Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 2002 > March 2002 Decisions > G.R. No. 119176 March 19, 2002 - CIR v. LINCOLN PHILIPPINE LIFE INSURANCE CO., ET AL.:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

FIRST DIVISION

[G.R. No. 119176. March 19, 2002.]

COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Petitioner, v. LINCOLN PHILIPPINE LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, INC. (now JARDINE-CMA LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, INC.) and THE COURT OF APPEALS, Respondents.

D E C I S I O N


KAPUNAN, J.:


This is a petition for review on certiorari filed by the Commission on Internal Revenue of the decision of the Court of Appeals dated November 18, 1994 in CA-G.R. SP No. 31224 which reversed in part the decision of the Court of Tax Appeals in C.T.A. Case No. 4583.

The facts of the case are undisputed.

Private respondent Lincoln Philippine Life Insurance Co., Inc., (now Jardine-CMA Life Insurance Company, Inc.) is a domestic corporation registered with the Securities and Exchange Commission and engaged in life insurance business. In the years prior to 1984, private respondent issued a special kind of life insurance policy known as the "Junior Estate Builder Policy," the distinguishing feature of which is a clause providing for an automatic increase in the amount of life insurance coverage upon attainment of a certain age by the insured without the need of issuing a new policy. The clause was to take effect in the year 1984. Documentary stamp taxes due on the policy were paid by petitioner only .on the initial sum assured.

In 1984, private respondent also issued 50,000 shares of stock dividends with a par value of P100.00 per share or a total par value of P5,000,000.00. The actual value of said shares, represented by its book value, was P19,307,500.00. Documentary stamp taxes were paid based only on the par value of P5,000,000.00 and not on the book value.

Subsequently, petitioner issued deficiency documentary stamps tax assessment for the year 1984 in the amounts of (a) P464,898.75, corresponding to the amount of automatic increase of the sum assured on the policy issued by respondent, and (b) P78,991.25 corresponding to the book value in excess of the par value of the stock dividends. The computation of the deficiency documentary stamp taxes is as follows:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

On Policies Issued:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

Total policy issued during the year P1,360,054,000.00

Documentary stamp tax due thereon

(P1,360,054,000.00 divided by

P200.00 multiplied by P0.35) P 2,380,094.50

Less: Payment P 1,915,495.75

Deficiency P 464,598.75

Add: Compromise Penalty 300.00

---------------------

TOTAL AMOUNT DUE & COLLECTIBLE P 464,898.75

Private respondent questioned the deficiency assessments and sought their cancellation in a petition filed in the Court of Tax Appeals, docketed as CTA Case No. 4583.

On March 30, 1993, the Court of Tax Appeals found no valid basis for the deficiency tax assessment on the stock dividends, as well as on the insurance policy. The dispositive portion of the CTA’s decision reads:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

WHEREFORE, the deficiency documentary stamp tax assessments in the amount of P464,898.76 and P78,991.25 or a total of P543,890.01 are hereby cancelled for lack of merit. Respondent Commissioner of Internal Revenue is ordered to desist from collecting said deficiency documentary stamp taxes for the same are considered withdrawn.

SO ORDERED. 1

Petitioner appealed the CTA’s decision to the Court of Appeals. On November 18, 1994, the Court of Appeals promulgated a decision affirming the CTA’s decision insofar as it nullified the deficiency assessment on the insurance policy, but reversing the same with regard to the deficiency assessment on the stock dividends. The CTA ruled that the correct basis of the documentary stamp tax due on the stock dividends is the actual value or book value represented by the shares. The dispositive portion of the Court of Appeals’ decision states:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

IN VIEW OF ALL THE FOREGOING, the decision appealed from is hereby REVERSED with respect to the deficiency tax assessment on the stock dividends, but AFFIRMED with regards to the assessment on the Insurance Policies. Consequently, private respondent is ordered to pay the petitioner herein the stun of P78,991.25, representing documentary stamp tax on the stock dividends it issued. No costs pronouncement.

SO ORDERED. 2

A motion for reconsideration of the decision having been denied, 3 both the Commissioner of Internal Revenue and private respondent appealed to this Court, docketed as G.R. No. 118043 and G.R. No. 119176, respectively. In G.R. No. 118043, private respondent appealed the decision of the Court of Appeals insofar as it upheld the validity of the deficiency tax assessment on the stock dividends. The Commissioner of Internal Revenue, on his part, filed the present petition questioning that portion of the Court of Appeals’ decision which invalidated the deficiency assessment on the insurance policy, attributing the following errors:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED WHEN IT RULED THAT THERE IS A SINGLE AGREEMENT EMBODIED IN THE POLICY AND THAT THE AUTOMATIC INCREASE CLAUSE IS NOT A SEPARATE AGREEMENT, CONTRARY TO SECTION 49 OF THE INSURANCE CODE AND SECTION 183 OF THE REVENUE CODE THAT A RIDER, A CLAUSE IS PART OF THE POLICY.

THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN NOT COMPUTING THE AMOUNT OF TAX ON THE TOTAL VALUE OF THE INSURANCE ASSURED IN THE POLICY INCLUDING THE ADDITIONAL INCREASE ASSURED BY THE AUTOMATIC INCREASE CLAUSE DESPITE ITS RULING THAT THE ORIGINAL POLICY AND THE AUTOMATIC CLAUSE CONSTITUTED ONLY A SINGULAR TRANSACTION. 4

Section 173 of the National Internal Revenue Code on documentary stamp taxes provides:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

Sec. 173. Stamp taxes upon documents, instruments and papers. — Upon documents, instruments, loan agreements, and papers, and upon acceptances, assignments, sales, and transfers of the obligation, right or property incident thereto, there shall be levied, collected and paid for, and in respect of the transaction so had or accomplished, the corresponding documentary stamp taxes prescribed in the following section of this Title, by the person making, signing, issuing, accepting, or transferring the same wherever the document is made, signed, issued, accepted, or transferred when the obligation or right arises from Philippine sources or the property is situated in the Philippines, and at the same time such act is done or transaction had: Provided, That whenever one party to the taxable document enjoys exemption from the tax herein imposed, the other party thereto who is not exempt shall be the one directly liable for the tax. (As amended by PD No. 1994)

The basis for the value of documentary stamp taxes to be paid on the insurance policy is Section 183 of the National Internal Revenue Code which states in part:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

Sec. 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 thirty (now 50c) centavos on each Two hundred pesos per fractional part thereof, of the amount insured by any such policy.

Petitioner claims that the "automatic increase clause" in the subject insurance policy is separate and distinct from the main agreement and involves another transaction; and that, while no new policy was issued, the original policy was essentially re-issued when the additional obligation was assumed upon the effectivity of this "automatic increase clause" in 1984; hence, a deficiency assessment based on the additional insurance not covered in the main policy is in order.

The Court of Appeals sustained the LTA’s ruling that there was only one transaction involved in the issuance of the insurance policy and that the "automatic increase clause" is an integral part of that policy.

The petition is impressed with merit.

Section 49, Title VI of the Insurance Code defines an insurance policy as the written instrument in which a contract of insurance is set forth.5 Section 50 of the same Code provides that the policy, which is required to be in printed form, may contain any word, phrase, clause, mark, sign, symbol, signature, number, or word necessary to complete the contract of insurance. 6 It is thus clear that any rider, clause, warranty or endorsement pasted or attached to the policy is considered part of such policy or contract of insurance.

The subject insurance policy at the time it was issued contained an "automatic increase clause." Although the clause was to take effect only in 1984, it was written into the policy at the time of its issuance. The distinctive feature of the "junior estate builder policy" called the "automatic increase clause" already formed part and parcel of the insurance contract, hence, there was no need for an execution of a separate agreement for the increase in the coverage that took effect in 1984 when the assured reached a certain age.

It is clear from Section 173 that the payment of documentary stamp taxes is done at the time the act is done or transaction had and the tax base for the computation of documentary stamp taxes on life insurance policies under Section 183 is the amount fixed in policy, unless the interest of a person insured is susceptible of exact pecuniary measurement. 7 What then is the amount fixed in the policy? Logically, we believe that the amount fixed in the policy is the figure written on its face and whatever increases will take effect in the future by reason of the "automatic increase clause" embodied in the policy without the need of another contract.

Here, although the automatic increase in the amount of life insurance coverage was to take effect later on, the date of its effectivity, as well as the amount of the increase, was already definite at the time of the issuance of the policy. Thus, the amount insured by the policy at the time of its issuance necessarily included the additional sum covered by the automatic increase clause because it was already determinable at the time the transaction was entered into and formed part of the policy.

The "automatic increase clause" in the policy is in the nature of a conditional obligation under Article 1181, 8 by which the increase of the insurance coverage shall depend upon the happening of the event which constitutes the obligation. In the instant case, the additional insurance that took effect in 1984 was an obligation subject to a suspensive obligation, 9 but still a part of the insurance sold to which private respondent was liable for the payment of the documentary stamp tax.

The deficiency of documentary stamp tax imposed on private respondent is definitely not on the amount of the original insurance coverage, but on the increase of the amount insured upon the effectivity of the "Junior Estate Builder Policy."cralaw virtua1aw library

Finally, it should be emphasized that while tax avoidance schemes and arrangements are not prohibited, 10 tax laws cannot be circumvented in order to evade the payment of just taxes. In the case at bar, to claim that the increase in the amount insured (by virtue of the automatic increase clause incorporated into the policy at the time of the computation of the issuance) should not be included documentary stamp taxes due on the policy would be a clear evasion of the law requiring that the tax be computed on the basis of the amount insured by the policy.

WHEREFORE, the petition is hereby given DUE COURSE. The decision of the Court of Appeals is SET ASIDE insofar as it affirmed the decision of the Court of Tax Appeals nullifying the deficiency stamp tax assessment petitioner imposed on private respondent in the amount of P464,898.75 corresponding to the increase in 1984 of the sum under the policy issued by Respondent.

SO ORDERED.

Davide, Jr., C.J. and Ynares-Santiago, J., concur.

Puno, J., on official leave.

Endnotes:



1. Court of Appeals (CA) Rollo. p. 16, Annex "B" .

2. Rollo, p. 47.

3. CA Rollo, p. 218.

4. Rollo, p. 19.

5. SEC. 49. The written instrument in which a contract of insurance is set forth, is called a policy of insurance.

6. SEC. 50. The policy shall be in printed form which may contain blank spaces; and any word, phrase, clause, mark, sign, symbol, signature, number, or word necessary to complete the contract of insurance shall be written on the blank spaces provided therein.

Any rider, clause, warranty or endorsement purporting to be part of the contract of insurance and which is pasted or attached to said policy is not binding on the insured, unless the descriptive title or name of the rider, clause, warranty, or endorsement is also mentioned and written on the blank spaces provided in the policy.

Unless applied for by the insured or owner, any rider, clause, warranty or endorsement issued after the original policy shall be countersigned by the insured or owner, which countersignature shall be taken as his agreement to the contents of such rider, clause, warranty or endorsement.

Group insurance and group annuity policies, however, may be typewritten and need not be in printed form.

7. Sec. 183. Insurance Code of the Phils. — Unless the interest of a person insured is capable of exact pecuniary measurement, the measure of indemnity under a policy of insurance upon life or health is the sum fixed in the policy.

8. Art. 1181. In conditional obligations, the acquisition of rights, as well as the extinguishment or loss of those already acquired, shall depend upon the happening of the event which constitutes the condition.

9. Article 18 of the Civil Code provides that "on matters which are governed by the Code of Commerce and special laws, their deficiency shall be supplied by the provision of this Code."cralaw virtua1aw library

10. Delpher Trades Corporation v. Intermediate Appellate Court, 157 SCRA 349 (1988).




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






March-2002 Jurisprudence                 

  • A.M. No. RTJ-01-1642 March 6, 2002 - P/SUPT. SEVERINO CRUZ, ET AL., v. JUDGE PEDRO M. AREOLA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 126437 March 6, 2002 - JOSUE ARLEGUI v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 130709 March 6, 2002 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MARIANITO MONTERON

  • G.R. No. 132048 March 6, 2002 - HON. ANTONIO M. NUESA, ET AL.vs. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 132604 March 6, 2002 - VENANCIO SAMBAR v. LEVI STRAUSS & CO.

  • G.R. No. 135053 March 6, 2002 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. BENJAMIN GALVEZ

  • G.R. No. 135401 March 6, 2002 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. WILFREDO VILLARUEL

  • G.R. No. 137518 March 6, 2002 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. EDITHO SUYUM, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 138866 March 6, 2002 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. CHRIS PAROCHA

  • G.R. No. 139674 March 6, 2002 - NICHIMEN CORP. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 140604 March 6, 2002.

    DR. RICO S. JACUTIN v. PEOPLE OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. 140723 March 6, 2002 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. NICOMEDES D. PLATILLA

  • G.R. Nos. 141647-51 March 6, 2002 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. SAILITO PEREZ

  • G.R. No. 144052 March 6, 2002 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. CONRADO DE LEON

  • G.R. No. 144190 March 6, 2002 - INTERLINING CORP., ET AL. v. PHIL. TRUST COMPANY

  • A.M. No. MTJ-00-1297 March 7, 2002 - JOSEFINA BANGCO v. JUDGE RODOLFO S. GATDULA

  • A.M. No. P-00-1420 March 7, 2002 - ROSEMARY P. BERNADEZ v. RICKY V. MONTEJAR

  • A.C. No. 5558 March 7, 2002 - SPS. LOLITA and ROMY GALEN, ET AL. v. ATTY. ANTONIO B. PAGUIRIGAN

  • G.R. No. 112625 March 7, 2002 - CMH AGRICULTURAL CORP., ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET. AL.

  • G.R. No. 131734 March 7, 2002 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. PEPITO SEBASTIAN

  • G.R. No. 138961 March 7, 2002 - WILLIAM LIYAO, JR. v. JUANITA TANHOTI-LIYAO, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 141221-36 March 7, 2002 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. SPS. KARL AND YOLANDA REICHL

  • G.R. No. 142378 March 7, 2002 - LL AND CO. DEVT. AND AGRO-INDUSTRIAL CORP. v. HUANG CHAO CHUM, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 144734 March 7, 2002 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. FREDDIE DUNGCA

  • G.R. No. 144817 March 7, 2002 - JOSE OCA, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 135645 March 8, 2002 - PHIL. AMERICAN GENERAL INS. CO. v. MGG MARINE SVS., INC., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 136145 March 8, 2002 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RUBEN LOGALADA BOQUILA

  • G.R. Nos. 141105-11 March 8, 2002 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. FELICITO SILVANO

  • G.R. Nos. 131736-37 March 11, 2002 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JOEY MANLANSING, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 144316 March 11, 2002 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. TERESA BERNARDO

  • A.M. No. SCC-01-7 March 12, 2002 - HADJA THITTIE M. ARAP v. JUDGE AMIR MUSTAFA

  • G.R. No. 110701 March 12, 2002 - FORTUNE GUARANTEE AND INS. CORP. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 125017 March 12, 2002 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. GERARDO BACUNGAY, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 126022 March 12, 2002 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RAUL CANTUBA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 126146 March 12, 2002 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JEMREICH MATIGNAS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 129764 March 12, 2002 - GEOFFREY F. GRIFFITH v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 134605 March 12, 2002 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ORLANDO DINAMLING, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 135848 March 12, 2002 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RAMONITO SAURE

  • G.R. No. 138123 March 12, 2002 - MINDEX RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT v. EPHRAIM MORILLO

  • G.R. No. 138131 March 12, 2002 - SOLIDBANK CORP. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 139416 March 12, 2002 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ERNESTO HERMANES

  • G.R. No. 140208 March 12, 2002 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ELPIDIO PASTOR

  • G.R. No. 142747 March 12, 2002 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RESTITUTO CAPILI

  • G.R. No. 143030 March 12, 2002 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. REYNALDO PORTUGAL

  • G.R. No. 144161 March 12, 2002 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MAXIMO CRISTOBAL

  • G.R. Nos. 144495-96 March 12, 2002 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. LEONARDO S. PASCUAL

  • G.R. Nos. 148941-42 March 12, 2002 - TEODORO O. O’HARA v. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 139008 March 13, 2002 - ROBERT DEL MAR v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 137280 March 14, 2002 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. PABLO TABLON

  • G.R. No. 128412 March 15, 2002 - REXLON REALTY GROUP v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 129124 March 15, 2002 - RENATO A. TAPIADOR v. OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN, ET AL.

  • A.M. No. RTJ-01-1620 March 18, 2002 - SPS. ADRIANO AND HILDA MONTEROLA v. JUDGE JOSE F. CAOIBES, JR.

  • G.R. No. 124171 March 18, 2002 - LETICIA R. MERCIALES v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 125678 March 18, 2002 - PHILAMCARE HEALTH SYSTEMS v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 131686 March 18, 2002 - ROUEL AD. REYES v. SPS. PEPITO AND MARTA TORRES

  • G.R. No. 139409 March 18, 2002 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. ELIGIO CIRON

  • G.R. No. 140027 March 18, 2002 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. BIENVENIDO VALINDO

  • G.R. No. 142905 March 18, 2002 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RAMIL GUTIERREZ, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 115758 March 19, 2002 - ELIDAD C. KHO v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 119176 March 19, 2002 - CIR v. LINCOLN PHILIPPINE LIFE INSURANCE CO., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 138388 March 19, 2002 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ANGELITO YATCO

  • G.R. Nos. 138720-21 March 19, 2002 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MARCELO ESUELA

  • G.R. No. 142947 March 19, 2002 - FRANCISCO N. VILLANUEVA, JR. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 145730 March 19, 2002 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ARMANDO ALVARADO

  • G.R. No. 147788 March 19, 2002 - EDILBERTO CRUZ, ET AL. v. BANCOM FINANCE CORP.

  • G.R. No. 148496 March 19, 2002 - VIRGINES CALVO v. UCPB GENERAL INSURANCE CO.

  • A.M. No. P-02-1560 March 20, 2002 - COURT ADMINISTRATOR v. LIZA MARIE F. ABDULLAHI

  • G.R. Nos. 106615, 108591, 109452, 109978 & 139379 March 20, 2002 - SPS. ELIGIO AND MARCELINA MALLARI v. IGNACIO ARCEGA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 124053 March 20, 2002 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. CARLITO PALANA

  • G.R. No. 125333 March 20, 2002 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ROLANDO C. FELIXMINIA

  • G.R. No. 125857 March 20, 2002 - GUILLERMO ARCE v. PEOPLE OF THE PHIL., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 128033 March 20, 2002 - GLORIA CHANGCO v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 141737 March 20, 2002 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ERNESTO CARIÑO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 144399 March 20, 2002 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. DANILO RODRIGUEZ, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 129682 March 21, 2002 - NESTOR PAGKATIPUNAN, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 130768 March 21, 2002 - CRISANTO L. FRANCISCO v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 134379 March 21, 2002 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RUEL ALILIN

  • G.R. No. 144767 March 21, 2002 - DILY DANY NACPIL v. INTERNATIONAL BROADCASTING CORP.

  • A.M. Nos. P-96-1229-30 March 25, 2002 - OFFICE OF THE COURT ADMINISTRATOR v. ATTY. PAULINO I. SAGUYOD, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 119076 March 25, 2002 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ROGER SEGUN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 146079 March 25, 2002 - KANEMITSU YAMAOKA v. PESCARICH MANUFACTURING CORP., ET AL.