Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1961 > October 1961 Decisions > G.R. No. L-12518 October 28, 1961 - COLLECTOR OF INTERNAL REVENUE v. J.C. YUSECO, ET AL:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

EN BANC

[G.R. No. L-12518. October 28, 1961.]

COLLECTOR OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Petitioner, v. J.C. YUSECO and THE COURT OF TAX APPEALS, Respondents.

Solicitor General and Antonio H. Garces for Petitioner.

Yuseco, Abdon, Yuseco & Narvasa for Respondents.


SYLLABUS


1. COURTS OF TAX APPEALS; JURISDICTION; WRITS OF PROHIBITION AND INJUNCTION POWER TO ISSUE. — Nowhere does the law expressly vest in the Court of Tax Appeals original jurisdiction to issue writs of prohibition and injunction independently of, and apart from, an appealed case. The writ of prohibition or injunction that it may issue under the provisions of Section 11, Republic Act No. 1125 to suspend the collection of taxes, is merely ancillary to and in furtherance of its appellate jurisdiction in the case mentioned in Sec. 7 of the Act. The power to issue the writ exists only in cases appealed to it. In other words the intention of Congress was to vest the Court of Tax Appeals with jurisdiction to issue writs of prohibition and injunction only in aid of its appellate jurisdiction in cases appealed to it and not to clothe it with original jurisdiction to issue them.

2. TAXATION; PAYMENT OF TAXES CANNOT BE DELAYED; REMEDY OF TAXPAYERS. — Taxes being the chief source of revenue for the Government to keep it running must be paid immediately and without delay. A taxpayer who feels aggrieved by the decision or ruling handed down by a revenue officer and appeals from his decision or ruling to the Court of Tax Appeals must pay the tax assessed except that, if in the opinion of the Court the collection would jeopardize the interest of the Government and/or the taxpayer, it could suspend the collection and requires the taxpayer either to deposit the amount claimed or to file a surety bond for not more than double the amount of the tax assessed.


D E C I S I O N


PADILLA, J.:


The Collector of Internal Revenue seeks a review under section 18, Republic Act No. 1125, and prays for the setting aside of the judgment rendered by the Court of Tax Appeals on 25 March 1957, in C.T.A. Case No. 217, the dispositive part of which is, as follows:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

WHEREFORE, pursuant to section 51 (d) of the National Internal Revenue Code, judgment is hereby rendered declaring the warrant of distraint and levy issued by respondent on January 20, 1955 to effect collection of the "amount of P2,447.30 as income tax for the year 1946 plus 5% surcharge and the 1% monthly interest from August 16, 1953" allegedly due from petitioner, is hereby declared null and void and of no legal force and effect and respondent is hereby directed to return to petitioner the properties seized from the latter under said warrant. The respondent Collector of Internal Revenue is likewise enjoined from taking any further proceeding to effect by summary methods the collection of the alleged income taxes assessed against petitioner J. C. Yuseco in the sums of P134.14 and P2,447.30 for the years 1945 and 1946, respectively. Without pronouncement as to costs. (Appendix N)

and the resolution entered by the same Court on 17 June 1957 denying his motion for reconsideration (Appendix P).

The facts, which are not disputed, are, as summarized by the Court, as follows:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

The facts established in this case show that petitioner did not file income tax returns for the Calendar years 1945 and 1946. This fact having come to the knowledge of revenue examiners, they accordingly made income tax returns for petitioner upon which respondent on August 20, 1948, assessed against and demanded from petitioner the sums of P134.14 and P7,563.28 representing alleged income taxes and corresponding surcharges for the years 1945 and 1946. On September 1, 1948, petitioner wrote the respondent, requesting that he be informed as to how the assessments were arrived at. In reply thereto, respondent in a letter dated September 17, 1948 furnished the information sought and at the same time demanded the payment of the aforesaid assessments. On October 4, 1948, petitioner asked that he be given an opportunity to present his side of the matter. However, respondent on December 13, 1948, denied reconsideration of the assessment and reiterated his demand upon petitioner for payment thereof which was followed with another demand on June 29, 1949. On July 28, 1949, petitioner once more requested for a reinvestigation of the case but the same was denied by respondent in his letter dated February 7, 1951 wherein he repeated his demand for payment. On April 3, 1951, petitioner renewed his request for reinvestigation and nothing was heard of the matter for almost three years thereafter.

On January 6, 1953, respondent issued a warrant of distraint and levy upon petitioner’s properties which, however, was not executed. On January 16, 1953, petitioner sought the withdrawal and/or reconsideration of said warrant. Meanwhile, on July 2, 1953, respondent issued a revised assessment notice which reduced the original assessment for the 1946 income tax to P2,447.30, including surcharge. On July 18, 1953, petitioner asked that he be informed of the action upon his petition for reinvestigation. This request was reiterated in his letter of August 18, 1953 wherein he acknowledged receipt of the modified assessment for the 1946 income tax. On September 1, 1953, respondent wrote petitioner demanding from the latter payment of the said sum of P2,447.30 as income tax for the year 1946 plus penalties incident to delinquency, and reiterating the demand for the unrevised income tax assessment for 1945 in the sum of P134.14, but respondent did not take any further action thereafter to effect collection of the assessment.

On January 20, 1955, respondent again issued a warrant of distraint and levy on the properties of petitioner, this time only to effect collection of the said sum of P2,447.30 as income tax for 1946. The distraint being still enforce, petitioner on December 12, 1955 filed his petition for prohibition with this Court.

The petitioner Collector of Internal Revenue assails the jurisdiction of the respondent Court of Tax Appeals to take cognizance of the respondent taxpayer’s petition that seeks to enjoin him (the petitioner) from collecting his income taxes due for the years 1945 and 1946 and surcharges by summary distraint of and levy upon his personal and real properties, under the provisions of sections 316 to 330 of the National Internal Revenue Code. The petitioner’s contention is that the respondent taxpayer cannot bring in the respondent Court an independent special civil action for prohibition without taking to said Court an appeal from the decision or ruling of the Collector of Internal Revenue in the cases provided for in sections 7 and 11 of Republic Act No. 1125.

Sections 7, 9 and 11 of Republic Act No. 1125, creating the Court of Tax Appeals, provide:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

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;

(2) Decisions of the Commissioner of Customs in cases involving liability for customs duties, fees or other money charges; seizure, detention or release of property affected; fines, forfeitures or other penalties imposed in relation thereto; or other matters arising under the Customs Law or other law or part of law administered by the Bureau of Customs; and

(3) Decisions of provincial or city Boards of Assessment Appeals in cases involving the assessment and taxation of real property or other matters arising under the Assessment Law, including rules and regulations relative thereto.

SEC. 9. Fees. — The Court shall fix reasonable fees for the filing of an appeal, for certified copies of any transcript of record, entry or other document, and for other authorized services rendered by the Court or its personnel.

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.

No appeal taken to the Court of Tax Appeals from the decision of the Collector of Internal Revenue or the Collector of Customs shall 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; Provided, however, That when in the opinion of the Court the collection by the Bureau of Internal Revenue or the Commissioner of Customs may jeopardize the interest of the Government and/or the taxpayer the Court at any stage of the proceeding may suspend the said collection and require the taxpayer either to deposit the amount claimed or to file a surety bond for not more than double the amount with the Court. (Emphasis supplied.)

The foregoing provisions of the law refer and limit only to appeals from decisions or rulings of the Collector of Internal Revenue, Commissioner of Customs and Provincial or City Boards of Assessment Appeals in the proper cases. Nowhere does the law expressly vest in the Court of Tax Appeals original jurisdiction to issue writs of prohibition and injunction independently of, and apart from, an appealed case. The writ of prohibition or injunction that it may issue under the provisions of section 11, Republic Act No. 1125, to suspend the collection of taxes, is merely ancillary to and in furtherance of its appellate jurisdiction in the cases mentioned in section 7 of the Act. The power to issue the writ exists only in cases appealed to it. This is reflected on the explanatory note of the bill (House No. 175), creating the Court of Tax Appeals. We quote from the explanatory note:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

. . . It is proposed in the attached bill to establish not merely an administrative body but a regular court vested with exclusive appellate jurisdiction over cases arising under the National Internal Revenue Code, Customs Law and the Assessment Law. (Emphasis supplied. p. 2202, Congressional Record, Third Congress, Vol. I, Part II.)

Congressman Castañeda, one of the proponents of the bill, in his opening remarks sponsoring its enactment into law, said that "House Bill No. 175 has for its purpose the creation of a regular court of tax appeals." (p. 2204, supra.) Answering a question from Congressman Alonzo whether the Court of Tax Appeals would have only appellate jurisdiction and no concurrent or original jurisdiction, the proponent said that "It has exclusive jurisdiction with reference to matters or cases arising from the Internal Revenue Code, the Customs Law and the Assessment Law." (pp. 2209-2210, supra). Dwelling further on the subject, the two members of the House of Representatives — continued their discussion, as follows:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

Mr. Alonzo. So that under this proposal you will bring the case immediately to this court that you are proposing to create, without first having it decided by the Commissioner of Customs or the Collector of Internal Revenue, as the case may be.

Mr. Castañeda. It will have to be appealed from the decision of the Collector of Internal Revenue, the Collector of Customs or the Assessors, to the Court of Tax Appeals, then to the Supreme Court. (pp. 2209-2210, supra.)

These statements made during the proceedings indicate that the intention of Congress was to vest the Court of Tax Appeals with jurisdiction to issue writs of prohibition and injunction only in aid of its appellate jurisdiction in cases appealed to it and not to clothe it with original jurisdiction to issue them. Such intent is reflected on the second paragraph of section 11, Republic Act No. 1125 quoted above. Taxes being the chief source of revenue for the Government to keep it running must be paid immediately and without delay. A taxpayer who feels aggrieved by the decision or ruling handed down by a revenue officer and appeals from his decision or ruling to the Court of Tax Appeals must pay the tax assessed, except that, if in the opinion of the Court the collection would jeopardize the interest of the Government and/or the taxpayer, it could suspend the collection and require the taxpayer either to deposit the amount claimed or to file a surety bond for not more than double the amount of the tax assessed.

The judgment under review is annulled and set aside, without pronouncement as to costs.

Bengzon, C.J., Bautista Angelo, Labrador, Concepcion, Reyes, J.B.L., Paredes, Dizon and De Leon, JJ., concur.

Barrera, J., took no part.




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-1961 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. L-17722 October 9, 1961 - MAURICIO GORDULAN v. CESAREO GORDULAN

  • G.R. No. L-15525 October 11, 1961 - MUNICIPALITY OF LUCBAN v. NAT’L. WATERWORKS & SEWERAGE AUTHORITY

  • G.R. No. L-15959 October 11, 1961 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ALFREDO PERALTA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-11870 October 16, 1961 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. BENITO CRUZ, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-17721 October 16, 1961 - GREGORIO APELARIO v. INES CHAVEZ & CO., LTD., ET AL

  • G.R. No. L-5733 October 19, 1961 - NORTHWEST TRACTOR & EQUIPMENT (PHIL.) CORP. v. MORALES SHIPPING CO., INC.

  • G.R. No. L-14957 October 19, 1961 - CO KE TONG v. DIRECTOR OF PRISONS

  • G.R. No. L-16135 October 19, 1961 - NAPOLEON R. MALOLOS v. ANDRES REYES, ETC., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-16495 October 19, 1961 - LA MALLORCA-PAMBUSCO v. CIRILO ISIP, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-14321 October 20, 1961 - SATURNlNO MOLDERO v. RENEE J. YANDOC, ET AL

  • G.R. No. L-16109 October 20, 1961 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ISABELO ALMIREZ

  • G.R. No. L-15108 October 26, 1961 - FORTUNATO F. HALILI v. ELEUTERIO SEMAÑA

  • G.R. No. L-15955 October 26, 1961 - IN RE: NARCISO CHING v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-16254 October 26, 1961 - GREGORIO ABING, ET AL. v. AGO AMISTAD, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-18275 October 26, 1961 - COTABATO RICE MILL, INC. v. SALAZAR ADAM

  • G.R. No. L-14968 October 27, 1961 - GEORGE MCENTEE v. PERPETUA MANOTOK

  • G.R. No. L-15584 October 27, 1961 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. PACIFICO PECZON, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-16287 October 27, 1961 - JULIAN DE LEMOS v. MANUEL E. CASTAÑEDA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-16492 October 27, 1961 - MARIA SALAO VDA. DE SANTOS v. ESTELITA G. BARRERA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-16504 October 27, 1961 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL. v. ERNESTO S. GAMBOA

  • G.R. No. L-16538 October 27, 1961 - "Y" SHIPPING CORP. v. AGUSTIN BORCELIS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-16592 October 27, 1961 - ENRIQUE ICASIANO v. FELISA ICASIANO

  • G.R. No. L-16938 October 27, 1961 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RUDY ESCARE

  • G.R. No. L-17055 October 27, 1961 - MANUEL LAO v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-17707 October 27, 1961 - MANUEL F. PORTILLO v. LUIS B. REYES, ET AL

  • G.R. No. L-12518 October 28, 1961 - COLLECTOR OF INTERNAL REVENUE v. J.C. YUSECO, ET AL

  • G.R. No. L-14045 October 28, 1961 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. VIRGILIO C. CABRAL, ET AL

  • G.R. Nos. L-16943-44 October 28, 1961 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. DAVID DICHUPA

  • G.R. No. L-14150 October 30, 1961 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ALEJANDRO CLARIT, ET AL

  • G.R. No. L-15865 October 30, 1961 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MARDONIO SURBIDA

  • G.R. No. L-16403 October 30, 1961 - SAN MIGUEL BREWERY, INC. v. JESUS BETIA, ET AL

  • G.R. No. L-17395 October 30, 1961 - ISIDRO DE LEON v. CRISANTO ARAGON, ET AL

  • G.R. No. L-13324 October 31, 1961 - MARCELO CAGUIOA, ET AL. v. BACOLOD-MURCIA FARMERS’ CORP.

  • G.R. No. L-14279 October 31, 1961 - COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, ET AL v. EASTERN SEA TRADING

  • G.R. No. L-14409 October 31, 1961 - AGAPITO FUELLAS v. ELPIDIO CADANO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-14456 October 31, 1961 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. GALBON IJAD, ET AL

  • G.R. Nos. L-14948 and L-14972 October 31, 1961 - COMMERCIAL UNION ASSURANCE CO., LTD. v. MANILA PORT SERVICE, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-15596 October 31, 1961 - RUFINO M. CORTEZ v. FLORENTINO MANIMBO

  • G.R. No. L-15772 October 31, 1961 - COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE v. CHURCH OF JESUS CHRIST "NEW JERUSALEM"

  • G.R. No. L-15868 October 31, 1961 - PHIL. INTERNATIONAL SURETY CO., INC. v. FAUSTO GONZALES, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-15934 October 31, 1961 - CARMEN PLANAS v. COLLECTOR OF INTERNAL REVENUE

  • G.R. No. L-15995 October 31, 1961 - RUFINO DELANTES v. GO TAO & COMPANY

  • G.R. No. L-16031 October 31, 1961 - CONCORDIA CAGALAWAN v. CUSTOMS CANTEEN, ET AL

  • G.R. No. L-16108 October 31, 1961 - IN RE: ELEUTERIA FELISETA TAN v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-16271 October 31, 1961 - ATLANTIC MUTUAL INSURANCE CO. v. MANILA PORT SERVICE, ET AL

  • G.R. No. L-16290 October 31, 1961 - SANTOS TABUENA, ET AL v. COURT OF APPEALS, ETC., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-16370 October 31, 1961 - JOSE S. GALVEZ, ET AL v. PLDT COMPANY, ET AL

  • G.R. No. L-16476 October 31, 1961 - LEONCIO KIMPO v. NEMESIO T. TABAÑAR

  • G.R. No. L-16735 October 31, 1961 - FRUCTUOSO ALQUESA, ET AL v. BLAS G. CAVADA, JR., ET AL

  • G.R. No. L-16786 October 31, 1961 - EMILIANO M. PEREZ v. CITY MAYOR OF CABANATUAN

  • G.R. No. L-17072 October 31, 1961 - CRISTINA MARCELO VDA. DE BAUTISTA v. BRIGIDA MARCOS, ET AL

  • G.R. No. L-17186 October 31, 1961 - GSIS v. COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS, ET AL

  • G.R. No. L-17384 October 31, 1961 - NESTOR RIGOR VDA. DE QUIAMBAO, ET AL. v. MANILA MOTOR CO., INC., ET AL

  • G.R. No. L-17953 October 31, 1961 - LESLIE H. BROWN, ET AL v. SALUD Q. BROWN, ET AL