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
 

   
January-1999 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. 126466 January 14, 1999 - ARTURO BORJAL v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 114170 January 15, 1999 - PROSPERITY CREDIT RESOURCES v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • A.M. No. P-97-1257 January 18, 1999 - EUSEBIA CORAJE, ET AL. v. HENRY BRACEROS

  • G.R. Nos. 109279-80 January 18, 1999 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. OCTAVIO MENDOZA

  • G.R. No. 124973 January 18, 1999 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RICKY BANELA

  • G.R. No. 132601 January 19, 1999 - LEO ECHEGARAY v. SECRETARY OF JUSTICE

  • G.R. No. 108576 January 20, 1999 - CIR v. COURT OF APPEAL, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 113099 January 20, 1999 - ASIA FANCY PLYWOOD CORP. v. NLRC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 121212 January 20, 1999 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ARTEMIO CALAYCA

  • G.R. No. 123050 January 20, 1999 - SUICO IND’L. CORP. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 123810 January 20, 1999 - CONSOLIDATED RURAL BANK, INC. v. NLRC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 123997 January 20, 1999 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHILS. v. SANDIGANBAYAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 125849 January 20, 1999 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. WILFREDO BAÑEZ

  • G.R. No. 126124 January 20, 1999 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ZALDY P. PADILLA

  • G.R. No. 127410 January 20, 1999 - CONRADO L. TIU, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 128017 January 20, 1999 - RAMON ITURALDE v. ALFREDO FALCASANTOS

  • G.R. No. 128096 January 20, 1999 - PANFILO M. LACSON v. EXECUTIVE SECRETARY, ET AL.

  • A.M. No. MTJ-99-1176 January 21, 1999 - LETICIA V. MALLORCA v. REYNALDO M. PANOPIO

  • G.R. No. 102965 January 21, 1999 - JAMES REBURIANO, ET AL v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 109840 January 21, 1999 - JOSE L. CHUA, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 116111 January 21, 1999 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL., ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 117103 January 21, 1999 - RENATO S. ONG, ET AL v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL

  • G.R. No. 117254 January 21, 1999 - CIR v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 119446 January 21, 1999 - PHIL. HOME ASSURANCE CORP., ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 119682 January 21, 1999 - FRANCISCO BAGUIO v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 124062 January 21, 1999 - REYNALDO T. COMETA, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 126005 January 21, 1999 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL., ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 126051 January 21, 1999 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ARNOLD REALIN, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 126094-95 January 21, 1999 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. TITO REDUCA

  • G.R. No. 126696 January 21, 1999 - SECURITY BANK & TRUST CO. v. TRIUMPH LUMBER AND CONSTRUCTION CORP.

  • G.R. No. 127838 January 21, 1999 - CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION v. JOSE J. LUCAS

  • G.R. No. 128297 January 21, 1999 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 128690 January 21, 1999 - ABS-CBN BROADCASTING CORP. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 130756 January 21, 1999 - ESTER B. MARALIT v. JESUSA CORAZON L. IMPERIAL

  • A.M. No. RTJ-97-1371 January 22, 1999 - BALTAZAR D. AMION v. ROBERTO S. CHIONGSON

  • G.R. No. 123184 January 22, 1999 - SERAFIN QUEBEC SR. v. NLRC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 123555 January 22, 1999 - PROGRESSIVE DEV’T. CORP. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 125134 January 22, 1999 - XERXES ADZUARA v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 125299 January 22, 1999 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. FLORENCIO DORIA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 125982 January 22, 1999 - GSIS v. COMMISSION ON AUDIT, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 127833 January 22, 1999 - TEODORO URQUIAGA, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 112675 January 25, 1999 - AFISCO INSURANCE CORP., ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 121039-45 January 25, 1999 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ANTONIO L. SANCHEZ, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 126634 January 25, 1999 - TRANSGLOBE INT’L., INC. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 131247 January 25, 1999 - PRUBANKERS ASSO. v. PRUDENTIAL BANK & TRUST CO.

  • A.M. No. 98-8-105-MTC January 26, 1999 - Re: LEAVES OF ABSENCE WITHOUT APPROVAL OF ERIC T. CALDERON.

  • G.R. No. 109242 January 26, 1999 - LITO C. MARCELO v. SANDIGANBAYAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 125213 January 26, 1999 - MILAGROS L. DIAZ v. SANDIGANBAYAN

  • Adm. Case No. 4826 January 27, 1999 - IN RE: THE PETITION TO REMOVE ATTY. JOSE A. GRAPILON

  • G.R. No. 127598 January 27, 1999 - MERALCO v. SECRETARY OF LABOR LEONARDO QUISUMBING, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 133197 January 27, 1999 - PCGG v. EDUARDO COJUANGCO, JR., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 108946 January 28, 1999 - FRANCISCO G. JOAQUIN, ET AL. v. FRANKLIN DRILON, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 112024 January 28, 1999 - PHIL. BANK OF COMMUNICATIONS v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 113787 January 28, 1999 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. CEFERINO GUILLERMO

  • G.R. No. 119464 January 28, 1999 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. VIRGILIO VERMUDEZ

  • G.R. Nos. 122544 & 124741 January 28, 1999 - REGINA P. DIZON, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 125925 January 28, 1999 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. VENTURA VINUYA

  • G.R. No. 125986 January 28, 1999 - LUXURIA HOMES INC., ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 127941 January 28, 1999 - BIBLIA TOLEDO-BANAGA, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 128941 January 28, 1999 - CAPITOL COLLEGE OF ILIGAN, INC. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 133054 January 28, 1999 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL. v. GERSON R. ABADILLA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 119712 January 29, 1999 - DBP, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 122746 January 29, 1999 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MARIO VILLANUEVA

  • G.R. No. 135074 January 29, 1999 - REP. TELECOMMUNICATIONS HOLDINGS, INC. ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  •  





     
     

    G.R. No. 119446   January 21, 1999 - PHIL. HOME ASSURANCE CORP., ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

     
    PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

    SECOND DIVISION

    [G.R. No. 119446. January 21, 1999.]

    PHILIPPINE HOME ASSURANCE CORPORATION, PHILIPPINE AMERICAN ACCIDENT INSURANCE COMPANY, PHILIPPINE AMERICAN GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY and AMERICAN INTERNATIONAL UNDER WRITERS (Phils.), INC., Petitioners, v. COURT OF APPEALS, and COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondents.

    D E C I S I O N


    MENDOZA, J.:


    This is a petition for review on certiorari of the decision of the Court of Appeals, dated April 27, 1994, which affirmed the decision of the Court of Tax Appeals denying the claims filed by the petitioners for refund of documentary stamp taxes.chanroblesvirtual|awlibrary

    Petitioners are the Philippine Home Assurance Corporation (PHAC), the Philippine American Accident Insurance Company (PAAIC), the Philippine American General Insurance Company (PAGIC), and the American International Underwriters (Phils.). Inc. (AIUPI), which are domestic corporations engaged in the insurance business.

    From January to June 1986, they paid under protest the total amount of P10,456,067.83 as documentary stamp taxes on various life and non-life insurance policies issued by them, broken down as follows:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

    PHAC 1,714,459.00

    PAAIC 68,046.00

    PAGIC 3,816,973.00

    AIUPI 4,856,589.83

    —————

    TOTAL P10,456,067.83 1

    ===========

    On August 4, 1987, petitioners filed separate claims for refund from the Bureau of Internal Revenue. 2 They alleged that the premiums on the insurance policies issued by them had not been paid thus, in accordance with 77 of the Insurance Code, 3 no documentary stamp taxes were due on the policies. 4

    As the Bureau of Internal Revenue failed to act on their claims, 5 the petitioners appealed on December 29, 1987 to the Court of Tax Appeals. In its decision, dated April 26, 1993, 6 the Tax Court denied petitioners’ claims. It held: 7

    . . . the documentary stamp must be affixed to the insurance policy, which is a contract in itself, between the insurer and the insured, whereby for an agreed premium, the former undertakes to compensate the latter for the loss of a specific subject by reason of specific perils, on the date it is issued even if no premium has been paid. The payment or non-payment of the premium by the insured is immaterial since a documentary stamp tax is in the nature of an excise tax upon a facility used in the transaction of a business which is separate and distinct from the business itself. Such being the case . . . the subsequent cancellation of an insurance policy will not exempt the issuer from the corresponding documentary stamp tax. And thus, no refund can be allowed of the documentary stamp tax paid on an insurance policy which for some reason or another has been cancelled or for that matter, the premium was unpaid.

    Petitioners filed a joint appeal in the Court of Appeals which, however, in a judgment, 8 dated April 27, 1994, affirmed the decision of the Court of Tax Appeals. In part the appellate court said:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

    The respondent court correctly characterized a documentary stamp tax as in the nature of an excise tax. As such, it is imposed on the privilege of conducting a particular business or transaction and not on the business or transaction itself. Thus, the documentary stamp tax on insurance policies is, in effect, imposed on the privilege to conduct insurance business and not on the insurance business itself or on the premiums paid under the said insurance policies. This means then that the documentary stamp tax accrues when the said privilege is exercised. As the respondent court stated, while it is true that a documentary stamp tax is levied on the document and not on the property involved, the documentary stamp tax is not intended to be a tax on the document alone. The law taxes the document because of the transaction so that the tax becomes due and payable at the time the transaction is had or accomplished, in this case, at the time of the issuance of the document.chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary:red

    This is the reason that the documentary stamp tax will not be refunded upon the subsequent cancellation of the insurance policy. Likewise, when a policy already issued becomes ineffective because of the non-payment of the first premium, the documentary stamp tax cannot be refunded whether or not the policy has, in fact, become effective, since the privilege subject of the tax has already been realized.

    Hence, this appeal. Petitioners maintain that since the premiums on the subject life and non-life insurance policies were not paid, the same are considered as never to have taken effect pursuant to 77 of the Insurance Code and, therefore, no documentary stamp taxes were due thereon.

    The petition is without merit.

    The pertinent provisions of the National Internal Revenue Code state:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

    SECTION 183. Stamp Tax on Life Insurance Policies. — On all policies of insurance or other instruments by whatever name the same may be called, whereby any insurance shall be made or renewed upon any life or lives, there shall be collected a documentary stamp tax of fifty centavos on each two hundred pesos or fractional part thereof, of the amount issued by any such policy.

    SECTION 184. Stamp Tax on Policies of Insurance Upon Property. — On all policies of insurance or other instruments by whatever name the same may be called, by which insurance shall be made or renewed upon property of any description, including rents or profits, against peril by sea or on inland waters, or by fire or lightning, there shall be collected a documentary stamp tax of thirty centavos on each four pesos, or fractional part thereof, of the amount of the premium charged: Provided, however, that no documentary stamp tax shall be collected on reinsurance contracts or on any instrument by which cession or acceptance of insurance risks under any reinsurance agreement is effected or recorded.

    In general, documentary stamp taxes are levied on the exercise by persons of certain privileges conferred by law for the creation, revision, or termination of specific legal relationships through the execution of specific instruments. Examples of such privileges, the exercise of which, as effected through the issuance of particular documents, are subject to the payment of documentary stamp taxes are leases of lands, 9 mortgages, pledges, and trusts, 10 and conveyances of real property. 11

    Documentary stamp taxes are thus levied on the exercise of these privileges through the execution of specific instruments, independently of the legal status of the transactions giving rise thereto. The documentary stamp taxes must be paid upon the issuance of the said instruments, without regard to whether the contracts which gave rise to them are rescissible, void, voidable, or unenforceable. As the Supreme Court of the United States held in Du Pont v. United States: 12

    The tax is not upon the business transacted but is an excise upon the privilege, opportunity, or facility offered at exchanges for the transaction of the business. It is an excise upon the facilities used in the transaction of the business separate and apart from the business itself. In this view it is immaterial whether the transfer of the account constituted a sale.

    This case has been cited in several of this Court’s decisions, first in Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Heald Lumber Co., 13 then in Philippine Consolidated Coconut Industries, Inc. v. Collector of Internal Revenue, 14 then in Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Construction Resources of Asia, Inc., 15 and most recently in Lincoln Philippine Life Insurance Company, Inc. v. Court of Appeals. 16 It is thus settled that the life and non-life insurance policies in question are subject to documentary stamp taxes pursuant to 183 and 184 of the National Internal Revenue Code by their mere issuance, and the fact that the policies have not become effective for non-payment of the corresponding premiums as required by 77 of the Insurance Code cannot affect petitioners’ liability for payment of documentary stamp taxes. Their claim for refund was correctly denied.chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary:red

    WHEREFORE, the decision of the Court of Appeals, dated April 27, 1994, is AFFIRMED.

    SO ORDERED.

    Bellosillo, Puno, Quisumbing and Buena, JJ., concur.

    Endnotes:



    1. Rollo, pp. 66-68.

    2. Id., p. 37.

    3. This provision states that "an insurer is entitled to payment of the premium as soon as the thing insured is exposed to the peril insured against. Notwithstanding any agreement to the contrary, no policy or contract of insurance issued by an insurance company is valid and binding unless and until the premium thereof has been paid, except in the case of a life or an industrial life policy whenever the grace period provision applies."cralaw virtua1aw library

    4. Rollo, pp. 20-22.

    5. Id., p. 37.

    6. Per Judge Ramon O. De Vega and concurred in by Presiding Judge Ernesto D. Acosta and Judge Manuel K. Gruba.

    7. Rollo, pp. 210-212.

    8. Per Associate Justice Antonio M. Martinez and concurred in by Associate Justices Quirino D. Abad Santos, Jr. and Godando Jacinto.

    9. NATIONAL INTERNAL REVENUE CODE, 194.

    10. Id., 195.

    11. Id., 196.

    12. 300 U.S. 150, 153 (1936).

    13. 10 SCRA 372 (1964).

    14. 70 SCRA 22 (1976).

    15. 145 SCRA 671 (1986).

    16. G.R. No. 118043, July 23, 1998.

    G.R. No. 119446   January 21, 1999 - PHIL. HOME ASSURANCE CORP., ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.


    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