Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1917 > September 1917 Decisions > G.R. No. 12091 September 13, 1917 - SIMEON ROQUE v. JAMES J. RAFFERTY

036 Phil 864:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

EN BANC

[G.R. No. 12091. September 13, 1917. ]

SIMEON ROQUE, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. JAMES J. RAFFERTY, as Collector of Internal Revenue, Defendant-Appellee.

Crossfield & O’Brien and M. Buyson Lampa for Appellant.

Attorney-General Avanceña for Appellee.

SYLLABUS


1. INTERNAL REVENUE; TAXES; ASSESSMENT AND COLLECTION. — By virtue of the provisions of paragraph 2 of section 106 of Act No. 2339, the Collector of Internal Revenue, in any case when the amount of raw materials received into any factory exceeds the amount of manufactured or partly manufactured products on hand and lawfully removed from the factory, plus waste, etc., and a reasonable allowance for unavoidable loss in manufacture, may assess and collect the tax due on the products which should have been produced from the excess.


D E C I S I O N


JOHNSON, J. :


Paragraph 2 of section 106 of Act No. 2339 provides, among other things, that "whenever the amount of raw materials received into any factory exceeds the amount of manufactured or partially manufactured product on hand and lawfully removed from the factory, plus waste removed or destroyed, and a reasonable allowance for unavoidable loss in manufacture, the Collector of Internal Revenue may assess and collect the tax due on the products which should have been produced from the excess."cralaw virtua1aw library

The plaintiff for sometime prior to the commencement of the present action was the owner of a tobacco factory in Betis, Guagua, in the Province of Pampanga, P. I., and for the purpose of manufacturing the same into chewing tobacco and cigarettes. When the raw material was purchased, it was placed in a bodega within the factory, and was removed therefrom as it was necessary for the purpose of manufacturing it into chewing tobacco and cigarettes. From time to time a representative of the Collector of Internal Revenue, for the purpose of collecting the tax due on the manufactured product in accordance with section 69 of said Act No. 2339, took an account of the amount factored as above indicated. In the month of December, 1915, said representative made an invoice of the raw material purchased by the plaintiff and the amount of material manufactured out of the same; found that there was a difference, after making due allowance for unavoidable loss in manufacture, waste, etc., of 1,797 kilos; and that the tax due on said amount, had the same been manufactured, was the sum of P1,034.64. A demand for the payment of said sum (P1,034.64) was made upon the plaintiff. He paid said amount under protest, and now seeks to recover the same upon the theory that it had been illegally collected.

The lower court found that the plaintiff had purchased 1,797 kilos of tobacco more than he had accounted for; that the amount of tax which should have been paid on said amount was P1,034.64; and that, therefore, the tax had been legally collected and rendered a judgment dismissing the action, without any finding as to costs. If that finding is in accordance with the facts, then the judgment of the lower court should be affirmed.

In making the invoice the defendant allowed a loss of 2 per cent in the drying of the tobacco. The appellant claims that that allowance was not sufficient. The record contains no proof showing that 2 per cent was not a reasonable allowance for that purpose. The appellant further attempts to show that if there was a loss or shortage, he was not responsible for the same, for the reason that a representative of the defendant was in constant charge of the bodega in which the raw material was placed from time to time as it was purchased. He further asserts that the representative of the defendant had the only key for said bodega, and that no person could remove raw material therefrom without the consent of said representative. The fact is that the bodega was under the charge of a representative. The fact is that the bodega was under the charge of a representative of the defendant; that he had, so far as was known, the only key for the lock on a door leading into the bodega. The proof shows, however, that the lock was an ordinary lock; that the key was an ordinary he purchased in one of the tiendas in the place where the bodega was located. The proof further shows, however that it was possible for the raw material to be taken out of said bodega without the consent or knowledge of the representative of the defendant. That fact, taken in relation with Exhibit F which shows that upon the taking of other invoices in said bodega, the plaintiff had been short several times before in the quantity of tobacco which he should have had on hand, makes the conclusion irresistible that the plaintiff is responsible for the present shortage. Some of the shortages which were found existing on other occasions were much larger than the shortage found to exist at the time complained of in the present action.

Section 106 requires the manufacturers to keep books prescribed by the Collector of Internal Revenue. Said books showed that the plaintiff should have had on hand 33,267 kilos of raw material at the time of the invoice had he manufactured none of said material. Said books further show that he manufactured 30,163 kilos. The Collector of Internal Revenue allowed 2 per cent for unavoidable loss, or the amount of 1,307 kilos, making a total of 31,470 kilos. The difference, therefore, between what he should have had and what he actually had was the amount of 1,797 kilos, which was the shortage the defendant found to exist at the time of the last invoice.

After a careful examination of the evidence adduced we are of the opinion that none of the errors assigned were committed.

Therefore, the judgment of the lower court is hereby affirmed, with costs. So ordered.

Arellano, C.J., Carson, Araullo, Street and Malcolm, JJ., concur.




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






September-1917 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. 9487 September 4, 1917 - SOFIA P. O’FARREL, ET AL. v. FLORENCIA VICTORIA

    036 Phil 826

  • G.R. No. 12700 September 4, 1917 - UNITED STATES v. PANTALEON OLAIS

    036 Phil 828

  • G.R. No. 12423 September 6, 1917 - UNITED STATES v. CHOA CHIOK, ET AL.

    036 Phil 831

  • G.R. No. 12710 September 6, 1917 - UNITED STATES v. ROSAURO ENRIQUEZ, ET AL.

    036 Phil 843

  • G.R. No. 12502 September 6, 1917 - UNITED STATES v. AGUSTIN DRILON

    036 Phil 834

  • G.R. No. 12564 September 6, 1917 - UNITED STATES v. FAUSTINO M. CORTES

    036 Phil 837

  • G.R. No. 12694 September 6, 1917 - UNITED STATES v. BALDOMERA ESPARCIA

    036 Phil 840

  • G.R. No. 12701 September 6, 1917 - UNITED STATES v. BONIFACIA SALAMAT

    036 Phil 842

  • G.R. No. 12710 September 6, 1917 - UNITED STATES v. ROSAURO ENRIQUEZ, ET AL.

    036 Phil 843

  • G.R. No. 12756 September 6, 1917 - UNITED STATES v. CATALINA SILVANO

    036 Phil 845

  • G.R. No. 12857 September 6, 1917 - UNITED STATES v. ALFREDO MANIQUIS

    036 Phil 846

  • G.R. No. 12412 September 7, 1917 - UNITED STATES v. JUAN MAIDO, ET AL.

    036 Phil 847

  • G.R. No. 12697 September 10, 1917 - UNITED STATES v. BENITO BARNEDO, ET AL.

    036 Phil 851

  • G.R. No. 12779 September 10, 1917 - UNITED STATES v. DIONISIO SANTOS

    036 Phil 853

  • G.R. No. 11094 September 12, 1917 - SABINO LIWAG, ET AL. v. EXEQUIEL YAUCO, ET AL.

    036 Phil 856

  • G.R. No. 12213 September 12, 1917 - UNITED STATES v. ANGEL ANG

    036 Phil 858

  • G.R. No. 12320 September 12, 1917 - UNITED STATES v. VICENTE IGUIDEZ

    036 Phil 860

  • G.R. No. 12091 September 13, 1917 - SIMEON ROQUE v. JAMES J. RAFFERTY

    036 Phil 864

  • G.R. No. 12473 September 18, 1917 - UNITED STATES v. LOO HOE

    036 Phil 867

  • G.R. No. 11080 September 19, 1917 - MARCELINO VILLAFUERTE v. MIGUEL EREGA, ET AL.

    036 Phil 873

  • G.R. No. 11599 September 20, 1917 - MAURA RAMOS v. MARIA CASTELO

    036 Phil 876

  • G.R. No. 10513 September 21, 1917 - URQUIJO, ZULUAGA & ESCUBI v. HIJOS DE I. DE LA RAMA, ET AL.

    036 Phil 878

  • G.R. No. 11353 September 21, 1917 - AURELIO ASOMBRA v. BENITA DORADO, ET AL.

    036 Phil 883

  • G.R. No. 12596 September 21, 1917 - UNITED STATES v. IGNACIO AZTIGARRAGA, ET AL.

    036 Phil 886

  • G.R. No. 11952 September 25, 1917 - UNITED STATES v. NICOLAS MACAMAY

    036 Phil 893

  • G.R. No. 12590 September 25, 1917 - TAN PUY v. INSULAR COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS

    036 Phil 900

  • G.R. No. 12635 September 25, 1917 - UNITED STATES v. VICENTE REYES

    036 Phil 904

  • G.R. No. 11647 September 26, 1917 - RAFAEL C. DE YNCHAUSTI v. MANILA ELECTRIC RAILROAD AND LIGHT COMPANY

    036 Phil 908

  • G.R. No. 12765 September 26, 1917 - GISBURNE SUPPLY CO. v. VICENTE QUIOGUE

    036 Phil 913

  • G.R. No. 12845 September 26, 1917 - UNITED STATES v. FRANCISCO GAFFUD, ET AL.

    036 Phil 916

  • G.R. No. 12184 September 27, 1917 - UNITED STATES v. CHIU GUIMCO

    036 Phil 917

  • G.R. No. 12607 September 27, 1917 - UNITED STATES v. RUFINO PARRO

    036 Phil 923

  • G.R. No. 12690 September 27, 1917 - UNITED STATES v. LIM BIN

    036 Phil 924

  • G.R. No. 13122 September 27, 1917 - JOSE FELIPE BRACA v. INSULAR COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS

    036 Phil 929

  • G.R. No. 9576 September 28, 1917 - HILARIO TANATO v. GAUDENCIO SANIEL, ET AL.

    036 Phil 933

  • G.R. No. 12921 September 29, 1917 - UNITED STATES v. MATEA CAÑETE

    036 Phil 935

  • G.R. No. 12632 September 13, 1917 - UNITED STATES v. ISIDRO CARA

    041 Phil 828