Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1960 > October 1960 Decisions > G.R. No. L-11536 October 31, 1960 - TOMAS B. VILLAMIN v. COURT OF TAX APPEALS, ET AL.

109 Phil 896:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

SECOND DIVISION

[G.R. No. L-11536. October 31, 1960.]

TOMAS B. VILLAMIN, Petitioner, v. THE COURT OF TAX APPEALS and THE COLLECTOR OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondents.

Jose Leido for Petitioner.

Solicitor General A. Padilla and Solicitor S. V. Bernardo for Respondents.


SYLLABUS


1. APPEAL AND ERROR; ASSESSMENT; DECISION OF COLLECTOR OF INTERNAL REVENUE; HOW THE 30-DAY PERIOD IS COMPUTED. — The appealable decision contemplated in Sections 7 and 11 of Republic Act No. 1125 is the first letter of the Collector of Internal Revenue denying the request for reconsideration or cancellation of the original assessment made by the latter, and for the purpose of the appeal mentioned therein the 30-day period should be counted from the date said letter is received by the taxpayer.


D E C I S I O N


BAUTISTA ANGELO, J.:


This is a petition for review of a resolution of the Court of Tax Appeals dated July 31, 1956 dismissing the petition for review of a decision of the Collector of Internal Revenue involving the assessment of certain sales taxes on logs sold during the period from 1948-1950 and from 1951-1954.

There is no evidence as to when the first assessment was made. However, it appears that respondent wrote several letters of demand to petitioner among them those dated June 7, 1955, December 12, 1955 and February 13, 1956. Prior to these letters of demand or more specifically on February 10, 1955, petitioner requested reconsideration of the assessment which the Provincial Revenue Agent of Oriental Mindoro attempted to collect from him. Respondent, thru the Acting Chief of the Assessment Department, denied said request in a letter dated June 7, 1955. This letter was received by petitioner on August 18, 1955. Subsequently, on September 2, 1955, petitioner wrote another letter to respondent offering to settle his case amicably, which request was also denied by the latter in his letter of December 12, 1955, which was received by petitioner on January 9, 1956. On the same date petitioner again requested for reconsideration of the decision which was likewise denied on February 13, 1956. This last letter was received by petitioner on February 29, 1956, and on April 2, 1956 he filed the petition for review with the Court of Tax Appeals.

On the strength of the above facts, respondent filed a motion to dismiss on the ground that the petition for review was filed beyond the 30-day period prescribed by Section 11 of Republic Act No. 1125. This motion was sustained. Hence the present appeal.

The Court of Tax Appeals in dismissing the petition for review stated:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"Under the facts stated above, we are of the opinion that the 30- day period within which to appeal to this Court commenced to run from August 18, 1955 and was suspended on September 2, 1955 and commenced to run again from February 23, 1956, when the letter of respondent dated February 13, 1956 was received by petitioner, to the date the present petition for review was filed (April 2, 1956). From August 18, 1955 to September 2, 1955, there was an interval of 15 days; and from February 29, 1956 to April 2, 1956 there was another interval of 33 days. Petitioner had, therefore, consumed a total of 43 days before filing his appeal with this Court. Consequently, the present appeal was filed out of time."cralaw virtua1aw library

Petitioner now contends that the Court of Tax Appeals erred in computing the 30-day period provided for in Section 11 of Republic Act No. 1125 from August 18,1955, the date when he received respondent’s letter of demand dated June 7, 1955, and not from February 29, 1955, the date when he received the last letter of respondent dated February 13, 1956, considering that in the interval several letters had been exchanged between them relative to the assessment in question.

This contention has no merit.

In Pangasinan Transportation Co., Inc. v. Blaquera, 107 Phil., 975; 58 Off. Gaz. (32) 5410, this Court held:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"Considering that the ruling or decision of the Collector of September 16, 1954 had been received by Pantranco on November 20, 1954, the Court held that the 30-day period began to run on November 20, 1954; that it was interrupted by the petition for reconsideration filed December 3, 1954; and that such interruption ended on June 11, 1955, when denial of the reconsideration was received by Pantranco; and finding that the petition had thus been presented on the 34th day after receipt of the Collector’s definite assessment, (November 20 to December 3 — 13 days; June 11 to July 2 — 21 days; total 34 days) the said Court resolved to dismiss the petition.

x       x       x


". . . The letter of September 16, 1954 is the decision of the Collector which the taxpayer had to contest within thirty days, otherwise, it would have become final and unappealable to the Court of Tax Appeals, or to any other court. It was a definite determination of Pantranco’s tax accountability. Pantranco could ask for reconsideration, of course; if successful, well and good. If unsuccessful, it must appeal within thirty days, discounting the time within which its petition to reconsider had been pending. This computation is nothing unusual; it is the ordinary way the timeliness of appeal is determined."cralaw virtua1aw library

In St. Stephen’s Association, Et. Al. v. The Collector of Internal Revenue, 104 Phil., 314; 55 Off. Gaz. (13) 2243, this Court ruled:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"In the first place, we believe the respondent court erred in holding that the assessment in question is the respondent Collector’s decision or ruling appealable to it, and that consequently, the period of thirty days prescribed by section 11 of Republic Act No. 1125 within which petitioner should have appealed to the respondent court must be counted from its receipt of said assessment. Where a taxpayer questions an assessment and asks the Collector to reconsider or cancel the same because he (the taxpayer) believes he is not liable therefor, the assessment becomes a disputed assessment that the Collector must decide, and the taxpayer can appeal to the Court of Tax Appeals only upon receipt of the decision of the Collector on the disputed assessment, in accordance with par. (1) of sec. 7, Republic Act No. 1125, conferring appellate jurisdiction upon the Court of Tax Appeals to review decisions of the Collector of Internal Revenue in cases involving disputed assessments . . (Italic supplied)."cralaw virtua1aw library

"The period for appeal to the respondent court in this case must, therefore, be computed from the time petitioners received the decision of the respondent (Collector of Internal Revenue on the disputed assessment, and not from the time they received said assessment."cralaw virtua1aw library

It thus appears that the appealable decision contemplated in Sections 7 and 11 of Republic Act No 1125 is the first letter of the Collector of Internal Revenue denying the request for reconsideration or cancellation of the original assessment made by the latter, and that for the purposes of the appeal mentioned therein the 30-day period should be counted from the date said letter is received by the taxpayer. This is what respondent Court of Tax Appeals has observed in computing the period for appeal in the present case.

As regards the contention that the letter of June 7, 1955 signed by the Acting Chief of the Assessment Department is not the decision contemplated in the law, the same is of no moment, considering Memorandum Order No. V-603, dated March 15, 1956, of the Bureau of Internal Revenue, which authorizes said official to sign letters of demand involving assessment in behalf of the Collector of Internal Revenue. Moreover, the subsequent letters signed by the Collector affirming and upholding the correctness of the assessment made by his Assessment Department constitute evident proof that the official who signed the letter of June 7, 1955 was duly authorized to do so.

Wherefore, the resolution appealed from is affirmed, with costs against petitioner.

Bengzon, Padilla, Labrador, Reyes, J.B.L., Barrera, Gutierrez David, and Paredes, JJ., concur.

Paras, C.J., concurs in the result.




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






October-1960 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. L-15709 October 19, 1960 - IN RE: DAMASO CAJEFE, ET AL. v. HON. FIDEL FERNANDEZ, ET AL.

    109 Phil 743

  • G.R. Nos. L-12483 & L-12896-96 October 22, 1960 - NICOLAS JAVIER, ET AL. v. ENRIQUE DE LEON, ET AL.

    109 Phil 751

  • G.R. No. L-15477 October 22, 1960 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL. v. VICTORIANO MEDRANO, SR.

    109 Phil 762

  • G.R. No. L-14111 October 24, 1960 - NARRA v. TERESA R. DE FRANCISCO, ET AL.

    109 Phil 764

  • G.R. No. L-14524 October 24, 1960 - FELIX MOLINA v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

    109 Phil 769

  • G.R. No. L-14625 October 24, 1960 - IN RE: EULOGIO ON v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

    109 Phil 772

  • G.R. No. L-15192 October 24, 1960 - PNB v. TEOFILO RAMIREZ:, ET AL.

    109 Phil 775

  • G.R. No. L-15275 October 24, 1960 - MARIANO A. ALBERT v. UNIVERSITY PUBLISHING CO., INC.

    109 Phil 780

  • G.R. No. L-16006 October 24, 1960 - PERFECTO R. FRANCHE, ET AL. v. HON. PEDRO C. HERNAEZ, ETC., ET AL.

    109 Phil 782

  • G.R. No. L-11766 October 25, 1960 - SOCORRO MATUBIS v. ZOILO PRAXEDES

    109 Phil 789

  • G.R. No. L-14189 October 25, 1960 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. EUTIQUIO YAMSON, ET AL.

    109 Phil 793

  • G.R. No. L-15233 October 25, 1960 - JUAN L. CLEMENTE v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

    109 Phil 798

  • G.R. No. L-15326 October 25, 1960 - SEVERINO SAMSON v. DIONISIO DINGLASA

    109 Phil 803

  • G.R. No. L-15502 October 25, 1960 - AH NAM v. CITY OF MANILA, ET AL.

    109 Phil 808

  • G.R. No. L-16038 October 25, 1960 - AJAX INT’L. CORP. v. ORENCIO A. SEGURITAN, ET AL.

    109 Phil 810

  • G.R. No. L-16404 October 25, 1960 - SAMPAGUITA PICTURES, INC., ET AL. v. COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS, ET AL.

    109 Phil 816

  • G.R. No. L-16429 October 25, 1960 - ALEJANDRO ABAO v. HON. MARIANO R. VlRTUCIO, ET AL.

    109 Phil 819

  • G.R. No. L-14079 October 26, 1960 - METROPOLITAN WATER DIST. v. EDUVIGES OLEDAN NIRZA

    109 Phil 824

  • G.R. No. L-14157 October 26, 1960 - NEGROS OCCIDENTAL MUNICIPALITIES v. IGNATIUS HENRY BEZORE, ET AL.

    109 Phil 829

  • G.R. No. L-14724 October 26, 1960 - VICTORINO MARIBOJOC v. HON. PASTOR L. DE GUZMAN, ETC., ET AL.

    109 Phil 833

  • G.R. Nos. L-14973-74 October 26, 1960 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JUAN CASUMPANG

    109 Phil 837

  • G.R. Nos. L-15214-15 October 26, 1960 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. FELIPE C. CRUZ, ET AL.

    109 Phil 842

  • G.R. No. L-11302 October 28, 1960 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. BENJAMIN P. AGUILAR, ET AL.

    109 Phil 847

  • G.R. No. L-12659 October 28, 1960 - ABELARDO LANDINGIN v. PAULO GACAD

    109 Phil 851

  • G.R. No. L-14866 October 28, 1960 - IN RE: ANDRES ONG KHAN v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

    109 Phil 855

  • G.R. No. L-15573 October 28, 1960 - RELIANCE SURETY & INS. CO. INC. v. LA CAMPANA FOOD PRODUCTS, INC., ET AL.

    109 Phil 861

  • G.R. No. L-17144 October 28, 1960 - SERGIO OSMEÑA, JR. v. SALIPADA K. PENDATUN, ET AL.

    109 Phil 863

  • G.R. No. L-8178 October 31, 1960 - JUANITA KAPUNAN, ET AL. v. ALIPIO N. CASILAN, ET AL.

    109 Phil 889

  • G.R. No. L-11536 October 31, 1960 - TOMAS B. VILLAMIN v. COURT OF TAX APPEALS, ET AL.

    109 Phil 896

  • G.R. No. L-11745 October 31, 1960 - ROYAL INTEROCEAN LINES, ET AL. v. COURT OF INDUSTRlAL RELATIONS, ET AL.

    109 Phil 900

  • G.R. No. L-11892 October 31, 1960 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. YAKAN LABAK, ET AL.

    109 Phil 904

  • G.R. No. L-11991 October 31, 1960 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. PORFIRIO TAÑO, ET AL.

    109 Phil 912

  • G.R. No. L-12226 October 31, 1960 - DAMASO DISCANSO, ET AL. v. FELICISIMO GATMAYTAN

    109 Phil 916

  • G.R. No. L-12401 October 31, 1960 - MARCELO STEEL CORP. v. COLLECTOR OF INTERNAL REVENUE

    109 Phil 921

  • G.R. No. L-12565 October 31, 1960 - ANTONIO HERAS v. CITY TREASURER OF QUEZON CITY

    109 Phil 930

  • G.R. No. L-13260 October 31, 1960 - LINO P. BERNARDO v. EUFEMIA PASCUAL, ET AL.

    109 Phil 936

  • G.R. No. L-13370 October 31, 1960 - IN RE: CHAN CHEN v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHILS.

    109 Phil 940

  • G.R. No. L-13666 October 31, 1960 - FORTUNATO LAYAGUE, ET AL. v. CONCEPCION PEREZ DE ULGASAN

    109 Phil 945

  • G.R. No. L-13677 October 31, 1960 - HUGH M. HAM v. BACHRACH MOTOR CO., INC., ET AL.

    109 Phil 949

  • G.R. No. L-13875 October 31, 1960 - DANIEL EVANGELISTA v. COURT OF AGRARIAN RELATIONS OF ILOILO, ET AL.

    109 Phil 957

  • G.R. No. L-13891 October 31, 1960 - JOAQUIN ULPIENDO, ET AL. v. COURT OF AGRARIAN RELATIONS, ET AL.

    109 Phil 964

  • G.R. No. L-13900 October 31, 1960 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. BLAS ABLAO, ET AL.

    109 Phil 976

  • G.R. No. L-14174 October 31, 1960 - PHILIPPINE BANK OF COMMERCE v. HIGINIO B. MACADAEG, ET AL.

    109 Phil 981

  • G.R. No. L-14362 October 31, 1960 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. HERNANI ACANTO, ET AL.

    109 Phil 993

  • G.R. No. L-14393 October 31, 1960 - COLLECTOR OF INTERNAL REVENUE v. CANTILAN LUMBER COMPANY

    109 Phil 999

  • G.R. No. L-14474 October 31, 1960 - ONESIMA D. BELEN v. BANK OF THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS, ET AL.

    109 Phil 1008

  • G.R. No. L-14598 October 31, 1960 - MARIANO ACOSTA, ET AL. v. CARMELINO G. ALVENDIA, ET AL.

    109 Phil 1017

  • G.R. No. L-14827 October 31, 1960 - CHUA YENG v. MICHAELA ROMA

    109 Phil 1022

  • G.R. No. L-14902 October 31, 1960 - COLLECTOR OF INTERNAL REVENUE v. COURT OF TAX APPEALS

    109 Phil 1027

  • G.R. No. 15086 October 31, 1960 - NARRA v. FELIX M. MAKASIAR, ETC., ET AL.

    109 Phil 1030

  • G.R. No. L-15178 October 31, 1960 - ROSENDA FERNANDEZ, ET AL. v. CATALINO V. FERNANDEZ

    109 Phil 1033

  • G.R. No. L-15234 October 31, 1960 - ANTONIO PIMENTEL v. JOSEFINA GOMEZ, ET AL.

    109 Phil 1036

  • G.R. No. L-15253 October 31, 1960 - IN RE: ODORE LEWIN v. EMILIO GALANG

    109 Phil 1041

  • G.R. Nos. L-15328-29 October 31, 1960 - RUBEN L. VALERO v. TERESITA L. PARPANA

    109 Phil 1054

  • G.R. No. L-15391 October 31, 1960 - BOARD OF DIRECTORS v. DR. LUIS N. ALANDY

    109 Phil 1058

  • G.R. No. L-15397 October 31, 1960 - FELIPE B. OLLADA v. SECRETARY OF FINANCE

    109 Phil 1072

  • G.R. No. L-15434 October 31, 1960 - DIONISIO NAGRAMPA v. JULIA MARGATE NAGRAMPA

    109 Phil 1077

  • G.R. No. L-15459 October 31, 1960 - UNITED STATES LINES COMPANY v. COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS

    109 Phil 1081

  • G.R. No. L-15594 October 31, 1960 - RODOLFO CANO v. COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS

    109 Phil 1086

  • G.R. No. L-15643 October 31, 1960 - LIGGETT & MYERS TOBACCO CORP. v. ASSOCIATED INSURANCE & SURETY CO., INC.

    109 Phil 1093

  • G.R. No. L-15695 October 31, 1960 - MATILDE GAERLAN v. CITY COUNCIL OF BAGUIO

    109 Phil 1100

  • G.R. No. L-15697 October 31, 1960 - MARIA SALUD ANGELES v. PEDRO GUEVARA

    109 Phil 1105

  • G.R. No. L-15707 October 31, 1960 - JESUS GUARIÑA v. AGUEDA GUARIÑA-CASAS

    109 Phil 1111

  • G.R. No. L-15745 October 31, 1960 - MIGUEL TOLENTINO v. CEFERINO INCIONG

    109 Phil 1116

  • G.R. No. L-15842 October 31, 1960 - DOÑA NENA MARQUEZ v. TOMAS P. PANGANIBAN

    109 Phil 1121

  • G.R. No. L-15926 October 31, 1960 - BERNABE RELLIN v. AMBROSIO CABlGAS

    109 Phil 1128

  • G.R. No. L-16029 October 31, 1960 - STANDARD VACUUM OIL COMPANY v. LORETO PAZ

    109 Phil 1132

  • G.R. No. L-16098 October 31, 1960 - ANDREA OLARTE v. DIOSDADO ENRIQUEZ

    109 Phil 1137

  • G.R. No. L-16160 October 31, 1960 - MAGDALENA SANGALANG v. PEOPLE OF THE PHIL.

    109 Phil 1140

  • G.R. Nos. L-16292-94, L-16309 & L-16317-18 October 31, 1960 - KAPISANAN NG MGA MANGGAGAWA SA MRR., CO. v. YARD CREW UNION

    109 Phil 1143

  • G.R. No. L-16672 October 31, 1960 - ASSOCIATED LABOR UNION v. JOSE S. RODRIGUEZ

    109 Phil 1152