ChanRobles™ Virtual Law Library | chanrobles.com™  
Main Index Law Library Philippine Laws, Statutes & Codes Latest Legal Updates Philippine Legal Resources Significant Philippine Legal Resources Worldwide Legal Resources Philippine Supreme Court Decisions United States Jurisprudence
Prof. Joselito Guianan Chan's The Labor Code of the Philippines, Annotated Labor Standards & Social Legislation Volume I of a 3-Volume Series 2019 Edition (3rd Revised Edition)
 

 
Chan Robles Virtual Law Library
 









 

 
UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE
 

 
PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE
 

   
May-1939 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. 45383 May 2, 1939 - MARIA V. SERAPIO v. MARIANO SERAPIO, ET AL.

    067 Phil 701

  • G.R. No. 45502 May 2, 1939 - SAPOLIN CO., INC. v. CORNELIO BALMACEDA

    067 Phil 705

  • G.R. No. 45915 May 2, 1939 - ESCOLASTICO BUENAVENTURA v. GERINO Z. LAYLAY

    067 Phil 717

  • G.R. No. 45486 May 3, 1939 - TIBURCIO SUMERA v. EUGENIO VALENCIA

    067 Phil 721

  • G.R. No. 45322 May 4, 1939 - WALTER BULL v. REDO L. YATCO

    067 Phil 728

  • G.R. No. 45524 May 4, 1939 - MUNICIPALITY OF VICTORIAS v. VICTORIAS MILLING CO., INC.

    067 Phil 733

  • G.R. No. 45969 May 4, 1939 - TAN TIAH v. Yu JOSE

    067 Phil 739

  • G.R. No. 45122 May 5, 1939 - VISAYAN SURETY & INSURANCE CORPORATION v. FRUCTUOSA TABARES

    067 Phil 743

  • G.R. No. 45496 May 5, 1939 - ROMAN CATHOLIC ARCHBISHOP OF MANILA v. EL MONTE DE PIEDAD Y CAJA DE AHORROS DE MANILA

    068 Phil 1

  • G.R. No. 45662 May 5, 1939 - JUAN GOROSTIAGA v. MANUELA SARTE

    068 Phil 4

  • G.R. No. 45889 May 5, 1939 - CRISPINO ENRIQUEZ v. PEOPLE OF THE PHIL.

    068 Phil 8

  • G.R. No. 45987 May 5, 1939 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. CAYAT

    068 Phil 12

  • G.R. No. 46405 May 6, 1939 - RAYMUNDO TRANS. CO., INC. v. PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION

    068 Phil 22

  • G.R. No. 45667 May 9, 1939 - HARRY IVES SHOEMAKER v. TONDEÑA

    068 Phil 24

  • G.R. No. 45696 May 9, 1939 - GIL BUENDIA v. VICENTE SOTTO

    068 Phil 31

  • G.R. No. 45865 May 10, 1939 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. TI YEK JUAT

    068 Phil 37

  • G.R. No. 45993 May 11, 1939 - GERONIMO SANTIAGO v. FABIAN R. MILLAR

    068 Phil 39

  • G.R. No. 45318 May 12, 1939 - JACINTO MESINA v. PETRA DELINO

    068 Phil 43

  • G.R. No. 45427 May 12, 1939 - PHIL. NATIONAL BANK v. PHIL. TRUST CO.

    068 Phil 48

  • G.R. No. 45433 May 12, 1939 - ROSARIO GONZALEZ CASTRO VIUDA DE AZAOLA v. GASTON O’FARRELL

    068 Phil 74

  • G.R. No. 45648 May 12, 1939 - DIRECTOR OF LANDS v. ANICETO ABA

    068 Phil 85

  • G.R. Nos. 46119-46121 May 12, 1939 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. IGNACIO BELTRAN

    068 Phil 90

  • G.R. No. 46584 May 13, 1939 - MARIANO MARCOS v. ROMAN A. CRUZ

    068 Phil 96

  • G.R. No. 45616 May 16, 1939 - FELICIANO SANCHEZ v. FRANCISCO ZULUETA

    068 Phil 110

  • G.R. No. 45543 May 17, 1939 - SURIGAO MINE EXPLORATION CO. v. C. HARRIS

    068 Phil 113

  • G.R. No. 46432 May 17, 1939 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. TEODORICO MARTIN

    068 Phil 122

  • G.R. No. 45924 May 18, 1939 - CELESTINO RODRIGUEZ v. EUGENIO YAP

    068 Phil 126

  • G.R. No. 45160 May 23, 1939 - JOSE GREY v. SERAFIN FABIE

    068 Phil 128

  • G.R. Nos. 45705-45707 May 23, 1939 - TEODORA DOMINGO v. MARGARITA DAVID

    068 Phil 134

  • G.R. No. 45842 May 23, 1939 - MARCARET STEWART MITCHELL MCMASTER v. HENRY REISSMANN & CO.

    068 Phil 142

  • G.R. No. 46177 May 23, 1939 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MELCHOR TAGASA

    068 Phil 147

  • G.R. No. 46437 May 23, 1939 - EUFEMIO P. TESORO v. DIRECTOR OF PRISONS

    068 Phil 154

  • G.R. No. 45213 May 24, 1939 - H. P. L. JOLLYE v. EMETERIO BARCELON

    068 Phil 164

  • G.R. No. 45486 May 24, 1939 - ASIATIC PETROLEUM CO. v. JOSEFA VALENCIA VIUDA DE MOLINA

    068 Phil 172

  • G.R. No. 45218 May 26, 1939 - CONSUELO CEMBRANO v. CARMEN PARDO DE TAVERA DE GONZALEZ

    068 Phil 175

  • G.R. No. 45446 May 25, 1939 - C. N. HODGES v. PEOPLE OF THE PHIL.

    068 Phil 178

  • G.R. No. 45530 May 25, 1939 - CHINA INSURANCE v. Y. CHONG

    068 Phil 189

  • G.R. No. 45615 May 25, 1939 - TEOFILO SINCO v. SILVESTRA TEVES

    068 Phil 200

  • G.R. No. 46000 May 25, 1939 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JOSE M. BAES

    068 Phil 203

  • G.R. No. 46024 May 25, 1939 - SOTERA ARAVEJO v. ALFONSO DORONILA

    068 Phil 210

  • G.R. No. 46078 May 25, 1939 - GREGORIA REYNOSO v. JOSE E. TOLENTINO

    068 Phil 213

  • G.R. No. 45189 May 26, 1939 - PHIL. SUGAR ESTATE DEV’T. CO., INC. v. JUAN POSADAS

    068 Phil 216

  • G.R. No. 45264 May 26, 1939 - JOSEFA CASTELLTORT v. BALBINA PASION

    068 Phil 224

  • G.R. No. 45736 May 26, 1939 - CONCEPCION LOPEZ v. ADELA LOPEZ

    068 Phil 227

  • G.R. No. 46100 May 26, 1939 - ALFREDO HIDALGO RIZAL v. JOSEFA RIZAL MERCADO

    068 Phil 231

  • G.R. No. 43585 May 27, 1939 - RIZALINA DE LA ROSA v. MAXIMIANA EDRALIN

    068 Phil 234

  • G.R. No. 45307 May 27, 1939 - COMPAÑIA GENERAL DE TABACOS DE FILIPINAS v. COLLECTOR OF INTERNAL REVENUE

    068 Phil 238

  • G.R. No. 45324 May 27, 1939 - GOVERNMENT OF THE PHIL. v. FRANCISCO ABADINAS

    068 Phil 254

  • G.R. No. 45374 May 27, 1939 - MANUEL RODRIGUES v. DANIEL TIRONA

    068 Phil 264

  • G.R. No. 45608 May 27, 1939 - JESUS AZCONA v. PACIFIC COMMERCIAL CO.

    068 Phil 269

  • G.R. No. 46248 May 27, 1939 - TIMOTEO TAROMA v. ROMAN A. CRUZ

    068 Phil 281

  • G.R. No. 45350 May 29, 1939 - BACHBACH MOTOR CO. v. ESTEBAN ICARAÑGAL

    068 Phil 287

  • G.R. No. 45121 May 31, 1939 - DEMETRIO GAMBOA v. SERAFIN GAMBOA

    068 Phil 304

  •  





     
     

    G.R. No. 45322   May 4, 1939 - WALTER BULL v. REDO L. YATCO<br /><br />067 Phil 728

     
    PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

    EN BANC

    [G.R. No. 45322. May 4, 1939.]

    WALTER BULL, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. REDO L. YATCO, Collector of Internal Revenue, Defendant-Appellee.

    Jose Rivera Yap for Appellant.

    Undersecretary of Justice Melencio for Appellee.

    SYLLABUS


    1. INTERNAL REVENUE LAW; APPEAL FROM DENIAL OF REWARD FOR COMPLAINTS AGAINST VIOLATORS OF SAID LAW. — The denial by the Collector of Internal Revenue of the claim of an informer of violations of internal-revenue laws for a reward owing to him by reason of complaints against such violators should be appealed to the Auditor General; and only when the claim is denied by said official may the informer-claimant apply to the ordinary courts of record, which shall then acquire jurisdiction to take cognizance of the moneyed claim against the Commonwealth of the Philippines.


    D E C I S I O N


    VILLA-REAL, J.:


    On February 14, 1936 Walter Bull filed with the Court of First Instance of Manila a complaint against Alfredo L. Yatco, in his capacity as Collector of Internal Revenue, in which on the facts therein alleged he prayed that said defendant be required to submit to the court the names of all merchants and purchasing firms mentioned in the complaint which the Bureau of Internal Revenue had found to have made sales under false invoices to the Simplex Trading Co., Inc., and which did not declare said sales for purposes of taxation, as well as the respective amounts of surcharge and compromise which each of them had respectively paid to the Bureau of Internal Revenue in an extrajudicial compromise of each of their respective cases, and a detailed statement of the rewards to which the said plaintiff is entitled under the law and the rules governing all questions concerning rewards; that plaintiff be declared to be entitled to the reward sought to be recovered: and that the Collector of Internal Revenue be ordered to pay to the said plaintiff the corresponding rewards, plus the costs of the suit.

    To the aforementioned complaint, defendant through the Solicitor-General, interposed a demurrer based on the ground that the Court of First Instance of Manila had no jurisdiction over the person of the defendant, for the reason that he is an agent of the government who acts in his official capacity and that this being an action for the recovery of a sum of money, the same becomes an action against the Commonwealth of the Philippines, and prayed for the dismissal of the case.

    Trial on the demurrer having been held and the parties heard, the Court of First Instance of Manila sustained the same on the ground that the Commonwealth of the Philippines has not given its consent to the bringing of the present action against it.

    From the foregoing order plaintiff has taken the instant appeal, assigning as the sole alleged error committed by the court a quo the fact that it sustained the demurrer.

    Section 2735 of the Revised Administrative Code, as amended by Act No. 3734, provides:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

    "SEC. 2735. Payment of informers. — Any person, except an internal-revenue agent or officer or other public official, who voluntarily gives definite information leading to the arrest and conviction of any one violating any of the penal provisions of the internal-revenue laws, shall be rewarded in a sum equivalent to fifty per centum of the fine imposed by the court and collected from the violator: Provided, however, That in cases in which the violator has offered ’o compromise the violation of law committed by him and his offer has been accepted by the Collector of Internal Revenue, the reward to be paid to the informer shall be fifty per centum of the amount compromised and collected from the violator, exclusive of taxes: Provided, further, That if the information furnished has led to the discovery of any delinquency or fraud in the payment of any internal-revenue tax for which the law provides penalties, the informer shall also receive a reward equivalent to fifty per centum of the penalties established by law and actually collected from the delinquent or offending taxpayer: And provided, further, That if the money paid by the delinquent taxpayer or collected by the Government by legal action or execution, is not sufficient to cover all taxes and penalties established by law and owing by the taxpayer, the informer shall receive fifty per centum of the sum so paid or collected, but he shall in no case receive more than the amount of the reward to which he is entitled under the provisions of this section: And provided, finally, That the reward provided for in this section shall be paid under regulations issued by the Collector of Internal Revenue, with the approval of the Department Head.

    "The reward herein authorized shall be paid out of the fines, compromises, and penalties established by law, collected as result of the information furnished by the informers."cralaw virtua1aw library

    In accordance with the legal provisions above quoted, the Secretary of Finance, who is the head of the Department of Finance, under whose administrative jurisdiction the Bureau of Internal Revenue is placed, promulgated the following regulation on May 12. 1931:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

    "DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE

    "REGULATIONS No. 68

    "REGULATIONS GOVERNING THE PAYMENT OF REWARD TO INFORMERS

    "MANILA, May 12, 1931

    x       x       x


    "After the final settlement of the case, the Collector of Internal Revenue will determine whether or not the informer is entitled to any reward, and, in the affirmative case, will order the corresponding warrant to be made in his favor. It is to be understood that in cases where the taxpayer effects payment of the taxes and surcharges or any other statutory penalties imposed by the internal revenue laws under protest, no reward shall be given the informer until after the protest shall have been withdrawn, the right to recover barred by statute, or the legality of the assessment or collection sustained by the courts.

    "MIGUEL UNSON

    ‘’Secretary of Finance"

    It is alleged in the complaint that plaintiff and appellant, Walter Bull, asked defendant Collector of Internal Revenue in the month of July, 1934 and thereafter to pay him the reward corresponding to him in connection with the sums collected by the Bureau of Internal Revenue from the merchants and importing houses; but said defendant refused and still refuses to pay the aforesaid reward. It does not appear that he has taken other and further steps, through administrative methods, towards the payment of his claim.

    There is no doubt that the Collector of Internal Revenue is an agent of the Government for whose authorized acts the Government responds. Consequently, any moneyed claim which may be filed against said collector, either through administrative or judicial proceedings by reason of acts performed by him, affects the Government; and the Philippine Legislature and the Constitution of the Philippines have regulated the procedure which must be followed in such cases before said Government may be sued.

    Act No. 3083 provides as follows:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

    "SECTION 1. Subject to the provisions of this Act, the Government of the Philippine Islands hereby consents and submits to be sued upon any moneyed claim involving liability arising from contract, express or implied, which could serve as a basis of civil action between private parties.

    "SEC. 2. A person desiring to avail himself of the privilege herein conferred must show that he has presented his claim to the Insular Auditor and that the latter did not decide the same within two months from the date of its presentation."cralaw virtua1aw library

    And section 3, Article X, of the Constitution, says:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

    "SEC. 3. The decisions of the Auditor General shall be rendered within the time fixed by law, and the same may be appealed to the President whose action shall be final When the aggrieved party is a private person or entity, an appeal from the decision of the Auditor General may be taken directly to a court of record in the manner provided by law."cralaw virtua1aw library

    It will be seen that before a private individual may sue the Government in a court of record on any moneyed claim involving liability arising from contract, express or implied, it is essential that it be shown; First, that the claim has been presented to the Auditor General; and second, that this official has decided the same adversely.

    It does not appear that plaintiff has appealed to the Auditor General from the denial by the Collector of Internal Revenue of his claim or reward as an informer, nor that the former has decided it against him.

    In view of the foregoing considerations, we are of the opinion and so hold that the denial by the Collector of Internal Revenue of the claim of an informer of violations of internal-revenue laws for a reward owing to him by reason of complaints against such violators should be appealed to the Auditor General; and only when the claim is denied by said official may the informer-claimant apply to the ordinary courts of record, which shall then acquire jurisdiction to take cognizance of the moneyed claim against the Commonwealth of the Philippines.

    Wherefore, the order appealed from is affirmed, with costs against the appellant. So ordered.

    Avanceña, C.J., Imperial, Diaz and Concepcion, JJ., concur.

    Separate Opinions


    LAUREL, J., concurring:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

    I concur in the result not on the theory of the by-gone doctrine of the immunity of the Government from suit, much less on the proposition that the Collector of Internal Revenue could not be sued because he acted as an agent of the Government in this case, but because under the law payment of reward under section 2735, as amended, of the Revised Administrative Code, is determined in accordance with the rules promulgated by the Collector of Internal Revenue with the approval of the Secretary of Finance. Unless the complainant shows compliance with these rules, he has no cause of action. In cases of this nature, the method contemplated is primarily of an administrative character. And assuming that this is a proper claim against the Government already acted upon by the proper authorities having jurisdiction to pass upon the same, section 3 of Article X of the Constitution outlines the procedure by which the aggrieved private person or entity may ventilate the case before the courts. No mention is here made of Commonwealth Act No. 327 because this Act should not be given any retroactive effect in the present case.

    Moran, J., concur in the result.

    G.R. No. 45322   May 4, 1939 - WALTER BULL v. REDO L. YATCO<br /><br />067 Phil 728


    Back to Home | Back to Main

     

    QUICK SEARCH

    cralaw

       

    cralaw



     
      Copyright © ChanRobles Publishing Company Disclaimer | E-mail Restrictions
    ChanRobles™ Virtual Law Library | chanrobles.com™
     
    RED