SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

PLEASE CLICK HERE FOR THE LATEST ➔ SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

G.R. No. L-24402 February 19, 1926
A. T. HASHIM vs. JUAN POSADAS, JR. -->

EN BANC

G.R. No. L-24402 February 19, 1926

A. T. HASHIM, Plaintiff-Appellant, vs. JUAN POSADAS, JR., Collector of Internal Revenue, Defendant-Appellee.

C. A. Sobral for appellant.
Attorney-General Jaranilla for appellee.

OSTRAND, J.:

This action is brought to recover back internal revenue taxes in the sum of P1,236.56 paid under protest by the plaintiff.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library

There is no dispute as to the facts. The plaintiff is a merchant and in addition to his ordinary business, maintains an establishment on Rizal Avenue, in Manila, where he under contract makes uniforms and other garments for the Philippine Constabulary of the United States Army, the Hawaiian Planters Association, and the Philippine Chapter of the American Red Cross. He keeps a separate set of books for this establishment and with reference thereto, has in the past been classified by the Bureau of Internal Revenue as a contractor and has gross receipts under the original section 1462 of the Administrative Code which read as follows:chanrobles virtual law library

Contractors, warehousemen, proprietors and dockyards and persons selling light, heat or power as well as persons engaged in conducting, or exchanges, and proprietors of steam laundries and of shops for the construction and repair and repair of bicycles or vehicles of any kind and keepers of hotels and restaurants shall pay a tax equivalent to one per centum of theirs gross receipts.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library

On March 16, 1923, the Legislature passed Act No. 3965 placing an additional tax of one-half of 1 per centum on the gross value in money of the commodities, goods, wares, and merchandise sold, bartered, exchanged or consigned abroad by merchants, manufacturers and commission merchants not otherwise specifically exempted.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library

On the same date, section 1462, supra, was amended by Act No. 3082 so as to read as follows:

Sec. 1462. Percentage tax on road, building irrigation, artesian well, waterworks and other construction work contractors, proprietors or operators of dockyards, and others. - Road, building, irrigation, artesian well, waterworks and other construction work contractors and persons engaged in the installation of gas or electric light, heat or power; proprietors or operators of dockyards, telephone or telegraph lines or exchanges, broadcasting or wireless stations, steam laundries, drycleaning or dying establishments, tailor shops, shop for the kind mechanical devices, instruments, apparatus, or furniture of any kind sugar centrals and rice mills; persons selling light, heat or power; keepers of hotels, restaurants, cafes or refreshment parlors and warehousemen, stevedores, dressmakers milliners, hatters, plumbers, smith, house of sign painters, and bookbinders shall pay tax equivalent to one per centum of theirs gross receipts: Provided, That contractors of others whose gross receipts do not exceed two hundred pesos each quarter shall be exempt from the payment of the one per centum tax provided for in this section.

Subsequently to the enactment of the two Acts mentioned, the defendant required the plaintiffs to pay the additional half per tax upon the gross receipts of the establishment on Rizal Avenue, in accordance with Act No. 3065. The plaintiff objected to the payment of the additional tax maintaining that he, in connection with that business, was a contractor and could not be required to pay more than the 1 per cent tax provided for by section 1462 of the Administrative Code as amended by Act No. 3082. The objection was overruled by the Collector of Internal Revenue and the plaintiff thereupon paid under protest the sum of P1,055.74 being one-half per cent of his receipts for the periods from February 26, 1923, to March 31, 1924, and the sum of P180 for the period from April 1 to June 20, 1924 plus a penalty of 25 per cent on the P180 This action was thereupon brought.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library

At the trial of the case the plaintiff contends that in relation to the establishment on Rizal Avenue, he was either to the contractor or a tailor and that he in either event could only be required to pay the tax of 1 per cent prescribed by section 1462 and was exempted from the additional half per cent tax provided for in Act No. 3065. The court below held that he was not a contractor within the meaning of section 1462 as amended by Act No. 3082 and that he was a merchant subject to the payment of the additional half per cent tax. The complaint was therefore dismissed without costs and the plaintiff appealed to this court.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library

We agree with the trail court the plaintiff is not the kind of contractor defined in section 1462, but we think that his contention that the establishment on Rizal avenue should be classified as a tailor shop is correct. The Standard Dictionary gives the following definition of the word tailor: One who makes or repairs men's outer garments or makes cloaks, heavy-close-fitting gowns, etc., for women; usually restricted to one who makes clothes to order. The appellee maintains that under this definition the plaintiff cannot be regarded as a tailor and that as one who makes or sells clothes; especially, one who sells ready-made clothing.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library

As will be seen the terms "clothier" and "tailor" are almost synonymous but in the ordinary acceptation of the word a tailor is one who makes clothes to order. In the present case it is not disputed that the plaintiff made no clothes except on previous order and if so, Rizal Avenue establishment must be regarded as a tailor shop and the proper percentage tax on the business is that prescribed by section 1462 as amended. The fact that the garments were made under contract is of no special significance; the contracts were in effect ordered for the making of the goods. Neither is it important that the clothes were manufactured in accordance with specifications instead of individual measurements; they were none the less made to order.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library

The judgment appealed from is therefore reversed and it is hereby ordered that the plaintiff have and recover judgment against the defendant for the sum of P1,236.56 without interest and without costs. So ordered.

Avance�a, C. J., Johnson, Street, Malcolm, Villamor, Johns and Romualdez, JJ. concur.