Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1962 > August 1962 Decisions > G.R. No. L-14034 August 30, 1962 - ACTING COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE v. LAZARUS JOSEPH, ET AL. :




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

EN BANC

[G.R. No. L-14034. August 30, 1962.]

THE ACTING COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Petitioner, v. LAZARUS JOSEPH, ALBERT JOSEPH, GEORGE JOSEPH and JOHN JOSEPH, Respondents.

Solicitor General for Petitioner.

Orlando V . Velasco for Respondents.


SYLLABUS


1. TAXATION; PERIOD FIXED FOR APPEAL, JURISDICTIONAL. — The 30-day period fixed in Section 11 of Republic Act No. 1125 within which the taxpayer may question of the Commissioner of Internal Revenue before the Court of Tax Appeals is jurisdictional. Thus, where the petition was filed outside the 30-day period, the Court of Tax Appeals has no jurisdiction to entertain it, mush less consider the right of the Government to collect tax from the taxpayer.


D E C I S I O N


BENGZON, C.J. :


Review of a decision of the Court of Tax Appeals.

It appears that after submission of their corresponding income tax returns, the herein respondents — all surnamed Joseph — received in August 1947, official letters of the Commissioner of Internal Revenue assessing against them, income tax deficiencies for the years 1945 and 1946. The next month, they were granted, at their request, a reinvestigation. Afterwards, early in October, 1951, the Commissioner reiterated, by letter, the same assessments and directed that payment thereof, plus interest, be made on or before October 15, 1951. At the same time, he issued warrants of distraint and levy against respondents’ properties. In view thereof, respondents pleaded for suspension of the summary proceedings to collect their deficiencies, pointing out that the matter was still pending investigation. And then, to procure such suspension, they made representations of solvency, mentioning their ownership of shares of stock in the corporation Joseph Bros. Inc., which shares, they asserted, were sufficient to guarantee the payment of their liabilities, if any.

Acting upon the information thus furnished, the Commissioner issued orders of garnishment of such shares. All this was in October 1951. Nothing seems to have been done until February 1953, when petitioners again asked for re-investigation, which was granted. Afterwards, insisting in his previous assessments after such re-investigation, the Commissioner in August, 1955, addressed to the Joseph a letter requesting that the shares of stock previously garnished be transferred to the Bureau of Internal Revenue to satisfy their deficiency income taxes amounting to P294,498.03.

Wherefore, in December 1955, the Josephs protested by letter to the Commissioner of Internal Revenue, questioning for the first time the Government’s power to collect by distraint and levy. Such power, they contended, had prescribed. However, by his letter of January 13, 1956, the Commissioner overruled the protest, saying that in view of their petitions for reconsideration and re-investigation, the right to collect had not prescribed; and then he warned the taxpayers that failure to pay would impel his office to take drastic action.

In view of such threat, the Josephs surrendered the shares of stock on March 3, 1956, with a letter in which they reserved the privilege to contest the seizure on the ground of prescription. On March 21, 1956, the Bureau advertised the shares for sale to satisfy the total sum of deficiency taxes and penalties.

So, in order to restrain the sale, respondents filed with the Court of Tax Appeals their petition for injunction on May 5, 1956, asserting prescription as ground for relief. But for reasons not necessary to mention, the advertised sale of the shares proceeded; with the result that they were awarded to the Government for lack of bidders.

The petition for injunction was later amended (July 1956) and converted into four separate petitions for review: Cases Nos. 267, 314, 315, and 316. On October 1, 1956, the Commissioner moved for dismissal of said petitions on the ground that the same had been filed beyond the 30-day period fixed in sec. 11 of Republic Act No. 1125; but such motion was denied.

And after hearing, judgment was rendered, the dispositive part of which reads as follows:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING CONSIDERATIONS, the decision of respondent is hereby reversed. The sale of petitioners’ shares of stock in Joseph Bros. Inc., to the government on August 30, 1956, is hereby declared null and void, and respondent is hereby ordered to return the said shares of stock to petitioners.

It is further declared that there is no deficiency income tax due and payable by petitioner Lazarus Joseph for the years 1945 and 1946 and petitioners Alberto Joseph, George Joseph and John Joseph and for the year 1946."cralaw virtua1aw library

The Commissioner, thereafter, asked for this review; and in his printed brief, he assigned several errors, the most important of which reiterated the issue of timeliness of the Josephs’ petition to the Court of Tax Appeals.

It is undeniable that the 30-day period fixed by law within which the taxpayer may question any ruling of the Commissioner of Internal Revenue before the Tax Appeals Court is jurisdictional. 1

Now, what is the ruling questioned by the Josephs? Not the amount of the tax; it could not be, since the tax had been assessed more than one year before May 5, 1956. Obviously, it was the Commissioner’s ruling that the right of the Government to collect by distraint had not prescribed. 2 Such ruling was contained in the Commissioner’s letter of January 13, 1956, which the Josephs received before March 3, 1956, date when they surrendered their shares. From March 3, to May 5, 1956, more than 30 days had elapsed.

Nevertheless, the respondents contended and the Tax Court held, that the 30-day period should be counted from April 10 when the Josephs received notice of the sale at public auction. This is, we believe, a mistaken view of the Josephs’ request for relief. They asked the Court of Tax Appeals to reverse the Commissioner’s opinion that the Government could still recover the unpaid taxes by distraint proceedings. They asserted prescription of such power. It was, therefore, the Commissioner’s ruling in his letter of January 13, 1956, that they were asking the Tax Court to overrule. To uphold the Josephs’ contention that the period began from notice of sale would amount to declaring that in an ordinary civil case, the defendant’s period to appeal the adverse decision begins only when the sheriff advertises his properties for sale on execution. 3

Of course, if the petition of the Josephs merely questioned the notice of sale on grounds different from the issue of prescription — for instance, it fixed bigger amounts than those previously specified in the orders of the Commissioner, or that its form did not accord with law — then the 30-day period would run from the day notice of such sale was received. As it was, the petition submitted to the Court of Tax Appeals the issue of prescription of the Government’s right to collect by distraint proceedings.

Therefore, the petition was filed out of the 30-day period — March 3 to May 5, 1956; — and the Tax Court had jurisdiction neither to entertain it nor to declare the distraint proceedings, including the sale, to be invalid. Much less had it any jurisdiction to consider the right of the Government to collect any deficiency income taxes from the Josephs.

ACCORDINGLY, the decision under review is hereby revoked, and one will be entered ordering dismissal of the four petitions of the Josephs. Costs against them.

Padilla, Bautista Angelo, Labrador, Concepcion, Reyes, J.B.L., Barrera, Paredes, Dizon, Regala and Makalintal, JJ., concur.

Endnotes:



1. Johnston Lumber v. Ct. of Tax App., L-9292, April 23, 1957; Gibbs v. Coll., L-13453, Feb. 29, 1960.

2. A reading of the petition so discloses.

3. In fact, it may even be said that the time to question the summary collection began in October 1951, when the distraint was first ordered and the Josephs’ goods seized.




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






August-1962 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. L-17507 August 6, 1962 - ALFREDO FERRER, ET AL. v. ANGELES RODRIGUEZ, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. L-14127-28 August 21, 1962 - ISIDORO M. MERCADO v. LEON C. VIARDO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-16253 August 21, 1962 - EAST ASIATIC CO., LTD. v. CITY OF DAVAO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-17780 August 24, 1962 - EUGENIO NADURA v. BENGUET CONSOLIDATED, INC.

  • G.R. No. L-17993 August 24, 1962 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. PROTACIO MANLAPAS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-18327 August 24, 1962 - AGUSTIN ATIENZA v. N. ALMEDA LOPEZ, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-18460 August 24, 1962 - DY PAC & COMPANY, INC. v. COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-14034 August 30, 1962 - ACTING COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE v. LAZARUS JOSEPH, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-15050 August 30, 1962 - SANTIAGO SYJUCO, INC. v. FELISA RESULTAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-15206 August 30, 1962 - EXEQUIEL FLORO v. PHILIPPINE NATIONAL BANK, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-15662 August 30, 1962 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. CARMELO VALERA

  • G.R. No. L-15988 August 30, 1962 - VICENTE GARCIA, ET AL. v. PEDRO DE GUZMAN

  • G.R. No. L-17084 August 30, 1962 - JOSEFA DULAY v. PEDRO C. MERRERA

  • G.R. No. L-17317 August 30, 1962 - PHILIPPINE RABBIT BUS LINE, INC. v. JESUS D. VILLAPANA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-17449 August 30, 1962 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ZOSIMO MONTEMAYOR, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-17595 August 30, 1962 - RAFAEL MASCARIÑAS, ETC. v. CARMELO L. PORRAS, ETC.

  • G.R. No. L-17801 August 30, 1962 - LEONOR G. TAGAYUMA v. OLEGARIO LASTRILLA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-17836 August 30, 1962 - MATEO CANITE, ET AL. v. MADRIGAL & CO., INC., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-17890 August 30, 1962 - REINERIO TICAO, ET AL. v. ARSENIO NAÑAWA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-18058 August 30, 1962 - NATIONAL RICE AND CORN CORPORATION v. NARIC WORKERS UNION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-18107 August 30, 1962 - MARIA G. AGUAS, ET AL. v. PERPETUA YERRO-LLEMOS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-18119 August 30, 1962 - PABLO S. HAMOY v. PAMBAYA BATINGOLO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-18177 August 30, 1962 - REHABILITATION FINANCE CORPORATION v. ISABEL ACUÑA DE NEPOMUCENO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-14129 August 30, 1962 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. GUILLERMO MANANTAN

  • G.R. No. L-15858 August 30, 1962 - DY LAM GO v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-18428 August 30, 1962 - MARIANO G. ALMEDA, SR., ET AL. v. JESUS Y. PEREZ, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-18745 August 30, 1962 - JOSE T. VELASQUEZ v. PEDRO K. CORONEL, ETC.

  • G.R. No. L-13081 August 31, 1962 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL. v. LIMACO & DE GUZMAN COMMERCIAL CO., INC., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-14187 August 31, 1962 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RUBEN DE LA CRUZ, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-14401 31 August 31, 1962 - PANGASINAN TRANSPORTATION CO., INC. v. RICARDO FELICIANO

  • G.R. No. L-15022 August 31, 1962 - VICENTE STO. DOMINGO BERNARDO, ET AL. v. FRANCISCO B. JOSE, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-15121 August 31, 1962 - GREGORIO PALACIO v. FELY TRANSPORTATION COMPANY

  • G.R. No. L-15379 August 31, 1962 - TEODORO L. URBAYAN v. CALTEX (PHILIPPINES) INC., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-15663 August 31, 1962 - ANTONIO GUISADIO v. RUBEN A. VILLALUZ, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-16021 August 31, 1962 - ANTONIO PORTA FERRER v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE

  • G.R. No. L-16169 August 31, 1962 - BLAS CUNANAN v. FELICIDAD LARA DE ANTEPASADO, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. L-16204 and L-16256 August 31, 1962 - ERNESTO A. PAPA, ET AL. v. SEVERO J. SANTIAGO

  • G.R. No. L-16449 August 31, 1962 - PAUL SCHENKER v. WILLIAM F. GEMPERLE

  • G.R. No. L-16945 August 31, 1962 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JESUS L. CRISOSTOMO

  • G.R. No. L-16953 August 31, 1962 - PABLO SARNILLO, ET AL. v. MONTANO A. ORTIZ, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-17303 August 31, 1962 - ANTONIO CO PO v. COLLECTOR OF INTERNAL REVENUE

  • G.R. No. L-17311 August 31, 1962 - QUIRICO A. ABELA v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-17389 August 31, 1962 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MAMERTO S. MIRANDA

  • G.R. No. L-17448 August 31, 1962 - VICENTE DICHOSO v. LEANDRO VALDEPEÑAS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-17464 August 31, 1962 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. VICENTE RECOLIZADO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-17620 August 31, 1962 - FAR EASTERN UNIVERSITY v. COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-17750 August 31, 1962 - A. L. AMMEN TRANSPORTATION COMPANY INC., ET AL. v. JOSE BORJA

  • G.R. No. L-17766 August 31, 1962 - LEONARDO MADRIGAL v. CITY SHERIFF OF MANILA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-17799 August 31, 1962 - BENVENENCIO VALENCIA, ET AL. v. CITY OF DUMAGUETE, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-17831 August 31, 1962 - JESUS J. ANDRES v. MELECIO DOMINGO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-17849 August 31, 1962 - GREGORIO G. AGUILAR v. FELIPE NATIVIDAD, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-17897 August 31, 1962 - CEBU PORTLAND CEMENT COMPANY v. COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-18040 August 31, 1962 - SANTIAGO RICE MILL, ET AL. v. SANTIAGO LABOR UNION

  • G.R. No. L-18055 August 31, 1962 - FELIX MORADA v. HERMOGENES CALUAG, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-18076 August 31, 1962 - ELEUTERIO CANEDA v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. L-18251 and Nos L-18252 August 31, 1962 - IRINEO SANTOS, JR., ET AL. v. JOSE P. FLORES, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-18316 August 31, 1962 - RODOLFO CACHUELA v. NATALIO P. CASTILLO

  • G.R. No. L-18469 August 31, 1962 - MUNICIPAL BOARD OF CANVASSERS OF BANSUD, ORIENTAL MINDORO, ET AL. v. COMELEC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-18541 August 31, 1962 - DONATO IGNACIO, ET AL. v. PASTOR L. DE GUZMAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-18564 August 31, 1962 - CONSUELO T. DE CASES v. TERESITA F. PEYER

  • G.R. No. L-18695 August 31, 1962 - CIPRIANO MARTINEZ, ET AL. v. RAYMUNDO VILLACETE, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-18836 August 31, 1962 - BENJAMIN SIA v. JAVIER T. BUENA

  • G.R. No. L-19823 August 31, 1962 - RUPERTO ADVINCULA, ET AL. v. COMMISSION ON APPOINTMENTS, ET AL.