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-11343 January 29, 1958 - CARLOS LEDESMA v. COURT OF TAX APPEALS<br /><br />102 Phil 931

     
    PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

    EN BANC

    [G.R. No. L-11343. January 29, 1958.]

    CARLOS LEDESMA, JULIETA LEDESMA, VICENTE GUSTILO, JR. and AMPARO LEDESMA DE GUSTILO, Petitioners, v. COURT OF TAX APPEALS and SILVERIO BLAQUERA, Collector of Internal Revenue, Respondents.

    Angel S. Gamboa, for Petitioners.

    Solicitor General Ambrosio Padilla, Assistant Solicitor General Jose P. Alejandro and Special Attorney Librada del Rosario-Natividad for Respondents.


    SYLLABUS


    1. APPEAL AND ERROR; COURT OF TAX APPEALS; EXCLUSIVE JURISDICTION; RULING OR DECISION OF COLLECTOR OF INTERNAL REVENUE. — The petitioners in the case at bar pursuant to the provision of Republic Act 1125, had right to appeal from the ruling or decision of the Collector assessing the income tax against the, to the Court of Tax Appeals and that the latter had exclusive appellate jurisdiction over said appeal. If the petitioners were not allowed to appeal from said ruling the latter would become final. It was, therefore, to their interest to keep alive said appeal and if possible to have the appealed ruling or decision of the Collector reviewed.

    2. ID.; ID.; ID.; CASES ON ASSESSMENT PENDING IN COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE; PURPOSE OF REPUBLIC ACT 1125. — The main purpose of the enactment of Republic Act 1125 creating the Court of Tax Appeals, is not only to give said Court exclusive appellate jurisdiction over disputed over tax assessments, but also to transfer to its jurisdiction all cases involving said assessments previously cognizable by Courts of First Instance and even those already pending in said Courts, as may be seen from provisions of Republic Act 1125.

    3. ID.; ID.; ID.; ID.; REASONS FOR TRANSFER OF JURISDICTION FROM CFI TO COURT OF TAX APPEALS. — One of the reasons for transferring jurisdiction over disputed tax assessment cases from Court of First Instance to the Court of Tax Appeals was that, considering the many cases on different subject matter which the Courts of First Instance had to hear and determine, oftentimes disputed tax assessment cases took a long time, even years, to decide, and so far for purposes of expediency and the prompt collection of taxes, the Tax was created and was given a limited time within which to determine said cases before it (30 days after their submission for decision).


    D E C I S I O N


    MONTEMAYOR, J.:


    This is a petition for mandamus filed by Carlos Ledesma Et. Al., Petitioners, to compel the Court of Tax Appeals to proceed with the determination of the petition for review (Court of Tax Appeals Case No. 226) filed with it by the same petitioners herein and to annul the resolution of said Tax Court of July 31, 1956, dismissing said petition for review.

    Petitioners are owners of Hacienda Fortuna, composed of 36 parcels of land, situated in San Carlos, Negros Occidental, originally belonging to the spouses Julio Ledesma and Florentina Ledesma, which they purchased on July 9, 1948. On March 22, 1950, the Collector of Internal Revenue, later on referred to as the Collector, assessed on Hacienda Fortuna an income tax alleged to be due for the year 1949, in the amount of P23,704.22, including surcharges and penalties, claiming the Hacienda to be an unregistered general copartnership, with the petitioner as the unregistered copartners. Petitioners equally claim that they were mere co-owners pro indiviso of the property, and so were not liable for the amount included in the assessment. By a ruling dated March 12, 1955, the Collector overruled petitioner’s contention, as well as a subsequent motion for reconsideration, in a letter dated December 20, 1955. On January 3, 1956, petitioners filed the petition aforementioned in the Court of Tax Appeals, docketed as Case No. 226.

    However, on March 22, 1955, before the filing of the petition for review of this ruling with the Tax Court, the collector filed a civil action against the petitioners in the Court of First Instance of Negros Occidental, for the collection of the same assessment for the year 1949, which action was docketed as Civil Case No. 3373. On January 14, 1956, the Collector filed a motion with the Tax Court to dismiss the petition for review, alleging the pendency of Civil Case No. 3373 before the Negros Occidental court, and claiming the same to constitute a bar to the petition for review on the ground that the two actions involved the same parties, the same subject matter, and the same cause of action.

    On July 31, 1956, the Tax Court issued the resolution dismissing the petition for review. We quote a certain portion of the resolution:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

    "The said Court of First Instance having acquired jurisdiction over the assessment in controversy prior to the institution of this case, we therefore believe that such fact has deprived this Court of the right to entertain the present petition for review covering the same cause of action, for a judgment in Civil Case No. 3373 would constitute res adjudicata between parties." (Annex "E").

    Later, the Tax Court denied a motion for reconsideration of its resolution. Petitioners also filed a motion in the Negros Occidental court to remand Civil Case No. 3373 to the Tax Court, pursuant to Section 22 of Republic Act No. 1125, which reads as follows:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

    "SEC. 22. Pending cases to be remanded to court. — All cases involving disputed assessment of Internal Revenue taxes or customs duties pending determination before the Court of First Instance shall be remanded by the respective clerk of court to Court of Tax Appeals for disposition thereof",

    which motion is still pending action in said Negros Occidental court.

    For purposes of reference, we are reproducing Sections 7 and 11 of Republic Act No. 1125, creating the Court of Tax Appeals:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

    "SEC. 7. Jurisdiction. — The Court of Tax Appeals shall exercise exclusive appellate jurisdiction to review by appeal, as herein provided —

    (1) Decisions of the Collector of Internal Revenue in cases involving disputed assessments, refunds of internal revenue taxes, fees or other charges, penalties imposed in relation thereto, or other matters arising under the National Internal Revenue Code or other law or part of law administered by the Bureau of Internal Revenue;

    x       x       x


    "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, the Collector of Customs or any provincial or city Board of Assessment Appeals may file an appeal in the Court of Tax Appeals within thirty days after the receipt of such decision or ruling."cralaw virtua1aw library

    From the above legal provisions, there is no question that petitioners had the right to appeal from the ruling or decision of the Collector assessing the income tax against them, to the Court of Tax Appeals and that the latter had exclusive appellate jurisdiction over said appeal. If the petitioner were not allowed to appeal from said ruling, the latter would become final. It was, therefore, to their interest to keep alive said appeal and if possible, to have the appealed ruling or decision of the Collector reviewed. It is true that an action involving the same parties, the same subject matter and the same cause of action is pending in the Negros Occidental court; but we understand that the main purpose of the enactment of Republic Act No. 1125, creating the Court of Tax Appeals, was not only give said court exclusive appellate jurisdiction over disputed tax assessments, but also to transfer to its jurisdiction all cases involving said assessments previously cognizable by Courts of First Instance and even those already pending in said courts, as may be seen from the provisions of Republic Act 1125 which we have already reproduced.

    From what we recall of the explanatory note as well as the legislative discussion of the bill which resulted in Republic Act No. 1125, one of the reasons for transferring jurisdiction over disputed tax assessment cases from the Courts of First Instance to the Court of Tax Appeals was that, considering the many cases on different subject matter which the Courts of First Instance had to hear and determine, oftentimes disputed tax assessment cases took a long time, even years, to decide, and so for purposes of expediency and the prompt collection of taxes, the Tax Court was created, and was given a limited time within which to determine said cases before it (30 days after their submission for decision).

    After the creation of the Court of Tax Appeals, we see no reason or occasion for the Collector to enforce his assessments by means of civil action before the Courts of First Instance. In the first place as already stated said actions take a relatively long time to determine. In the second place, there is no need for enforcing his tax assessment in that manner because his ruling or decision is enforceable against the taxpayer, unless the latter appeals therefrom, and even when appealed, there is an assurance that the Tax Court without loss of time, would decide the appeal. Besides, the Government and the Collector will suffer no loss or prejudice by the appeal, for the reason that said appeal will not "suspend the payment, levy, distraint, and/or sale of any property of the taxpayer for the satisfaction of his tax liability as provided by existing law." (Par. 2, Sec. 11, Republic Act 1125). Moreover, we must bear in mind that the taxpayer and businessman is as much interested as the Collector in the early and final determination of his tax assessment, so that he would know as soon as possible how much he is liable to pay as taxes, which information is necessary for the proper operation of his business. To allow the filing of ordinary civil cases in the ordinary courts to enforce rulings of the Collector on assessments, would rob Republic Act No. 1125, creating the Court of Tax Appeals, of its principal objectives, namely, of the expeditious determination of disputed tax assessments, and also deprive the taxpayer of the remedy of appeal from the Collector’s ruling and decisions to the Tax Court which is in a position to determine and finally decide said tax assessments in the shortest time possible.

    As to question of procedure, petitioners should have appealed to us the resolution of dismissal of the Tax Court. That was a plain, speedy and adequate remedy; although petitioners may have impressed and obsessed by the considerations that the Tax Court through error, neglected and even refused the performance of an act specifically enjoined as duty as such appellate court, and excluded petitioners from the use of their right of appeal. However, because of the great importance of this case, calling as it does for interpretation for the first time of the law on court jurisdiction over disputed tax assessments, we are willing to consider as we do consider the present petition as one for review.

    In view of the foregoing, we believe and hold that the Court of Tax Appeals was in duty bound to give due course to the appeal or petition for review filed with it by the petitioners. Setting aside its resolution dismissing the appeal, the Tax Court is hereby directed to proceed with the determination of said petition for review. No costs.

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

    G.R. No. L-11343 January 29, 1958 - CARLOS LEDESMA v. COURT OF TAX APPEALS<br /><br />102 Phil 931


    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