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
 

   
January-1958 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. Nos. L-9456 & L-9481 January 6, 1958 - THE COLLECTOR OF INTERNAL REVENUE v. DOMINGO DE LARA

    102 Phil 813

  • G.R. No. L-9692 January 6, 1958 - COLLECTOR OF INTERNAL REVENUE v. BATANGAS TRANSPORTATION COMPANY

    102 Phil 822

  • G.R. Nos. L-8845-46 January 7, 1958 - BATANGAS TRANSPORTATION COMPANY v. MARTIN SOUZA

    102 Phil 835

  • G.R. No. L-10202 January 8, 1958 - IN RE: SY CHHUT alias TAN BING TIONG v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

    102 Phil 839

  • G.R. No. L-10420 January 10, 1958 - IN RE: LIM KIM So alias FRANCISCO LIM KIM SO v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

    102 Phil 843

  • G.R. Nos. L-10249-60 January 14, 1958 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RUFINO CRISOSTOMO

    102 Phil 846

  • G.R. No. L-10285 January 14, 1958 - SAMPAGUITA SHOE v. COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS

    102 Phil 850

  • G.R. No. L-10423 January 21, 1958 - AMADO P. JALANDONI v. ANGELA MARTIR-GUANZON

    102 Phil 859

  • G.R. No. L-11000 January 21, 1958 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ALICIA RAPIRAP

    102 Phil 863

  • G.R. No. L-11014 January 21, 1958 - VICTORIANA ESPIRITU v. THE MUNICIPAL COUNCIL

    102 Phil 866

  • G.R. No. L-10196 January 22, 1958 - SANTOS LUMBER COMPANY v. CITY OF CEBU

    102 Phil 870

  • G.R. No. L-10776 January 23, 1958 - MELITON HERRERA v. THE AUDITOR GENERAL OF THE REP. OF THE PHIL.

    102 Phil 875

  • G.R. No. L-10922 January 23, 1958 - GREGORIO P. DE GUZMAN v. JOSE B. RAMOSO

    102 Phil 883

  • G.R. No. L-12294 January 23, 1958 - UNITED PEPSI-COLA SALES ORGANIZATION (PAFLU) v. HON. ANTONIO CAÑIZARES

    102 Phil 887

  • G.R. No. L-10234 January 24, 1958 - IN RE: Victoriano Yap Subieng to be admitted a citizen of the Phil.; VICTORIANO YAP SUBIENG v. REP. OF THE PHIL.

    102 Phil 892

  • G.R. No. L-9689 January 27, 1958 - JESUS T. QUIAMBAO v. PEDRO R. PERALTA

    102 Phil 899

  • G.R. No. L-10806 January 27, 1958 - DAVID AZNAR v. ASUNCION SUCILLA

    102 Phil 902

  • G.R. No. L-11093 January 27, 1958 - LEONARDO ENAGE LABAJO v. CIRIACO ENRIQUEZ

    102 Phil 907

  • G.R. No. L-10446 January 28, 1958 - COLLEGE OF ORAL & DENTAL SURGERY v. COURT OF TAX APPEALS

    102 Phil 912

  • G.R. No. L-10874 January 28, 1958 - RUFINO D. ANDRES v. THE CROWN LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY

    102 Phil 919

  • G.R. No. L-10702 January 29, 1958 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. SIXTO CABARLES

    102 Phil 926

  • G.R. No. L-10091 January 29, 1958 - BOY SCOUTS OF THE PHIL. v. JULIANA V. ARAOS

    102 Phil 1080

  • G.R. No. L-11343 January 29, 1958 - CARLOS LEDESMA v. COURT OF TAX APPEALS

    102 Phil 931

  • G.R. No. L-11248 January 30, 1958 - ANACLETA VILLAROMAN v. QUIRINO STA. MARIA

    102 Phil 937

  • Adm. Case No. 195 January 31, 1958 - IN RE: Attorney JESUS T. QUIAMBAO

    102 Phil 940

  • G.R. No. L-8252 January 31, 1958 - JOSE C. ZULUETA v. NICANOR NICOLAS

    102 Phil 944

  • G.R. No. L-9871 January 31, 1958 - ATKINS v. B. CUA HIAN TEK

    102 Phil 948

  • G.R. No. L-9928 January 31, 1958 - REP. OF THE PHIL. v. THE COURT OF APPEALS

    102 Phil 953

  • G.R. No. L-10022 January 31, 1958 - NORTHERN MOTORS v. NATIONAL LABOR UNION

    102 Phil 958

  • G.R. No. L-10141 January 31, 1958 - REP. OF THE PHIL. v. PHILIPPINE RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION

    102 Phil 960

  • G.R. Nos. L-10236-48 January 31, 1958 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. EUSTACIO DE LUNA

    102 Phil 968

  • G.R. No. L-10370 January 31, 1958 - THE COLLECTOR OF INTERNAL REVENUE v. MATIAS H. AZNAR

    102 Phil 979

  • G.R. No. L-10547 January 31, 1958 - THE PHIL. GUARANTY CO. v. LAURA DINIO

    102 Phil 991

  • G.R. No. L-10691 January 31, 1958 - ERLINDA STERNBERG v. GONZALO SOLOMON

    102 Phil 995

  • G.R. No. L-10747 January 31, 1958 - MARIANO DIAZ v. PASCUAL MACALINAO

    102 Phil 999

  • G.R. No. L-10902 January 31, 1958 - FLORIDA LAGMAY v. EMERENCIANA QUINIT

    102 Phil 1003

  • G.R. No. L-11024 January 31, 1958 - ALFONSO ANGELES v. THE COURT OF APPEALS, GREOGORIO STA. INES

    102 Phil 1006

  • G.R. No. L-11186 January 31, 1958 - ALFONSO CABABA v. PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION

    102 Phil 1013

  • G.R. No. L-11395 January 31, 1958 - SOTERA GARCIA DIMAGIBA v. HON. AMBROSIO M. GERALDEZ

    102 Phil 1016

  • G.R. No. L-11647 January 31, 1958 - FLORENTINO NAVARRO v. HON. ELOY BELLO

    102 Phil 1019

  • G.R. No. L-12724 January 31, 1958 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. CARIDAD CAPISTRANO

    102 Phil 1025

  •  





     
     

    G.R. No. L-10446 January 28, 1958 - COLLEGE OF ORAL & DENTAL SURGERY v. COURT OF TAX APPEALS<br /><br />102 Phil 912

     
    PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

    FIRST DIVISION

    [G.R. No. L-10446. January 28, 1958.]

    COLLEGE OF ORAL & DENTAL SURGERY, Petitioner, v. COURT OF TAX APPEALS and THE COLLECTOR OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondents.

    Ojeda & Herras Law Office for Petitioner.

    Solicitor General Ambrosio Padilla and Solicitor Jose P. Alejandro for Respondents.


    SYLLABUS


    1. COURTS, JURISDICTION; RECOVERY OF TAXES; ACTION OF COLLECTOR NOT ESSENTIAL; COURT PROCEEDING MAY BE BROUGHT WITHIN TWO YEARS FROM PAYMENT. — Although the filing of the claim with the Collector of Internal Revenue is intended as notice to said official that unless the tax or penalty alleged to have been erroneously or illegally collected is refunded, court action will follow, this does not imply that the taxpayer must wait for the action of the Collector before bringing the matter to Court. (P.J. Kiener Co., Ltd. v. David, L-5163, April 22, 1953, penned by Mr. Justice Pedro Tuason). Indeed, it must be observed that under the provision of section 306 of the Internal Revenue Code the taxpayer’s to comply with the requirement regarding the institution of the action or proceeding in Court within 2 years after the payment of the taxes bars him from the recovery of the same, irrespective of whether claim for the refund of such taxes filed with the Collector of Internal Revenue is still pending action of the latter.

    2. LIMITATION OF ACTION; RECOVERY OF TAXES; ERRONEOUSLY PAID BEFORE EFFECTIVITY OF REP. ACT 1125; ACTION REMEDY ALREADY PRESCRIBED NOT REVIVED. — Pursuant to section 306 of the Tax Code and the jurisprudence obtaining in connection therewith, as petitioner failed to institute the corresponding judicial proceeding within 2-year prescriptive period, his right to recover the taxes claimed to have been erroneously paid had prescribed even before he enactment of Republic Act No. 1125, and the latter cannot be construed as reviving actions that have already prescribed on the date of its enactment.


    D E C I S I O N


    FELIX, J.:


    The College of Oral and Dental Surgery is an educational institution, duly organized and existing under the laws of the Philippines and located at 1858 Oroquieta, Manila.

    In a letter sent to the Collector of Internal Revenue dated November 14, 1952, said institution, through counsel, protested against the collection and claimed for the refund of the sums of P4,333.39 and P500 paid under official receipt Nos. A-89348 and A- 350887 for income tax corresponding to 1950 and the amount of P2,434.50 paid under official receipt No. A-34431 for income tax corresponding to 1951. It was claimed that the school was exempted from the payment of said tax in virtue of section 27, paragraph (f) of the National Internal Revenue Code. This petition for refund was denied by the Collector of Internal Revenue on January 12, 1953, pointing out the existence of Republic Act No. 82 amending section 27 (e) of the Tax Code and the interpretation thereof given by the Secretary of Justice in Opinion No. 78, series of 1950, making taxable any income derived from activities conducted for profit, irrespective of the disposition made of such income. Thereafter, the taxpayer sent another letter requesting for the reconsideration of said decision but the Collector deferred action on the same pending the outcome of the case of Jesus Sacred Heart College v. Collector of Internal Revenue then awaiting decision of the Supreme Court, for the reason that the issue involved therein was similar to the instant case. (The decision in the case of Jesus Sacred Heart College v. Collector, 95 Phil., 6).

    On April 20, 1955, the Collector of Internal Revenue denied the request for reconsideration on the ground that while it was true that the profits realized by the College of Oral and Dental Surgery were used for the expansion and improvement of the school and that no part thereof apparently inured to the benefit of any individual stockholder, yet considering that the records proved that Dr. Aldecoa, as president of the institution, received a salary of P1,000 a month and his wife a monthly compensation of P200 as treasurer thereof; and that as the corporation could be dissolved any time because the period of its existence was not fixed and upon its dissolution the properties could be divided among the stockholders, the Aldecoa family in effect actually derived some benefits in the operation of the same.

    On April 29, 1955, the College of Oral and Dental Surgery filed a petition with the Court of Tax Appeals (CTA Case No. 121) seeking to review the decision of the Collector and praying for the refund of the aforementioned amount alleged to have been erroneously collected. Respondent timely filed an answer denying the material averments of the petition and set up the special defense that petitioner did not come within the exemption of section 27 (e) of the Tax Code nor was the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Jesus Sacred Heart College applicable to it. And on November 12, 1955, with leave of court, respondent filed a motion to dismiss for the reason that the Tax Court had no jurisdiction over the subject matter of the action as said case was instituted beyond the 2-year prescriptive period provided for by Section 306 of the Tax Code.

    This motion was accordingly opposed by petitioner and on December 19, 1955, the Court of Tax Appeals, with one Judge concurring in a separate opinion, issued a resolution dismissing the petition on the ground that the court acquired no jurisdiction to entertain the same, it appearing that the case was filed 2 years after the taxes sought to be refunded had been paid. As the motion filed by the taxpayer for the reconsideration of the same was denied for lack of merit, the matter was brought to this Court on appeal, petitioner ascribing to the lower Court the commission of several errors. But reducing the interrelated issues to bare essentials, the only question presented by the instant case could be boiled down into whether or not in 1955, petitioner could still invoke court action for the recovery of taxes paid in 1951 and 1952 or after the lapse of 2 years from the date said payment were made; and, consequently, whether the Court of Tax Appeals erred in dismissing the petition filed therein for lack of jurisdiction.

    There is no controversy that the taxes sought to be recovered where paid on May 15, 1951, September 15, 1951 and May 15, 1952, and that although the claim for the refund of the same was filed with the Collector of Internal Revenue on November 14, 1952, the request for the reconsideration of the latter’s decision was denied only on April 20, 1955. Meanwhile, no proceeding in court was instituted for that purpose in the intervening period. In dismissing the petition filed with the Court of Tax Appeals, said tribunal relied on the provisions of section 306 of the Internal Revenue Code, which reads as follows:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

    SEC. 306. RECOVERY OF TAX ERRONEOUSLY OR ILLEGALLY COLLECTED. — No suit or proceeding shall be maintained in any court for the recovery of any national internal revenue tax hereafter alleged to have been erroneously or illegally assessed or collected, or of any penalty claimed to have been collected without authority, or of any sum alleged to have been excessive or in any manner wrongfully collected, until a claim for refund or credit has been duly filed with the Collector of Internal Revenue; but such suit or proceeding may be maintained, whether or not such tax, penalty, or sum has been paid under protest or duress. IN ANY CASE no such suit or proceeding shall be begun after the expiration of TWO YEARS from the date of payment of the tax or penalty.

    This Court, construing the aforequoted provision of law in an identical case, made the pronouncement that although the filing of the claim with the Collector of Internal Revenue is intended as a notice to said official that unless the tax or penalty alleged to have been erroneously or illegally collected is refunded court action will follow, this does not imply that the taxpayer must wait for the action of the Collector before bringing the matter to court (P. J. Kiener Co., Ltd. v. David, 92 Phil., 945, penned by Mr. Justice Pedro Tuason). Indeed, it must be observed that under said provisions, the taxpayer’s failure to comply with the requirement regarding the institution of the action or proceeding in court within 2 years after the payment of the taxes bars him from the recovery of the same, irrespective of whether a claim for the refund of such taxes filed with the Collector of Internal Revenue is still pending action of the latter.

    Petitioner, however, argues that this statutory period is abrogated by the enactment of Republic Act No. 1125, section 11 of which reads in part:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

    SEC. 11. WHO MAY APPEAL; EFFECT OF APPEAL. — Any person, association or corporation adversely affected by a decision or ruling of the Collector of Internal Revenue, . . . may file an appeal in the Court of Tax Appeals within thirty days after receipt of such decision or ruling.

    x       x       x


    Petitioner asserts that under this provision of law, for a case to be cognizable by the Court of Tax Appeals which took over the functions of the Courts of First Instance as regard cases involving taxes, the decision of the Collector of Internal Revenue is an essential requisite and must first be secured, upon receipt of which, the aggrieved party has 30 days within which to bring the same on appeal to said court. Thus, as the denial of the request for reconsideration was received by petitioner only on April 20, 1955, the petition for the review of the same filed with the Court of Tax Appeals on April 29 of the same year was made on time.

    But even adopting for a moment petitioner’s line of argument, still We find reason to uphold the ruling of the court a quo. We must bear in mind that Republic Act No. 1125 creating the Court of Tax Appeals took effect only on June 16, 1954. Considering that the taxes involved herein were paid on May 15, 1951, September 15, 1951 and May 15, 1952, said legislative enactment (Rep. Act No. 1125) cannot be invoked as the action for recovery of the taxes paid in this case must be governed by the pertinent law then enforced. And pursuant to the existing law on the matter, which undoubtedly is Section 306 of the Tax Code and the jurisprudence obtaining in connection therewith, as petitioner failed to institute the corresponding judicial proceeding within the 2-year prescriptive period, his right to recover the taxes claimed to have been erroneously paid had prescribed even before the enactment of Republic Act No. 1125, and there is no reason to construe R. A. 1125 as reviving actions that have already prescribed on the date of its enactment.

    While We cannot feign innocence of the existence of visible inconsistency in the provision of Section 306 of the National Internal Revenue Code, as construed by this Court — requiring the institution of court proceeding for the recovery of taxes erroneously or illegally collected within 2 years from payment thereof, irrespective of the action taken by the Collector of Internal Revenue on the claim for refund of the same, which the taxpayer must first undertake — and Section 11 of Republic Act No. 1125 specifically providing that actions should be brought to the Court of Tax Appeals within 30 days from receipt of the decision of the Collector of Internal Revenue, considering firstly that both mandatory provisions must be construed strictly, and secondly that for purposes of the case at bar no further discussion would be necessary, We leave the proper dissertation on the same to some other opportune time. We feel free, however, to state that although to courts belong the prerogative and power of construction and interpretation and while We do not shirk from that duty bestowed on Us by law, the legislative branch of the Government should take notice of such apparent conflicts in our statute books and start the elimination of the same by corresponding legislation. (See also Rufino Lopez & Sons, Inc. v. Court of Tax Appeals, 100 Phil., 850, 53 Off. Gaz. No. 10, p. 3065 and Sampaguita Shoe and Slipper Factory v. Commissioner of Customs Et. Al., supra, p. 850)

    Wherefore, the resolution of the Court of Tax Appeals dated December 19, 1955, dismissing the petition involved in this case on the ground that the Court acquired no jurisdiction to entertain the same, it appearing that the case was filed two years after the taxes sought to be refunded had been paid, is hereby affirmed, with costs against petitioner. It is so ordered.

    Paras, C.J. Bengzon, Padilla, Bautista Angelo, Labrador, Reyes, J. B. L. and Endencia, JJ., concur.

    G.R. No. L-10446 January 28, 1958 - COLLEGE OF ORAL & DENTAL SURGERY v. COURT OF TAX APPEALS<br /><br />102 Phil 912


    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