Eugenio v. Drilon G.R. No.

109404 (January 22, 1996) FACTS: Private Respondent purchased on installment b asis from Petitioner, two lots.Private respondent suspended payment of his amortizations because of non-development on the property. Petitioner then sold one of the two lots to spousesRelevo and the title was registered under their name. Respondent prayed forannulment of sale and reconveyance of the lot to him. Applying P.D. 957 TheSubdivision and Condominium Buyers Protective Decree, the Human SettlementsRegulatory Commission ordered Petitioner to complete the development, reinstatePrivate Respondents purchase contract over one lot and imm ediately refund him ofthe payment (including interest) he made for the lot sold to the spouses. Petitionerclaims that the Exec. Sec. erred in applying P.D. 957 saying it should have not beengiven retroactive effect and that non-development does not justify the non-paymentof the amortizations. ISSUE: W/N the Executive Secretary acted with grave abuse of discretion when he decided P.D. 957 will be given retroactive effect. HELD: No. Respondent Executive Secretary did not act with grave abuse ofdiscretion and P.D. 957 is to given retroactive effect so as to cover even thosecontracts executed prior to its enactment in 1976. P.D. 957 did not expressly providefor retroactivity in its entirety, but such can be plainly inferred from the unmistakableintent of the law. The intent of the statute is the law.

Statutory Construction- Commissioner of Internal Revenue vs. TMX Sales Inc.

Statutory Construction

Case of Commissioner of Internal Revenue vs. TMX Sales Inc. GR No. 83736 15January1992

FACTS OF THE CASE: Private respondent TMX Sales, Inc., a domestic corporation, filed its quarterly income tax return for the first quarter of 1981, declaring an income of P571,174.31, and consequently paying an income tax thereon of P247,010.00 on May 15, 1981. During the subsequent quarters, however, TMX Sales, Inc. suffered losses so that when it filed on April 15, 1982 its Annual Income Tax Return for the year ended December 31, 1981, it declared a gross income of P904,122.00 and total deductions of P7,060,647.00, or a net loss of P6,156,525.00 (CTA Decision, pp. 1-2; Rollo, pp. 45-46). Thereafter, on July 9, 1982, TMX Sales, Inc. thru its external auditor, SGV & Co. filed with the Appellate Division of the Bureau of Internal Revenue a claim for refund in the amount of P247,010.00

representing overpaid income tax. (Rollo, p. 30) This claim was not acted upon by the Commissioner of Internal Revenue. On March 14, 1984, TMX Sales, Inc. filed a petition for review before the Court of Tax Appeals against the Commissioner of Internal Revenue, praying that the petitioner, as private respondent therein, be ordered to refund to TMX Sales, Inc. the amount of P247,010.00, representing overpaid income tax for the taxable year ended December 31, 1981. In his answer, the Commissioner of Internal Revenue averred that "granting, without admitting, the amount in question is refundable, the petitioner (TMX Sales, Inc.) is already barred from claiming the same considering that more than two (2) years had already elapsed between the payment (May 15, 1981) and the filing of the claim in Court (March 14, 1984). (Sections 292 and 295 of the Tax Code of 1977, as amended)." On April 29, 1988, the Court of Tax Appeals rendered a decision granting the petition of TMX Sales, Inc. and ordering the Commissioner of Internal Revenue to refund the amount claimed.

ISSUES OF THE CASE:

In a case involving corporate quarterly income tax, does the two-year prescriptive period to claim a refund of erroneously collected tax provided for in Section 292 (now Section 230) of the National Internal Revenue Code commence to run from the date the quarterly income tax was paid, as contended by the petitioner, or from the date of filing of the Final Adjustment Return (final payment), as claimed by the private respondent?

The filing of quarterly income tax returns required in Section 85 (now Section 68) and implemented per BIR Form 1702-Q and payment of quarterly income tax should only be considered mere installments of the annual tax due. The two-year prescriptive period provided in Section 292 (now Section 230) of the Tax Code should be computed from the time of filing the Adjustment Return or Annual Income Tax Return and final payment of income tax. Where the tax account was paid on installment, the computation of the two-year prescriptive period under Section 306 (Section 292) of the Tax Code, should be from the date of the last installment.

HELD:

COURT HELD THAT THE PETITION WAS DENIED AND IT AFFIRMED THE DECISION OF THE COURT OF TAX APPEALS.

STATUTORY CONSTRUCTION LESSON:

Court stated that statutes should receive a sensible construction, such as will give effect to the legislative intention and so as to avoid an unjust or an absurd conclusion. INTERPRETATIO TALIS IN AMBIGUIS SEMPER FRIENDA EST, UT EVITATUR INCONVENIENS ET ABSURDUM. Where there is ambiguity, such interpretation as will avoid inconvenience and absurdity is to be adopted. Furthermore, courts must give effect to the general legislative intent that can be discovered from or is unraveled by the four corners of the statute, and in order to discover said intent, the whole statute, and not only a particular provision thereof, should be considered.

People of the Philippines v. Yabut G.R. No. 85472 (September 27, 1993) FACTS: Defendant was convicted for homicide. While serving sentence, he killed another prisoner. He was consequently charged for murder. After conviction, he was punished with the maximum period for murder, in accordance with Art. 160 of the Revised Penal Code. ISSUE: W/N the lower court erred in applying Art. 160. HELD: No. Respondent relied on the word another appearing in the English translation of the head note of Art. 160, and suggests that the law is applicable only when the new crime committed by a person serving sentence is different from the crime for which he is serving sentence. According to him, his conviction for murder is not different because it involved homicide. No such deduction is warranted from the text itself, or from the Spanish caption. When the text of the law is clear and unambiguous, there is no need to resort to the preamble, heading, epigram or head note of a section for interpretation of the text, which are mere catchwords or reference aids, consulted to remove, not create doubts.

De Villa v. CA G.R. No. 87416 (April 8, 1991) FACTS:

Petitioner was charged with a violation of BP 22 (Bouncing Checks Law) for issuing a worthless check. However, he contends that the check was drawn against a dollar account with a foreign bank, and is therefore, not covered by the said law. ISSUE: W/N the Makati Regional Trial Court has jurisdiction over the case in question. HELD: The Makati Regional Trial Court has jurisdiction. The determinative factor (in determining venue) is the place of the issuance of the check. The offense was committed in Makati and therefore, the same is controlling and sufficient to vest jurisdiction in the Makati Regional Trial Court. The Court acquires jurisdiction over the case and over the person of the accused upon the filing of a complaint or information in court which initiates a criminal action. With regard to Petitioners allegation that the check is not covered by BP 22, it will be noted that the law does not distinguish the currency involved in the case.