philippine-American Drug Company, a domestic corporation; that in the year 1919, he received from the drug company certificates of shares of the par value of P24,800, as his proportionate share of a stock dividend, duly and lawfully declared by the company; that the defendant erroneously and unlawfully, and against the will and protest of the plaintiff, required him to pay an income tax on such stock dividend in the amount of P899.91; that the plaintiff paid the tax under protest, and made a written demand upon the defendant for its return, which was refused, and plaintiff prays for judgment for the amount, with interest and costs.

A demurrer was filed to the complaint upon the ground that it "does not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action," which was sustained by the trial court, and the plaintiff, refusing to plead further, the complaint was dismissed. From which ruling the plaintiff appealed to this court where the decision of the lower court was reversed by this court, 1 and the case was remanded to the lower court for further proceedings not inconsistent with the opinion.

The defendant filed an answer, denying all of the material allegations of the complaint, and as a further and special defense, alleged that the stock dividend in question "represented and was accrued to the said Philippine-American Drug Company since March 1, 1913, and distributed by said corporation among its stockholders;" that the par value of the stock "did not exceed the amount of the earnings and profits actually earned by the corporation;" and that by reason thereof the defendant levied the tax in question, which was paid under protest.

The case was tried and submitted upon an agreed statement of facts, and the court rendered judgment in favor of the plaintiff for the amount of P899.91, without interest and costs, from which decision the defendant appeals, contending:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"I. The court below erred in holding that the Philippine Legislature had no power to tax a stock dividend as income in an income tax law.

"II. The court below erred in not passing on the constitutional question raised.

"III. The court below erred in rendering judgment for the plaintiff."


D E C I S I O N


JOHNS, J. :


December 14, 1923, after the appeal was perfected, the plaintiff wrote the defendant a letter in which he said:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"Please be advised that I hereby withdraw the protest heretofore made by on the 30th day of March, 1920, in connection with income tax in the amount of P899.91 assessed by you on shares of the Philippine-American Drug Company of the par value of P24,800."cralaw virtua1aw library

This was later confirmed by another letter addressed to this court stating in substance that the plaintiff had withdrawn and did not rely upon his protest because he had since sold the stock in question. Notwithstanding that fact, the Attorney-General insists upon a decision by this court on the merits, and in particular as to the constitutionality of the law and the legal right of the defendant to levy and collect the tax in question.

The plaintiff contends that the record now presents a moot case, and for such reason there is nothing left for this court to decide. That contention must be sustained. The payment of the money under protest was the basis of plaintiff’s action, without which it could not be sustained. His protest is not withdrawn. The legal effect of it is to withdraw his complaint and to place the whole matter in the same position as if no protest had ever been made. It must be conceded that in the absence of a protest the action could not be maintained. In other words, the plaintiff is now in court seeking to recover money which was not paid under protest. It is true that the plaintiff obtained judgment against the defendant in the lower court, but in legal effect the withdrawal of the protest was a waiver of all of plaintiff’s rights under that judgment. For such reason, there is nothing left for this court to decide.

Without passing upon the merits of the question involved or the constitutionality of the act or the right of the defendant to levy the tax in question, the judgment of the lower court is reversed, and plaintiff’s complaint is dismissed, with judgment for costs in both this and the lower court against the plaintiff and in favor of the defendant. So ordered.

Araullo, C.J., Johnson, Street, Malcolm, Avanceña, Ostrand, and Romualdez, JJ., concur.

Endnotes:



1. Fisher v. Trinidad, 43 Phil., 973.




Back to Home | Back to Main




















chanrobles.com





ChanRobles On-Line Bar Review

ChanRobles Internet Bar Review : www.chanroblesbar.com

ChanRobles MCLE On-line

ChanRobles Lawnet Inc. - ChanRobles MCLE On-line : www.chanroblesmcleonline.com






February-1924 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. L-20813 February 2, 1924 - JULIA HASEMEYER v. PNB

    046 Phil 909

  • G.R. No. 19495 February 2, 1924 - HONRION LASAM v. FRANK SMITH

    045 Phil 657

  • G.R. No. 21700 February 5, 1924 - LA COMPANIA GENERAL DE TABACOS DE FILIPINAS v. GOVERNMENT OF THE PHIL.

    045 Phil 663

  • G.R. No. 21196 February 6, 1924 - ONG GUAN CAN v. CENTURY INSURANCE CO.

    045 Phil 667



  • G.R. No. 21271 February 7, 1924 - ISIDRO PENSADER, ET AL. v. ALEJANDRA PENSADER, ET AL.

    047 Phil 959


  • G.R. No. 21051 February 7, 1924 - SEE KIONG PHA v. TI BUN LAY

    045 Phil 670

  • G.R. No. 21244 February 7, 1924 - MIGUEL VELASCO Y CUARTERONI v. REMEDIOS VISMANOS

    045 Phil 675

  • G.R. No. 21074 February 9, 1924 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. BUDA SINGH

    045 Phil 676

  • G.R. No. 21127 February 9, 1924 - ALFONSO DEL CASTILLO v. SHANNON RICHMOND

    045 Phil 679

  • G.R. No. 21280 February 9, 1924 - VICENTE E. REYES v. HENRY W. ELSER

    045 Phil 685



  • G.R. No. 20832 February 11, 1924 - TOMAS CABIGAO v. PETRONA LIM

    050 Phil 844


  • G.R. No. 21026 February 13, 1924 - PHIL. NATIONAL BANK v. MANUEL ERNESTO GONZALEZ

    045 Phil 693

  • G.R. No. 21491 February 15, 1924 - LEONOR VILLGRACIA v. FERNANDO SALAS

    045 Phil 700

  • G.R. No. L-21119 February 19, 1924 - A. MALUENDA & CO. v. GERTRUDIS V. ENRIQUEZ, ET AL.

    046 Phil 916

  • G.R. No. 20870 February 21, 1924 - HIJOS DE I. DE LA RAMA v. JOSE SAJO

    045 Phil 703

  • G.R. No. 21106 February 21, 1924 - TIU SIUCO v. SIMEON HABANA

    045 Phil 707

  • G.R. No. 21087 February 23, 1924 - JULIA MILLAN v. RIO Y OLABARRIETA

    045 Phil 718

  • G.R. No. L-21151 February 25, 1924 - RAMON J. FERNANDEZ v. FERNANDO VERGEL DE DIOS, ET AL.

    046 Phil 922

  • G.R. No. 20923 February 25, 1924 - LIM SIENGCO v. LO SENG

    045 Phil 732

  • G.R. No. 21017 February 25, 1924 - JOSE YAP SIONG v. DEE TIM

    045 Phil 739

  • G.R. No. 21382 February 25, 1924 - HAWAIIAN PHILIPPINE CO. v. JOSE E. HERNAEZ

    045 Phil 746

  • G.R. No. 21186 February 27, 1924 - FREDERICK C. FISHER v. WENCESLAO TRINIDAD

    045 Phil 751

  • G.R. Nos. 21168-21170 February 29, 1924 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. TRINIDAD G. DE LARA Y REYES

    045 Phil 754