Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1969 > May 1969 Decisions > G.R. No. L-19375 May 21, 1969 - DY PEH, ET AL. v. COLLECTOR OF INTERNAL REVENUE:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

EN BANC

[G.R. No. L-19375. May 21, 1969.]

DY PEH, AND/OR VICTORY RUBBER MANUFACTURING, Petitioner, v. COLLECTOR OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent.

Rene A. Diokno for Petitioner.

Solicitor General Arturo A. Alafriz Assistant Solicitor General Felicisimo R. Rosete and Special Attorney Alejandro B. Afurong for Respondent.


SYLLABUS


1. CIVIL LAW; AGENCY; AGENT’S ACTS BIND HIS PRINCIPAL; CASE AT BAR. — Where Tan Chuan Liong, petitioner’s agent who made the payment of the latter’s taxes, falsified the official receipts, applying a portion of the amounts given by petitioner to him to pay the tax obligation of other taxpayers such as that the official receipts in petitioner’s hands did not reflect the truth thereby making him liable to pay deficiency percentage taxes in the total amount of P15,939.27, the conclusion must necessarily be that the agent’s acts bind his principal, without prejudice, of course, to the latter seeking recourse against him in an appropriate civil or criminal action.

2. TAXATION; COURT OF TAX APPEALS; APPEAL FROM DECISION THEREOF TO SUPREME COURT; ONLY ERRORS OF LAW ARE REVIEWABLE BY COURT. — The trial court’s ruling upon these questions of whether it was petitioner, in person, who made the payment of his taxes and whether or not the official receipts in petitioner’s possession were falsified, and if so by whom, must be sustained pursuant to our consistent ruling to the effect that in reviews from the decisions of the Court of Appeals, only errors of law are reviewable by this Court.


D E C I S I O N


DIZON, J.:


Petition filed by Dy Peh for the review of the decision and resolution of the Court of Tax Appeals dated April 29, and December 23, 1961, respectively, in C.T.A. Case No. 538, ordering him to pay deficiency percentage taxes in the total amount of P51,939.27.

The following facts are not disputed:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

Petitioner, during all the time material to this case, was engaged in the business of manufacturing and selling rubber shoes and allied products in the city of Cebu, under the registered firm name Victory Rubber Manufacturing.

Sometime in the year 1955 the Bureau of Internal Revenue unearthed anomalies committed in the office of the Treasurer of the city of Cebu in connection with the payment of taxes by some taxpayers, amongst them petitioner herein. As a result the respondent assessed against, and demanded from petitioner the payment of the following sums: P4,725, including P100 as penalty, P29,980, including P50 as penalty, and P17,425 including P50 as penalty, on January 27, 1956, November 12, 1955 and November 12, 1955, respectively. This assessment was based upon short payments in connection with taxes due from petitioner during the periods covered by the assessment. The investigation of the anomalies disclosed that the amounts of the taxes allegedly paid by him, as appearing in the original of every official receipt he had in his possession, were bigger than the amounts appearing in the corresponding duplicate, triplicate and quadruplicate copy thereof kept in the office of the City Treasurer of Cebu. Such discrepancies are hereunder tabulated as follows:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

Official Appearing in the Appearing in the Duplicate,

Receipt Original Triplicate and/or

Number Date Amount Quadruplicate

Re 1st cause of action Date Amount Difference

699004 4-20-54 P3,227.47 4-20-54 P227.47 P3,000.00

704201 7-20-54 3,681.41 7-20-54 681.41 3,000.00

709008 10-20-54 1,892.78 10-20-54 192.78 1,700.00

A-210319 1-20-55 2,575.46 1-20-55 175.46 2,400.00

A-218105 4-20-55 3,968.68 4-20-55 168.69 3,800.00

Re 2nd cause of action

1923194 4-21-52 P4,380.37 4-21-52 P380.37 P4,000.00

1972817 7-21-52 4,140.29 7-21-52 140.29 4,000.00

6399188 10-20-52 2,113.07 10-20-52 113.07 2,000.00

7769180 1-17-53 1,457.42 4-7-53 6.00 1,451.42

7778387 4-18-53 4,057.56 4-18-52 57.56 4,000.00

8423087 7-20-53 2,850.63 720-53 50.63 2,800.00

8470851 10-20-53 2,901.87 10-20-53 101.87 2,800.00

693613 1-20-54 2,996.26 1-20-54 96.26 2,900.00

Re 3rd cause of action

A-1709018 1-17-52 P3,815.18 1-17-52 P115.18 P3,700.00

Petitioner’s contention below and here is this: since the checks issued by him covered in full the amount due for each quarter, and were accepted and deposited by the City Treasurer of Cebu; since the originals of the official receipts issued by the latter show that the full amount of the taxes due from him had been paid, he must be deemed to have paid such taxes in full, and any anomaly in the application of the amounts paid by him consisting in the diversion of part thereof to pay the taxes of other taxpayers — whether attributable solely to employees in the office of said Treasurer or to other parties — should not be held against him.

Respondent’s contention, on the other hand, is that the amounts actually paid by petitioner were those appearing on the duplicates, triplicates and quadruplicates of the official receipts mentioned heretofore; that the originals thereof were falsified or altered to make them show payment in full of the taxes due from petitioner.

In connection with the issues thus joined petitioner tried to prove that the payments in question were made by him personally, while, on the other hand, respondent claimed that said payments were made not by petitioner personally but by Tan Chuan Liong, his authorized agent in the matter of payment of his taxes; that Bartolome Baguio, Chief of the Internal Revenue Division of the City Treasurer’s Office of Cebu, had allowed the wrongful practice of permitting Tan Chuan Liong to prepare the official receipts in connection with tax payments made by him in behalf of his merchant clients; that it was Tan Chuan Liong who applied a portion of the amounts given to him by petitioner to pay tax obligations of other taxpayers, also his clients, and that therefore petitioner’s recourse is against him.

Whether it was petitioner, in person, who made the payment of his taxes herein involved, or it was his aforesaid agent, is manifestly a question of fact squarely resolved by the Court of Tax Appeals as follows:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"Petitioner sought to prove that he never employed Tan Chuan Liong as a business agent in the payment of the tax in question. The preponderance of the evidence shows otherwise. If, as alleged, petitioner paid the tax personally, why were the official receipts prepared by Tan Chuan Liong and not by Bartolome Baguio or any authorized employee in the office of the City Treasurer of Cebu? It appears that Tan Chuan Liong prepared the official receipts of payments of taxpayers who employed him as business agent. It has not been shown that Tan Chuan Liong prepared any official receipt covering payment of taxpayers other than those who employed him business agent."cralaw virtua1aw library

After ruling against petitioner on this question, the Court of Tax Appeals said further:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"Even assuming that Tan Chuan Liong was not employed by petitioner as business agent, petitioner is not entirely blameless. The records show that the payments were made by checks. The numbers of the official receipts covering the payments are indicated on the back of the checks. After the checks had been deposited and the amounts credited in favor of the Government, the cancelled checks were returned to petitioner. Petitioner is, therefore, charged with knowledge of the fact that the amount covered by each check was applied in payment not only of his tax but also of taxes of other taxpayers, the numbers of the official receipts covering which are indicated on the back of the check. The fact that he accepted the cancelled checks without protest is evidence of his acquiescence to the manner in which the amount covered by each check was applied by the collecting officer. He cannot now he heard to complain."cralaw virtua1aw library

We can hardly add any other consideration to strengthen the lower court’s ruling.

Another question of fact vital to this case is whether or not the official receipts in petitioner’s possession were falsified, and if so by whom.

In this connection, We believe it established as a fact that petitioner had employed Tan Chuan Liong as a business agent in the matter of payment of his taxes. The testimonies of Bartolome Baguio, Isidro Badana and Lauro Abalos on this matter (T.s.n. pp. 200-201, 472-473, 483-484, 501-503, 508-510, 525, 535-539) were corroborated by the statement and report of NBI handwriting expert Felipe Logan. That Tan Chuan Liong, as such petitioner’s agent, actually paid to the government less than the amounts of the taxes due from petitioner is also fully proven by their testimonies and the duplicate, triplicate and quadruplicate copies of the official receipts which appear upon their face to be genuine or authentic. The same thing cannot be claimed for the official receipts in question, because the lower court found that, as in the case Tiu Bon Sin v. Collector etc., C.T.A. No. 286, and Yap Pe Giok v. Aranas, C.T.A. No. 533, appellant employed the same business agent who misappropriated a portion of the amounts entrusted to him and paid less than what was due from his principals. In plain words, the lower court expressed the view that the official receipts in petitioner’s hands did not reflect the truth.

The trial court’s ruling upon these questions must be sustained pursuant to our consistent ruling to the effect that in reviews of the nature of the present, only errors of law are reviewable by this Court (G.R. L-12174 Maria B. Castro v. Collector, April 26, 1962; G.R. L- 9738 Blas Gutierrez, Et. Al. v. Court of Tax Appeals; G.R. L-8556 Benito Sanchez v. Commissioner of Customs, Sept. 30, 1957 and 54 O.G. No. 2, p. 361; Eugenio Perez v. Court of Tax Appeals, G.R. L-10507, May 30, 1958; G.R. No. L-13387 Sy Chiuco v. Collector, March 23, 1960; G.R. No. L-11622 Collector v. Fisher and G.R. No. L-1168 Fisher v. Collector, January 28, 1961).

The foregoing disposes of the first two assignments of error submitted in petitioner’s brief. In the third, it is his contention that the Court a quo erred in holding that he is estopped from questioning the misapplication of his payments.

This is only a corollary of the questions raised in the previous assignments of error. Inasmuch as We have held in resolving the latter that, in point of fact, Tan Chuan Liong was petitioner’s agent, the conclusion must necessarily be that the agent’s acts bind his principal; without prejudice, of course, to the latter seeking recourse against him in an appropriate civil or criminal action.

The fourth and last assignment of error has been impliedly resolved adversely to petitioner in our rulings upon the first three.

PREMISES CONSIDERED, the decision appealed from is hereby affirmed, with costs.

Reyes, J.B.L. Acting C.J., Makalintal, Zaldivar, Sanchez, Fernando and Capistrano, JJ., concur.

Teehankee and Barredo, JJ., took no part.

Concepcion, C.J. and Castro, J., are on official leave.




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-1969 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. L-19884 May 8, 1969 - ZAMBALES ACADEMY, INC. v. CIRIACO VILLANUEVA

  • G.R. No. L-20611 May 8, 1969 - AURELIO BALBIN, ET AL. v. REGISTER OF DEEDS OF ILOCOS SUR

  • G.R. No. L-23563 May 8, 1969 - CRISTINA SOTTO v. HERNANI MIJARES, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-24023 May 8, 1969 - IN RE: PESSUMAL BHROJRAJ v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-25623 May 8, 1969 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RICARDO BERNAL

  • G.R. No. L-26982 May 8, 1969 - ROSALINDA MATIAS v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-29661 May 13, 1969 - BASILIO M. PINEDA v. JOVITO O. CLAUDIO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-26449 May 15, 1969 - LUZON STEEL CORPORATION v. JOSE O. SIA

  • G.R. No. L-26700 May 15, 1969 - MALAYAN INSURANCE CO., INC. v. MANILA PORT SERVICE, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-4974-78 May 16, 1969 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JOSE LAVA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-23788 May 16, 1969 - UNIVERSAL MOTORS CORPORATION v. DY HIAN TAT, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. L-27463, 27503 & 27504 May 16, 1969 - NATIONAL WATERWORKS & SEWERAGE AUTHORITY v. NWSA CONSOLIDATED UNION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-23303 May 20, 1969 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. LEOCADIO B. BAUTISTA

  • G.R. No. L-26491 May 20, 1969 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. PASTOR TAPAC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-28666 May 20, 1969 - ESPERANZA SOLIDUM v. FELIX V. MACALALAG

  • G.R. No. L-18690 May 21, 1969 - RODOLFO V. BAUTISTA v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-19375 May 21, 1969 - DY PEH, ET AL. v. COLLECTOR OF INTERNAL REVENUE

  • G.R. No. L-19890 May 21, 1969 - SOSTENES CAMPILLO v. PHILIPPINE NATIONAL BANK, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-22351 May 21, 1969 - ESTEBAN GARANCIANG, ET AL. v. CATALINO GARANCIANG, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-22487 May 21, 1969 - ASUNCION ATILANO, ET AL. v. LADISLAO ATILANO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-22490 May 21, 1969 - GAN TION v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-22581 May 21, 1969 - COMMISSIONER OF IMMIGRATION v. JUAN GO TIENG, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-23138 May 21, 1969 - ARMANDO LIM v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-26241 May 21, 1969 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JOSE VICENTE, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-26454 May 21, 1969 - BASILIO ASIROT, ET AL. v. DOLORES LIM VDA. DE RODRIGUEZ, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-29784 May 21, 1969 - SILVESTRE MASA v. JUAN A. BAES

  • G.R. No. L-23966 May 22, 1969 - BENJAMIN A. GRAY v. JACOBO S. DE VERA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-24739 May 22, 1969 - ADELA ONGSIACO VDA. DE CLEMEÑA, ET AL. v. AGUSTIN ENGRACIO CLEMEÑA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-25446 May 22, 1969 - AMBROSIO SALUD v. EXECUTIVE SECRETARY TO THE PRESIDENT, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-25665 May 22, 1969 - VICTORIAS MILLING CO., INC. v. WORKMEN’S COMPENSATION COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-25949 May 22, 1969 - BERNARDO O. SALAZAR v. EMILIANA LIBRES DE CASTRODES, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-27235 May 22, 1969 - BONIFACIO BALMES v. FORTUNATO SUSON

  • G.R. No. L-27907 May 22, 1969 - LA CAMPANA FOOD PRODUCTS, INC., ET AL. v. COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-25483 May 23, 1969 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL. v. LUCIA TAN

  • G.R. No. L-26808 May 23, 1969 - LUCIO V. GARCIA v. CONRADO M. VASQUEZ

  • G.R. No. L-23315 May 26, 1969 - DESIDERIO S. RALLON v. PACIFICO RUIZ, JR., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-25018 May 26, 1969 - ARSENIO PASCUAL, JR. v. BOARD OF MEDICAL EXAMINERS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-25721 May 26, 1969 - MISAEL VERA, ET AL. v. FRANCISCO ARCA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-18840 May 29, 1969 - KUENZLE & STREIFF, INC. v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE

  • G.R. No. L-23275 May 29, 1969 - VICENTE CARBAJAL, ET AL. v. PONCIANA DIOLOLA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-26056 May 29, 1969 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL. v. JESUS S. RODRIGUEZ

  • G.R. No. L-26979 May 29, 1969 - INSURANCE COMPANY OF NORTH AMERICA v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-27267 May 29, 1969 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. DIOSDADO DE ATRAS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-20571 May 30, 1969 - CARMEN YTURRALDE, ET AL. v. MARIANO VAGILIDAD, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-22158 May 30, 1969 - NENITA YTURRALDE v. RAYMUNDO AZURIN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-24819 May 30, 1969 - ANDRES PASCUAL v. PEDRO DE LA CRUZ, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-27234 May 30, 1969 - LEONORA T. ROXAS v. PEDRO DINGLASAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-27692 May 30, 1969 - NATIONAL DEVELOPMENT COMPANY v. WORKMEN’S COMPENSATION COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-25815 May 31, 1969 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RAMON GOMEZ, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-22761 May 31, 1969 - ROSE BUSH MALIG, ET AL. v. MARIA SANTOS BUSH