FIRST
DIVISION
REPUBLIC
OF THE
PHILIPPINES,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
G.
R.
No. L-15477
October
22, 1960
-versus-
VICTORIANO
MEDRANO,
SR.,
Defendant-Appellee.
D
E C I S I
O N
BENGZON,
J :
In
the Oriental Mindoro
Court of First Instance in June 1958, the Republic of the Philippines
filed
against Victoriano Medrano, Sr., a Complaint to recover the sums of
P4,827.00
and 3,864.00 as deficiency income tax and additional deficiency income
tax for the year 1949, plus surcharge and interest.
The complaint alleged
that on September 26, 1953, and October 29, 1954, the Collector of
Internal
Revenue had made the above assessments, notices of which were served
upon
defendant together with requests for payment thereof. Further alleging
failure of defendant to contest the assessments before the Court of Tax
Appeals in accordance with Republic Act No. 1125, and refusal to pay
the
same notwithstanding repeated demands, the complainant prayed for
judgment
with costs.
Instead of answering,
the defendant submitted a Motion to Dismiss on the ground that the
Court
had no jurisdiction, the matter being properly cognizable by the Court
of Tax Appeals. Sustaining the motion, the Court dismissed the case.
After
failing to convince the Court to reconsider its order of dismissal, the
plaintiff appealed in due time.
In view of Our decision
in Republic vs. Del Rosario, 105 Phil., 277; 57 Off. Gaz. [31] 5543,
the
instant appeal must be declared to be meritorious. That was a suit
filed
in the Court of First Instance of Manila to recover deficiency income
tax
assessed by the Collector of Internal Revenue, which became, final and
enforceable because the Del Rosarios had failed to question such
assessments
before the Court of Tax Appeals. Upon motion of defendants, the court
of
first instance dismissed the complaint "without prejudice to its
presentation
to the Court of Tax Appeals." The Government appealed contending that
the
Manila Court had jurisdiction to adjudicate. We sustained such appeal.
Holding the matter was not a disputed assessment cognizable by the Tax
Appeals Court, We remanded the record to the Manila court for further
proceedings.
Paraphrasing the words of Mr. Justice Padilla who wrote a unanimous
decision,
We may say: the case of the appellee does not come under Section 7,
Republic
Act 1125 [jurisdiction of Tax Appeals Court] because he has not
appealed
from the assessment of the Collector of Internal Revenue. His failure
thus
to appeal made the assessment final and executory, and demandable. His
refusal to pay it now does not render the assessment a disputable one
for
the Tax Appeals Court to adjudicate. [See also Uy Hain vs. Republic,
G.R.
L-13809, October 20, 1959].
Accordingly, the
dismissal
order will be reversed and the record remanded to the Court below for
appropriate
action. Costs against appellee.
Parás, C.J.,
Padilla, Bautista Angelo, Labrador, Reyes, J.B.L., Barrera,
Gutiérrez
David, and Paredes, JJ., concur. |