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
 

   
March-1958 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. L-10947 March 18, 1958 - JOSE MAYOR v. MACARIO MILLAN

    103 Phil 132

  • G.R. No. L-13001 March 18, 1958 - ALFREDO ABCEDE v. DOMINGO IMPERIAL

    103 Phil 136

  • G.R. No. L-10694 March 20, 1958 - MULLER & PHIPPS (MANILA) v. COLLECTOR OF INTERNAL REVENUE

    103 Phil 145

  • G.R. No. L-10911 March 21, 1958 - MANILA BLUE PRINTING CO. v. TEACHERS COLLEGE

    103 Phil 151

  • G.R. No. L-10579 March 22, 1958 - ELIZABETH CONSTANTINO v. COURT OF APPEALS

    103 Phil 153

  • G.R. No. L-10625 March 22, 1958 - RIZAL MANILA TRANSIT v. CRESENTE VICTORINO

    103 Phil 158

  • G.R. No. L-9433 March 24, 1958 - MATERIAL DISTRIBUTORS (PHIL.) v. MILES TIMBER AND TRANSPORT CORPORATION

    103 Phil 162

  • G.R. No. L-10841 March 24, 1958 - STONEHILL STEEL CORPORATION v. COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS

    103 Phil 170

  • G.R. No. L-10894 March 24, 1958 - PACIFIC TOBACCO CORPORATION v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

    103 Phil 176

  • G.R. No. L-10137 March 25, 1958 - ELOISA C. AGUILAR v. SERAFIN R. GAMBOA

    103 Phil 183

  • G.R. No. L-10578 March 25, 1958 - FELIPE ATAYDE v. PASTOR DE GUZMAN

    103 Phil 187

  • G.R. No. L-11721 March 26, 1958 - INOCENCIA ESPINOSA v. BERNABE DE AQUINO

    103 Phil 195

  • G.R. No. L-5707 March 27, 1958 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. DIONISIO VERSOLA

    103 Phil 201

  • G.R. No. L-10929 March 27, 1958 - RAMONA ESCOTO DE MIRANDA v. PASTOR P. REYES

    103 Phil 207

  • G.R. No. L-8831 March 28, 1958 - PHILIPPINE NATIONAL BANK v. FELICISIMO ARROZAL

    103 Phil 213

  • G.R. No. L-9069 March 28, 1958 - VICENTE UY CHAO v. MANUEL AGUILAR, ET AL.

    103 Phil 219

  • G.R. No. L-9979 March 28, 1958 - IN RE: MARIA EBREO, ET AL. v. ASUNCION EBREO DE BORROMEO

    103 Phil 223

  • G.R. No. L-11232 March 28, 1958 - INTERNATIONAL v. NICASIO YATCO

    103 Phil 226

  • G.R. Nos. L-9556 & L-12630 March 29, 1958 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL. v. BIENVENIDO GARCELLANO, ET AL.

    103 Phil 231

  • G.R. No. L-10651 March 29, 1958 - LUIS BUENAVENTURA v. DAMASO STO. DOMINGO, ET AL.

    103 Phil 239

  • G.R. No. L-10676 March 29, 1958 - FELICIANO ABAD vs.GOVERNMENT OF THE PHILIPPINES

    103 Phil 247

  • G.R. No. L-11086 March 29, 1958 - PILAR ATILANO v. CHUA CHING BENG

    103 Phil 255

  • G.R. No. L-11229 March 29, 1958 - MANUEL DIAZ v. CARMEN GORRICHO, ET AL.

    103 Phil 261

  • G.R. No. L-11295 March 29, 1958 - SILVERIO BLAQUERA v. JOSE S. RODRIGUEZ

    103 Phil 267

  • G.R. No. L-11324 March 29, 1958 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. YU BAO

    103 Phil 271

  • G.R. Nos. L-10364 & L-10376 March 31, 1958 - RUFINO T. SAMSON v. COURT OF APPEALS

    103 Phil 277

  • G.R. No. L-10969 March 31, 1958 - DALMACIO DE LOS ANGELES v. PEOPLE OF THE PHIL.

    103 Phil 295

  • G.R. Nos. L-11487-88 March 31, 1958 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ALFREDO HUFANA

    103 Phil 304

  •  




     
     

    G.R. No. L-11295   March 29, 1958 - SILVERIO BLAQUERA v. JOSE S. RODRIGUEZ<br /><br />103 Phil 267

     
    PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

    EN BANC

    [G.R. No. L-11295. March 29, 1958.]

    SILVERIO BLAQUERA, as Collector of Internal Revenue, Petitioner, v. Hon. JOSE S. RODRIGUEZ, in his capacity as Judge of the Court of First Instance of Cebu, and CHENG HOK, doing business under the firm name "Magallanes Bakery", Respondents.

    Assistant Solicitor General José P. Alejandro, Special Attorney Alejandro B. Afurong, Provincial Fiscal José C. Borromeo and Assistant Provincial Fiscal Ananias V. Maribao for Petitioner.

    Pacquiao, Jumapao & Badana for respondent Cheng Hok.


    SYLLABUS


    1. COURT OF TAX APPEALS; JURISDICTION; CASES FALLING WITHIN THE EXCLUSIVE APPELLATE JURISDICTION. — Actions involving disputed assessments, surcharge and penalty or other matters arising under the provisions of the National Internal Revenue Code, fall within the exclusive appellate jurisdiction of the Court of Tax Appeals. That the taxpayer has paid fully and timely the tax due is a matter of defense which must be averred or set up in the proper court. The averment or setting up of such defense in another court would not vest in the latter court jurisdiction to hear and determine the case.

    2. ID.; ID.; POWER TO SUSPEND TAX COLLECTION. — Section 11 of Republic Act No. 1125 providing for the suspension of tax collection refers to the Court of Tax Appeals and not to the Court of First Instance.

    3. ID.; ID.; AUTHORITY TO ISSUE WRIT OF INJUNCTION TO RESTRAIN TAX COLLECTION. — Section 305 of the National Internal Revenue Code providing that no court has authority to grant a writ of injunction to restrain the collection of any internal revenue tax, fee, or charge imposed by the Code refers to courts other than the Court of Tax Appeals.


    D E C I S I O N


    PADILLA, J.:


    On 25 May 1956 respondent Cheng Hok, doing business under the firm name "Magallanes Bakery," filed a complaint dated 24 May 1956, in the respondent Court against the petitioner Collector of Internal Revenue, alleging that notwithstanding the fact that he had paid fully the percentage tax due on his business for certain periods from 1951 to 1954, the petitioner was demanding from him the payment of P7,221.74 as deficiency percentage tax, 25 per cent surcharge thereon, and P50 as compromise penalty, or a total of P9,077.18. He prayed for a writ enjoining the petitioner, his agents, subordinates and all persons acting on his behalf from effecting the collection of the aforesaid sum and from levying on any of his property to satisfy it; and after hearing for a final writ of injunction. He further prayed that the petitioner be ordered to pay him the sum of P5,000 as actual and consequential damages, P5,000 as moral damages, P2,000 as attorney’s fees, and costs (civil No. R-4542, Appendix A). On 25 May, the respondent Court, presided over by Hon. Clementino V. Diez, granted the petition for a writ of preliminary injunction upon the filing of a bond in the sum of P9,077.18 (Appendix B). On 28 May, after the filing by the respondent of the required bond, the writ was issued (Appendix C). On 18 June, the petitioner moved for the dismissal of the complaint and for the discharge of the writ of preliminary injunction theretofore issued, on the ground that the respondent Court has no jurisdiction of the subject matter of the action, involving as it does a disputed assessment, surcharge and penalty or other matters arising under the provisions of the National Internal Revenue Code, which falls within the jurisdiction of the Court of Tax Appeals, and that no court has authority to grant a writ of injunction to restrain the collection of any internal revenue tax, fee, or charge imposed by the same Code (Appendix D). On 22 June, the respondent filed an opposition thereto (Appendix E). On 11 July the respondent Court, presided over by Hon. Edmundo S. Piccio, denied the motion to dismiss (Appendix F). On 8 September, the same Court, presided over by Hon. José S. Rodriguez, denied (Appendix H) the petitioner’s motion for reconsideration (Appendix G).

    On 2 October 1956, the petitioner filed this petition in this Court seeking to annul the orders of the respondent Court of 25 May that granted the writ of preliminary injunction and the writ issued on 28 May pursuant thereto; of 11 July that denied the petitioner’s motion to dismiss; and of 8 September that denied the petitioner’s motion for reconsideration. The petitioner further prayed for a writ of preliminary injunction to restrain the respondent Court from enforcing the writ it had issued. On 4 October, this Court issued the writ of preliminary injunction prayed for.

    Section 7, Republic Act No. 1125, which took effect on 16 June 1954, in part provides:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

    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. 1

    Section 11 of the same Act provides:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

    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.

    The letters of the officer in charge of the office of the regional director and of the regional director of the Bureau of Internal Revenue in Cebú City to the respondent informed him that it appears from the various receipts of payment made by him on different dates from 1951 to 1954, that he had not paid the correct amount of the percentage tax due on his business; demanded that he pay the sums of P5,777.39 as deficiency percentage tax, P1,444.35 as 25 per cent surcharge thereon, and P100 as compromise penalty, or a total of P7,321.74 within ten days from receipt of the first letter and five days from receipt of the second; and warned him that if he failed to settle his obligation, they would resort to the summary remedies provided by law and would recommend his prosecution for violation of section 183 of the National Internal Revenue Code (Annexes A & A-1). The respondent refused to pay on the ground that he had paid fully and on time the percentage tax due on his business.

    It is clear that the action, involving as it does a disputed assessment of an internal revenue tax, surcharge and penalty imposed in relation thereto, or a matter arising under the National Internal Revenue Code, falls within the exclusive appellate jurisdiction of the Court of Tax Appeals. The claim that the respondent taxpayer had paid fully and timely the tax due is a matter of defense which must be averred or set up in the proper court. The averment or setting up of such defense in another court would not vest in the latter court jurisdiction to hear and determine the case.

    The contention that the complaint is essentially for collection of damages against the petitioner, over which the Court of Tax Appeals has no jurisdiction, is without merit. The allegations and prayer of the complaint do not support the contention. Section 11 of Republic Act No. 1125 providing for the suspension of tax collection refers to the Court of Tax Appeals and not to the Courts of First Instance.

    Section 305 of the National Internal Revenue Code providing that "No court shall have authority to grant an injunction to restrain the collection of any national internal-revenue tax, fee, or charge imposed by this Code," 2 refers to courts other than the Court of Tax Appeals.

    The petition is granted and the writ heretofore issued is made permanent, with costs against the respondent taxpayer.

    Bengzon, Bautista Angelo, Concepcion, Reyes, J. B. L., Endencia and Felix, JJ., concur.

    Paras, C.J. and Reyes, A., J., concur in the result.

    Endnotes:



    1. See Castro v. David, 100 Phil., 454; 53 Off Gaz., 4088; Castro v. Blaquera, 100 Phil., 981; 53 Off. Gaz., 2135.

    2. See David v. Ramos and Castro, 90 Phil., 351.

    G.R. No. L-11295   March 29, 1958 - SILVERIO BLAQUERA v. JOSE S. RODRIGUEZ<br /><br />103 Phil 267




    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