Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1967 > May 1967 Decisions > G.R. No. L-23534 May 16, 1967 - JOSE A. ARCHES v. ANACLETO I. BELLOSILLO, ET AL.:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

EN BANC

[G.R. No. L-23534. May 16, 1967.]

JOSE A. ARCHES, Petitioner-Appellant, v. ANACLETO I. BELLOSILLO and JAIME ARANETA, Respondents-Appellees.

Jose A. Arches for Petitioner-Appellant.

Solicitor General Arturo A. Alafriz, Solicitor A. B. Afurong and Atty. S. S. Soriano for Respondent-Appellees.


SYLLABUS


1. TAXATION; SUIT ON UNCONTESTED ASSESSMENT; JURISDICTIONAL TEST. —A suit instituted by the Republic, based on an uncontested assessment, is one merely for the recovery of a sum of money where the amount demanded constitutes the jurisdictional test.

2. ID.; ID.; LACK OF APPROVAL BY REVENUE COMMISSIONER; SUCH REQUISITE NOT JURISDICTIONAL. — The question of whether this suit should bear the approval of the Revenue Commissioner is not jurisdictional, but one relating to capacity to sue or affecting the cause of action only. So, in ruling on said question, whatever error. — if any — the municipal court committed, was merely an error of judgment, not correctible by certiorari.

3. ID.; ID.; INTERLOCUTORY ORDER; REMEDY THEREFROM. — An order denying a motion to dismiss is interlocutory and the remedy of the unsuccessful movant is to await the judgment on the merits and then appeal therefrom.

4. PRESCRIPTION; PRESCRIPTIVE PERIOD; HOW COUNTED. — The proper prescriptive period for bringing civil actions, is five years from the date of assessment, under Section 332 of the Tax Code. The three years prescriptive period under Section 51 (d) refers only to the summary remedies of distraint and levy.


D E C I S I O N


BENGZON, J.P., J.:


Petitioner-appellant Jose Arches filed on February 27, 1954 his income tax return for 1953. Within five years thereafter, or on February 26, 1959, deficiency income tax and residence tax assessments were issued against him.

Said assessments not having been disputed, the Republic, represented by the Bureau of Internal Revenue Regional Director, filed suit on December 29, 1960, in the municipal court of Roxas City, to recover from petitioner-appellant the sum of P4,441.25 as deficiency income tax and additional residence tax for 1953. Arches then moved to dismiss the complaint on the ground that it did not expressly show the approval of the Revenue Commissioner, as required by Section 308 of the Tax Code, and on the further ground of prescription of the action.

The municipal court denied the motion. Petitioner-appellant, his motion to reconsider having been denied also, resorted to the Court of First Instance of Capiz on a petition for certiorari and prohibition assailing the order denying his motion to dismiss. The trial court dismissed the petition. Hence, this appeal.

The only question here is the correctness of the dismissal of the petition by the Court of First Instance. The order was predicated upon the impropriety of the writ. We find no error committed by said court.

The municipal court had jurisdiction over the parties and over the subject matter, the amount demanded being less than P5,000.00. 1 The suit below instituted by the Republic, based on an uncontested assessment, was one merely for the recovery of a sum of money where the amount demanded constitutes the jurisdictional test. 2

Petitioner-appellant would make much of the lack of approval of the Revenue Commissioner. First of all, in this case, such requisite is not jurisdictional, but one relating to capacity to sue or affecting the cause of action only. 3 So, in ruling on said question, whatever error — if any — the municipal court committed, was merely an error of judgment, not correctible by certiorari. 4

Neither was there grave abuse of discretion on the part of the municipal court in ruling that the express approval of the Revenue Commissioner himself was not necessary. The court relied upon Memorandum Order No. V-634 of the Revenue Commissioner, approved by the Finance Secretary on July 1, 1956, wherein the former’s functions regarding the administration and enforcement of revenue laws and regulations — powers broad enough to cover the approval of court actions as required in Section 308 of the Tax Code — were expressly delegated to the Regional Directors. This regulation, the issuance of which was authorized by statute, has the force and effect of law. 5 To rely upon it, hence, would not be tantamount to whimsical, capricious and arbitrary exercise of judgment.

The verification by the Regional Director of the complaint constitutes sufficient approval thereof already. It states, inter alia, that said Director has caused the preparation of the complaint and that he has read the allegations thereof and they are true and correct to the best of his knowledge and belief. Pleadings are to be liberally construed. 6

Assuming, therefore, in gratia argumenti, that the suit is being erroneously — but not invalidly — entertained, for lack of express approval of the Commissioner or the Regional Director, certiorari would still not lie. An order denying a motion to dismiss is interlocutory and the remedy of the unsuccessful movant is to await the judgment on the merits and then appeal therefrom. 7 And, as the Court of First Instance rightly observed, there was no showing of a special reason or urgent need to stop the proceedings at such early stage in the municipal court.

Petitioner-appellant would also raise the question of prescription. Again, this is not jurisdictional. And, We have already ruled 8 that the proper prescriptive period for bringing civil actions is five years from the date of the assessment, under Section 332 of the Tax Code. The three year period urged by petitioner-appellant under Section 51 (d) refers only to the summary remedies of distraint and levy. Here, the action was commenced one year, ten months and three days after the assessments were made; hence, well within the period.

Wherefore, the dismissal of appellant’s petition for certiorari by the Court of First Instance is hereby affirmed. Costs against petitioner-appellant. So ordered.

Concepcion, C.J., Reyes, J .B.L., Dizon, Regala, Makalintal, Sanchez and Castro, JJ., concur.

Endnotes:



1. Sec. 88, Judiciary Act, as amended by Sec. 10, Rep. Act No. 2613.

2. Ventanilla v. B.T.A., L-7384, Dec. 19, 1955; Republic v. Gamboa, L-16504, Oct. 27, 1961.

3. In this it differs from petitions for adoption or guardianship, where notice to or consent of specified persons is jurisdictional, since the latter are special proceedings, in rem, whereas the suit for collection in question is a simple money claim.

4. Gala v. Cui, 25 Phil. 522; Villa Rey Transit v. Hon. Bello, L-18957, Apr. 23, 1963; J.R.S. Business Corp. v. Imperial Insurance, L-19891, July 31, 1964.

5. Art. 7, Civil Code; Re Huttman, 70 Fed. 669; Re Weeks, 82 Fed, 729; Gratiot v. U.S., 4 How. 80: U.S. v. Elliason, 16 Pet. 291.

6. Rule 6, Sec. 15, Rev. Rules of Court.

7. Harrison Foundry & Machinery v. Harrison Foundry Worker’s Assn., L-18432, June 20, 1963; Bautista v. de la Cruz, L-21107, Dec. 24, 1963; 3 Moran, 1953 ed., pp. 152-153.

8. Republic v. Ledesma, L-18759, Feb. 28, 1967.




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






May-1967 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. L-20627 May 4, 1967 - ‘Y’ SHIPPING CORPORATION v. MAXIMO ERISPE, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-20262 May 11, 1967 - EMILIA SOMODIO v. RUFO S. SUCALDITO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-23095 May 12, 1967 - PEDRO D. GENATO v. FAUSTINO SY-CHANGCO

  • G.R. No. L-21755 May 13, 1967 - IN RE: CHUA BENG v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-23656 May 15, 1967 - IN RE: TEOFILO YAP v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-20810 May 16, 1967 - IN RE: ALFONSO PO CHU KING v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-22791 May 16, 1967 - CIRILO BARNACHEA, ET AL. v. EMILIANO C. TABIGNE, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-23534 May 16, 1967 - JOSE A. ARCHES v. ANACLETO I. BELLOSILLO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-20900 May 16, 1967 - CAMPUA UY TINA v. DAVID P. AVILA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-22147 May 16, 1967 - IN RE: LEE BING HOO v. REPULIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-22273 May 16, 1967 - PAGKAKAISANG ITINATAGUYOD NG MGA MANGGAGAWA SA ANG TIBAY, ET AL. v. ANG TIBAY INC., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-23501 May 16, 1967 - FILIPINAS INVESTMENT & FINANCE CORP. v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE

  • G.R. No. L-22793 May 16, 1967 - CARMELITA TAN, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-23729 May 16, 1967 - RIZAL SURETY & INSURANCE COMPANY v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-24281 May 16, 1967 - ROSITA C. TALEON, ET AL. v. SECRETARY OF PUBLIC WORKS AND COMMUNICATIONS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-17463 May 16, 1967 - TEODORO SUMALJAG BONGAL, ET AL. v. BARBARA P. VDA. DE BONGAL

  • G.R. No. L-17500 May 16, 1967 - PEOPLE’S BANK AND TRUST CO., ET AL. v. DAHICAN LUMBER COMPANY, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-18937 May 16, 1967 - NATIVIDAD E. IGNACIO, ET AL. v. EDUARDO ELCHICO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-18981 May 16, 1967 - GOVERNMENT OF THE PHILIPPINES v. MOISES SONGCUYA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-19791 May 16, 1967 - KAPISANAN NG MGA MANGGAGAWA SA MANILA RAILROAD CO. v. RAFAEL HERNANDEZ, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-23212 May 18, 1967 - CAUSAPIENCIA CLEMENTE, ET AL. v. H.E. HEACOCK CO., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-24105 May 18, 1967 - JAIME BALITE v. JUDGE DOMINGO CABANGON, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-18936 May 23, 1967 - NATIVIDAD E. IGNACIO, ET AL. v. PAMPANGA BUS COMPANY INC.

  • G.R. No. L-21675 May 23, 1967 - NATIONAL SHIPYARDS AND STEEL CORP. v. COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-22336 May 23, 1967 - MERCEDES DE LA MAZA v. MARCELO OCHAVE

  • G.R. No. L-23607 May 23, 1967 - GO KA TOC SONS & CO., ETC. v. RICE AND CORN BOARD

  • G.R. No. L-16177 May 24, 1967 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. PANCHO A. PELAGIO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-20383 May 24, 1967 - PHILIPPINE AMERICAN LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY v. SOCIAL SECURITY COMMISSION

  • G.R. No. L-20426 May 24, 1967 - MIGUEL ALBANO, ET AL. v. FERMIN RAMOS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-20909 May 24, 1967 - IN RE: VICENTE TIU TUA PI v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-21281 May 24, 1967 - EDILBERTO BALANE, ET AL. v. PASTOR L. DE GUZMAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-23074 May 24, 1967 - POLICARPIO REAL v. JESSIE TROUTHMAN

  • G.R. No. L-22730 May 24, 1967 - RAMON A. GONZALES v. JUAN PONCE ENRILE, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-20954 May 29, 1967 - ELIAS GALLAR v. HERMENEGILDA HUSAIN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-23450 May 24, 1967 - NATIONAL DEVELOPMENT COMPANY v. MAGDALENA AYSON, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-23507 May 24, 1967 - JUANA LAUREL-MANILA, ET AL. v. DIONISIO GALVAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-23925 May 24, 1967 - COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS OF THE PORT OF MANILA v. HERMOGENES CALUAG, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-24262 May 24, 1967 - MANILA RAILROAD COMPANY, ET AL. v. CARMELINO G. ALVENDIA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-26153 May 24, 1967 - GUALBERTO TENCHAVEZ v. ATLAS CONSOLIDATED MINING & DEVELOPMENT CO., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-18838 May 25, 1967 - CARMEN M. PASCUAL, ET AL. v. RAMON MENESES, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-17462 May 29, 1967 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL. v. JOSE RAZON, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-19421 May 29, 1967 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. AGRIPINO FONTANOSA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-20853 May 29, 1967 - BONIFACIO BROS., INC., ET AL. v. ENRIQUE MORA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-21199 May 29, 1967 - JOSE G. SYSON v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-21807 May 29, 1967 - JOSE C. ZULUETA v. ANDRES REYES, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-22345 May 29, 1967 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. AMADOR GOMEZ, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-20897 May 30, 1967 - IN RE: TY ENG HUA v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-21739 May 30, 1967 - IN RE: ONG CHIAN SUY v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-21445 May 30, 1967 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MONICO REYES

  • G.R. No. L-23113 May 30, 1967 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. SIXTO COMIGJOD

  • G.R. Nos. L-18292-4 May 30, 1967 - CRESENTE PICHAY, ET AL. v. ISAIAS CELESTINO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-19453-4 May 30, 1967 - GREGORIO E. FAJARDO v. COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-22558 May 31, 1967 - GREGORIO ARANETA, INC. v. PHILIPPINE SUGAR ESTATES DEVELOPMENT CO., LTD.

  • G.R. No. L-27l97 May 31, 1967 - NATIONAL WATERWORKS AND SEWERAGE AUTHORITY v. MUNICIPALITY OF LIBMANAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-25656 May 31, 1967 - NAZARIO NALOG, ET AL. v. NEMESIO DE GUZMAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. L-23236 & L-23254 May 31, 1967 - CENTRAL AZUCARERA DON PEDRO v. COURT OF TAX APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-23368 May 31, 1967 - ARTURO H. TROCIO v. ABELARDO SUBIDO, ET AL.