Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1968 > May 1968 Decisions > G.R. No. L-24192 May 22, 1968 - COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS v. CALTEX (PHILIPPINES), INC., ET AL.:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

EN BANC

[G.R. No. L-24192. May 22, 1968.]

COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, Petitioner, v. CALTEX (PHILIPPINES), INC., and COURT OF TAX APPEALS, Respondents.

Solicitor General Arturo A. Alafriz, Solicitor Alejandro B. Afurong & Atty. Vicente Feria, Jr. for Petitioner.

Ross, Selph, Salcedo, Del Rosario, Bito & Misa for Respondent.


SYLLABUS


1. TAXATION; SPECIAL IMPORT TAX; CALENDAR YEAR, MEANING OF. — From the context and the spirit of Sec. 2 of Republic Act 1634, the expression "succeeding calendar year" refers, not to the year succeeding the issuance of the executive proclamation increasing the rate of special import tax but to the calendar year following that in which "the total revenue derived from customs duties and from the special import tax on goods, articles or products imported from the United States is less than the proceeds from the exchange tax imposed under R.A. No. 601 on such goods, articles or products during the calendar year 1955."cralaw virtua1aw library

2. STATUTES; SECTION 11, REVISED ADMINISTRATIVE CODE; ITS APPLICATION. — Said section refers to statutes "passed by the Congress of the Philippines." It does not apply to executive proclamations. Such statutes "take effect at the beginning of the fifteenth day after the completion of the publication of the statute in the Official Gazette, "but only, "in the absence of special provision," or, in the language of Article 2 of the Civil Code of the Philippines, "unless it is otherwise provided" in the statute or law involved.

3. PROCLAMATION NO. 601; ITS NATURE AND BINDING FORCE. — Proclamation No. 601, like tax laws, is not penal in nature. A legislation merely imposing taxes, without strictly penal sanctions for violations thereof, may have a retrospective operation, without being an ex post facto law.


D E C I S I O N


CONCEPCION, C.J.:


The Commissioner of Customs seeks the review by certiorari of a decision of the Court of Tax Appeals ordering him to refund to Caltex (Philippines) Inc. the sum of P33,766.00, without pronouncement as to costs.

There is no dispute as to the facts, the same having been stipulated. During the period from January to September 1959, 32 shipments of assorted goods, consigned to Caltex, arrived at the Port of Cebu. The Collector of Customs thereof assessed and collected special import tax prescribed in Republic Act No. 1394, at the rate of 17%, amounting to P75,730.00, on the goods imported from January to June 1959, and at the rate of 15.3%, in the total sum of P49,408.00, on the other shipments. Thus, the aggregate sum paid by Caltex amounted to P125,138.00.

In due time, it filed separate protests upon the ground that the rate fixed in Section 1 of Republic Act 1394, for the year 1959, was 11.9%. On April 22, 1960, the Collector of Customs of Cebu rendered his decision on said protests holding that the rate of special import tax applicable, pursuant to Proclamation No. 601 of the President of the Philippines, dated July 14, 1959, is 15.3%. This decision having been affirmed by the Commissioner of Customs, Caltex appealed to the Court of Tax Appeals, with the result already adverted to. Hence, the present petition for review on certiorari, filed by said Commissioner, which has been given due course.

The point in issue is the rate of the special import tax collectible on the importations under consideration. The parties agree that, if the rate applicable is 11.9%, the total amount of taxes due would be P91,322.00 and Caltex would be entitled to reimbursement in the sum of P33,766.00, whereas, if the proper rate were 15.3%, the special import tax due would aggregate P117,567.00, so that the amount refundable would be P7,571.00.

The pertinent law is admittedly Republic Act 1394, approved on August 29, 1955. Section 1 thereof prescribes a diminishing rate of special import tax on goods, articles or products imported or brought into the Philippines, ranging from 17% for 1956 to 1.7% for 1965. The rate fixed for the calendar year 1959 is 11.9%. However, Section 2 of said Act provides:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"Sec. 2. (a) Notwithstanding the provisions of section one of this Act, if as a result of the application of the schedule therein, the total revenue derived from the customs duties and from the special import tax on goods, articles or products imported from the United States is less in any calendar year than the proceeds from the exchange tax imposed under Republic Act Numbered Six hundred and one, as amended, on such goods, articles or products during the calendar year 1955, the President may, by proclamation, suspend the reduction of the special import tax for the next succeeding calendar year as prescribed in the schedule, and, in order to restore the total revenue to be collected on the importation of United States goods, articles or products to the level of the exchange tax thereon during the calendar year 1955, increase the special import tax on all goods coming from any country for such succeeding calendar year to any previous rate provided for in this Act which is deemed necessary to restore the said revenue to the level attained in the calendar year 1955." (Emphasis supplied.)

"(b) After the President shall have made adjustments in the rate of tax for any given year in accordance with paragraph (a) of this section, the tax to be imposed in subsequent years shall be as provided for the corresponding year in the schedule in section one: Provided, That the President may impose any higher rate of tax within the schedule other than that fixed for the corresponding year in order to cover anticipated deficiency in revenue arising from the operation of this Act."cralaw virtua1aw library

Pursuant to the authority vested in him by this section, on July 14, 1959, the President issued Proclamation No. 601 suspending "during the calendar year 1959, starting from January 1st," the rate of 11.9% prescribed therefor in Section 1 of Republic Act 1394, and increasing the special import tax for said year to 15.3% — which is the rate prescribed in Sec. 1 of Rep. Act 1394 for the year 1957 — upon the ground that such measure was "considered necessary to restore in the calendar year 1959 . . . the total revenue to be collected on the importation of . . . goods . . . to the level of the exchange tax collected . . . during the calendar year 1955," which was P68,929,140.00, inasmuch as the total revenue from import duties and special import tax from January 1 to December 31, 1958, "amounted to only P62,648,354.60," or "below the level attained in the calendar year 1955."cralaw virtua1aw library

Despite the explicit language of said proclamation, making the increase effective "during the calendar year 1959, starting from January 1," the Tax Court ruled the same inapplicable to the importations in question for the reason that the same were made prior to the publication of said proclamation in the issue of the Official Gazette dated July 27, 1959, which was actually released to the public on September 22, 1959, and said Section 2 of Republic Act 1394 authorized the increase of the special import tax for the "succeeding calendar year," from which said Court deduced that said increase could apply only to importations made on the 15th day after the publication of the proclamation in the Official Gazette, on October 8, 1959, or subsequently thereto.

The issue boils down to this: Does the phrase "succeeding calendar year," in section 2 refer to the year succeeding the issuance or publication of the proclamation suspending the operation of the rate set forth in section 1 or to the "calendar year" in which the total revenue derived from customs duties and special import tax is less than the proceeds from the exchange tax imposed during the year 1955. The Tax Court adopted the first alternative: but, we find that the answer must be otherwise.

Pursuant to said Section 2, "if as a result of application of the schedule" provided in Section 1, "the total revenue derived from the customs duties and from the special import tax on goods, articles or products imported from the United States is less in any calendar year than the proceeds from the exchange tax imposed under Republic Act 601, as amended, on such goods, articles or products during the calendar year 1955" — in which Republic Act 1394 was approved — "the President may by proclamation suspend the reduction of the special import tax for the next succeeding calendar year as prescribed in the schedule" aforementioned "and in order to restore the total revenue to be collected on the importation of United States goods, articles or products to the level of exchange tax thereon during the calendar year 1955, increase the special import tax on all goods coming from any country for such succeeding calendar year to any previous rate provided for in this Act which is deemed necessary to restore the said revenue to the level attained in the calendar year 1955."cralaw virtua1aw library

It is obvious, from the context and the spirit of this provision that the expression "succeeding calendar year" refers, not to the "year" succeeding the issuance of the executive proclamation increasing the rate of special import tax, but to the "calendar year" following that in which "the total revenue derived from custom duties and from the special import tax on goods, articles or products imported from the United States is less . . . than the proceeds from the exchange tax imposed under Republic Act Numbered 601 on such goods, articles or products during the calendar year 1955."cralaw virtua1aw library

Indeed, the phrase "succeeding calendar year" could not refer, either to the period immediately following the issuance of said proclamation, or to the calendar year subsequent thereto, because:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

1) The proclamation could not possibly be issued before the expiration of the calendar year in which a reduction of the total revenues derived from customs duties and special import taxes has taken place, because the data essential to determine the rate of increase to be ordered by the President can not be completed before the end of said year;

2) Since it would generally take some time, after the close of said "calendar year," to gather said data, the proclamation could not possibly be issued at the very first day of the "calendar year" next following;

3) Inasmuch as the proclamation would necessarily have to be issued sometime after said day, the result would be — if the view taken by the Tax Court were accepted — that the reduction in the total revenue for the preceding year could not be offset immediately thereafter, but would have to wait until, at least, one full year later, thus unduly delaying the application of the remedy necessary to protect the stability of our currency and national economy.

Evidently realizing that the total revenue from customs duties and the special import tax for the year 1958 was less than the proceeds from the exchange tax imposed during the year 1955, and that the President would have to exercise his authority under Section 2(a) but could not fix the rate of increase of the special import tax to be ordered by executive proclamation, until after the precise amount of said total revenue shall have been determined, the Commissioner of Customs, acting in pursuance of instructions from higher authorities, had ordered all collectors of customs to assess and collect, beginning from January 1, 1959, the special import tax at the rate of 17%, subject to adjustment or liquidation, later on, in accordance with the rate to be fixed by said proclamation, and, upon the issuance thereof, levied and collected said tax at the rate so fixed. As a consequence, all importers including Caltex, were put on notice, since January 1, 1959, that the rate of 11.9% prescribed in Section 1 of Republic Act 1394 for the special import tax during that year would be suspended and the rate thereof increased, pursuant to Section 2 of said Act, although the specific rate of said increase would be fixed by proclamation to be issued by the President. In fact, Caltex had paid said tax, at the rate of 17% on each one of its importations, during the year 1959, prior to the issuance of said proclamation, and, at the rate of 15.3% fixed therein, for its subsequent importations.

Citing People v. Bonje, 1 People v. Que Po Lay, 2 People v. Chan Hen, 3 Tan Lim Te v. Workmen’s Compensation Commission, 4 People v. Uy Kimpang, 5 and Section 11 of the Revised Administrative Code, the Tax Court held that Proclamation No. 601 "became effective only after fifteen (15) days" from the actual release, on September 22, 1959, of the issue of the Official Gazette of July 27, 1959, in which the proclamation was published, or "only on October 8, 1959."cralaw virtua1aw library

Section 11 of the Revised Administrative Code does not bear out the view taken by the Tax Court. To begin with, said section refers to statutes "passed by the Congress of the Philippines." It does not apply to executive proclamations. Secondly, such statutes "take effect at the beginning of the fifteenth day after the completion of the publication of the statute in the Official Gazette," but, only, "in the absence of special provision," or, in the language of Article 2 of the Civil Code the statute or law involved. Proclamation No. 601 explicitly declares, however, that the rate of increase therein fixed shall be in force "during the calendar year 1959, starting from January 1." Thirdly, said Section 11 of the Revised Administrative Code provides, also, that for the purpose thereof, "the Gazette is conclusively presumed to be published on the date indicated therein as the date of issue." The Tax Court contravened this provision when it considered, not the date appearing in the issue of the Official Gazette in which the proclamation appeared, but the actual date of release of said issue.

Moreover, the cases cited in the decision of said Court are not in point. The Bonje case construed, not Section 11 of the Revised Administrative Code, but a provision of Article 2 of the Civil Code of the Philippines relative to the date of effectivity thereof. The case of Que Po Lay, in turn, dwelt on the date of effectivity of Central Bank Circular No. 20, dated December 9, 1949, which was not published in the Official Gazette until November, 1951. 6 Unlike Proclamation No. 601, said circular was silent on its dates of effectivity. Again, the rules of the Workmen’s Compensation Commission, which were involved in the case of Tan Lim Te 7 explicitly provided that they shall "take effect fifteen days after its publication in the Official Gazette." Upon the other hand, in the case of Chan Hen the decision of the Court of Appeals was based upon the penal nature of the circular 8 involved therein, like that sought to be applied in the Que Po Lay case, upon which the same court relied in the case of Uy Kimpang. 9

Particularly relevant to the question under consideration is the case of Gil Balbuna v. The Secretary of Education 10 One of the issues therein referred to a department order promulgating rules and regulations for the conduct of the compulsory flag ceremony in all schools, as provided in Republic Act No. 1265. The petitioners in said case maintained that the department order had no binding force, because it had not been published in the Official Gazette. This Court rejected such pretense and refused to apply the rule laid down in the Que Po Lay case and affirmed in Lim Hoa Ting v. Central Bank 11 upon ground that the penalties provided for violations of the circulars involved in these two (2) cases constituted "the primary factor that influenced the rationale" thereof.

In effect, this Court held that the aforementioned department order had no penal character, despite the adverse consequences it may have upon those who violate the same, for which reason its publication in the Official Gazette was not essential to impart the binding force. Similarly, Proclamation No. 601 like tax laws, in general, is not penal in nature. Indeed, a legislation merely imposing taxes, without strictly penal sanctions for violations thereof, may have a retrospective operation, without being an ex post facto law. 12 Hence:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"A statute imposing a penalty, computed at a certain per cent per annum for a five-year period, upon estates of decedents for non- payment of taxes during the lifetime of the owner, not being in punishment of crime, is not invalid as an ex post facto law in so far as the five-year period antedates the passage of the statute.

WHEREFORE, we hold 13 that the rate of special import tax due and collectible on the importations under consideration is 15.3%; that the amount refundable to Caltex is P7,571.00; and that the appealed decision of the Court of Tax Appeals should be as it hereby modified accordingly, without special pronouncement as to costs.

Reyes, J.B.L., Dizon, Makalintal, Zaldivar, Sanchez, Castro and Angeles, JJ., concur.

Fernando, J., is on official leave.

Endnotes:



1. 49 Off. Gaz. 1875-1881.

2. 49 Phil., 640.

3. 48 Off. Gaz. 4431.

4. 104 Phil. 522.

5. 52 Off. Gaz. 3087.

6. 47 Off. Gaz. 5567-5568.

7. 53 Off. Gaz. 2112-2117.

8. Central Bank Circular No. 21.

9. 52 Off. Gaz 3087.

10. 110 Phil., 150.

11. 055 Off. Gaz. 1006.

12. Lorenzo v. Posadas, 64 Phil., 353; Seattle v. Kellecher, 195 U.S. 351, 360, 49 L. ed., 232, 25 Sup. Ct. Rep. 44.

13. Bankers-Trust Co. v. Blodgett, 260 U.S. 647, 67 L. ed 439.




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-1968 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. L-25668 May 2, 1968 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ROMAN JUGILON, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-22005 May 3, 1968 - JESUSA LACSON VDA. DE ARROYO, ET AL. v. EL BEATERIO DEL SANTISSIMO ROSARIO DE MOLO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-26065 May 3, 1968 - GERONIMO P. ZALDIVAR v. NUMERIANO ESTENZO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-21743 May 4, 1968 - FEDERICO CAÑETE, ET AL. v. COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE OF ZAMBOANGA DEL SUR, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-23458 May 4, 1968 - NATIONAL SHIPYARDS AND STEEL CORP. v. NATIONAL SHIPYARDS EMPLOYEES & WORKERS ASSOC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-24264 May 4, 1968 - PHILIPPINE EDUCATION CO. v. MANILA PORT SERVICE, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-19829 May 4, 1968 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL. v. FRANCISCO COKENG

  • G.R. No. L-24538 May 4, 1968 - IN RE: PONCIANO B. FLORES v. ROSALINA SANTOS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-28469 May 7, 1968 - UNA KIBAD v. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-25345 May 13, 1968 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ROMULO GARCELLANO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-24247 May 13, 1968 - COMPAÑIA GENERAL DE TABACOS DE FILIPINAS v. ACTG. COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS

  • G.R. Nos. L-21583 and L-21591-92 May 20, 1968 - DANIEL BULANTE v. CHU LIANTE, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-23758 May 20, 1968 - MAXIMINA OYOD DE GARCES, ET AL. v. ESMERALDA BROCE, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-24983 May 20, 1968 - FLORENTINO GENATO, ET AL. v. FELISA GENATO DE LORENZO

  • G.R. No. L-24560 May 21, 1968 - CONSUELO S. CALALANG v. ENRIQUE MEDINA, ETC., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-20952 May 22, 1968 - IN RE: CHUA UAN v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-22250 May 22, 1968 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. EULOGIO BALAO

  • G.R. No. L-22320 May 22, 1968 - MERCEDES RUTH COBB-PEREZ, ET AL. v. GREGORIO LANTIN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-23640 May 22, 1968 - REMEDIOS MALUPA VDA. DE LAYAG v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-24192 May 22, 1968 - COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS v. CALTEX (PHILIPPINES), INC., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-25308 May 22, 1968 - ELISEO EGUIA DUMAPIG v. GERONIMO R. MARAVE, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-25819 May 22, 1968 - VITALIANO B. VALDES v. LUCIO C. GUTIERREZ, ETC., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-27252 May 22, 1968 - FELIPE IMPERIAL v. ROMAN CATHOLIC OF ARCHBISHOP OF CACERES, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-20891 May 23, 1968 - TOMAS B. TADEO v. ROMULO VISPERAS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-24665 May 23, 1968 - TIBURCIO ALCOBER, ET AL. v. HONORATO GARCIANO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-24805 May 23, 1968 - IN RE: YAP PUEY ENG v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-25165 May 23, 1968 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. REFUGIO DEVARAS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-23017 May 23, 1968 - LA SUERTE CIGAR & CIGARETTE FACTORY v. CENTRAL AZUCARERA DEL DANAO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-24173 May 23, 1968 - PROCTER & GAMBLE PHILIPPINE MFG. CORP. v. COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS

  • G.R. No. L-24410 May 23, 1968 - BERNARDA NAZAL v. FELICIANO BELMONTE, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-22347 May 27, 1968 - FILIPINAS INDUSTRIAL CORPORATION, ET AL. v. LOURDES P. SAN DIEGO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-22611 May 27, 1968 - COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE v. VISAYAN ELECTRIC COMPANY, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-22943 May 27, 1968 - IN RE: TEH SAN v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-23056 May 27, 1968 - MANILA RAILROAD COMPANY v. NICASIO YATCO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-24280 May 27, 1968 - EUNARIA B. VDA. DE GUILAS, ET AL. v. ANANIAS DAVID, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-24564 May 27, 1968 - AMADO L. MENDOZA v. RODRIGUEZ & COMPANY, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-24581 May 27, 1968 - MIGUEL PEREZ RUBIO v. SAMUEL REYES, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-24772 May 27, 1968 - RUPERTO G. CRUZ, ET AL. v. FlLIPINAS INVESTMENT & FINANCE CORPORATION

  • G.R. No. L-24800 May 27, 1968 - IN RE: PIO NERIA v. COMMISSIONER OF IMMIGRATION

  • G.R. No. L-26077 May 27, 1968 - SURIGAO CONSOLIDATED MINING COMPANY, INC. v. WORKMEN’S COMPENSATION COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-26797 May 27, 1968 - REYNALDO JIMENEZ, ET AL. v. ARTURO JIMENEZ

  • G.R. No. L-27598 May 27, 1968 - ELISA MEDINA CUE v. PILAR DOLLA

  • G.R. No. L-24288 May 28, 1968 - LEONOR MANUEL CASTILLO UDAN v. QUIRICO C. AMON, ETC., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-24484 May 28, 1968 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RAMON C. NARCISO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-25942 May 28, 1968 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. FELIX FERNANDO

  • G.R. No. L-25997 May 28, 1968 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MONICA ANINO

  • G.R. No. L-27951 May 28, 1968 - PABLO C. SANIDAD v. CRESCENCIANO L. SAQUING, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-28955 May 28, 1968 - USO DAN AGUAM v. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-19867 May 29, 1968 - GOVERNMENT SERVICE INSURANCE SYSTEM v. CALSONS, INC., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-20322 May 29, 1968 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL. v. PERFECTO R. PALACIO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-22030 May 29, 1968 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. DARIO ROLDAN

  • G.R. No. L-22426 May 29, 1968 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. PELAGIO CONDEMENA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-23021 May 29, 1968 - MANILA RAILROAD COMPANY v. MARIANO RIVERA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-24490 May 29, 1968 - CIRIACO LANDA v. FRANCISCO TOBIAS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-24664 May 29, 1968 - CORAZON ALEGRE, ET AL. v. VICTORINA G. DE LAPERAL

  • G.R. No. L-24677 May 29, 1968 - YAP TECK SUY v. MANILA PORT SERVICE ETC., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-25551 May 29, 1968 - IN RE: CHAN DE v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-26364 May 29, 1968 - MARIANO A. ALBERT v. COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE, ET AL.