Академический Документы
Профессиональный Документы
Культура Документы
RESOLUTION
COTANGCO-MANALASTAS, J :
p
Submitted for the consideration of this Court is the Motion for Reconsideration
filed by petitioners on February 9, 2011, praying that: (a) the Decision 2(2) of this
Court promulgated on January 21, 2011 be reconsidered, reversed and set aside; and
(b) judgment be rendered ordering respondents to refund or issue a tax credit in favor
of petitioners in the total amount of P39,040,737.74. As an alternative to the foregoing
prayer, petitioners likewise prayed that this Court order the suspension of the rendition
of judgment pending final resolution of the constitutionality and/or legality of the Tax
Ordinance.
1(1)
Copyright 1994-2012
The Decision erred when it ruled that the RTC Case 3(3) was
premature and that petitioners should have first awaited the
outcome of the CA Case 4(4) before filing the RTC Case.
Taxation 2011
B.
C.
Apropos the first allegation, petitioners contend that the ruling in the
challenged Decision was essentially based on speculation and an invalid reversal of
the Court En Banc's decision in Alabang Supermarket Corporation vs. City
Government of Muntinlupa, et al. 5(5) ("Alabang Supermarket Case"). According to
the petitioners, the speculative nature of the Decision may be seen from the phrase ". .
. . What claim for refund would there be to speak about if in case CA sustains the
constitutionality and/or validity of the tax ordinance? Evidently, the claim for refund
is afflicted with the vice of prematurity.", and that said phrase begs the question
what if the Court of Appeals (or the Supreme Court, for that matter) does not sustain
the constitutionality and/or validity of Ordinance No. 158-05, series of 2005, The
2005 Revenue Code of the City of Davao (the "New Tax Ordinance").
Anent the second allegation, petitioners disagree with the ruling that the
elements of litis pendentia and res judicata are present and maintain their stance that
there is no identity of parties; the rights asserted and the reliefs prayed for in the two
cases are entirely different; a different set of evidence has to be presented in both
cases; an appeal to the Secretary of Justice under Section 187 of the Local
Government Code (LGC) does not suspend the effectivity of the ordinance, thus, in
the interim that the legality of the tax ordinance is being questioned, the prescriptive
period to claim for refund under Section 196 of the LGC continued to run; and the
Secretary of Justice and the Court of Appeals, in the CA Case, have no jurisdiction to
grant claims for refund.
aHTDAc
Finally, petitioners submit that, even assuming the elements of litis pendentia
and/or res judicata are present, the RTC Case should have been merely suspended to
await the outcome of the CA Case. Petitioners aver that the RTC Case was filed ahead
of the final resolution of the CA Case because of this Court's rulings in the cases of
Swedish Match Philippines, Inc. vs. The Treasurer of the City of Manila 6(6) ("Swedish
Match Case") and Alabang Supermarket Corporation vs. City Government of
Muntinlupa, et al., 7(7) and disclosed their fear that had they waited for the outcome of
the CA Case, they were at the risk of losing their right to claim for refund precisely in
light of the explicit rulings in the said cases.
Copyright 1994-2012
Taxation 2011
Taxation 2011
In light of all the arguments interposed by the parties and careful re-evaluation
of the records at hand, this Court finds no compelling reason to deviate or reverse its
ruling enunciated in the assailed Decision promulgated on January 21, 2011.
Premature filing of the RTC Case
In their Motion for Reconsideration, petitioners are endeavouring to persuade
this Court to reconsider its finding of prematurity of the RTC Case by hurling
allegations and crafting suppositions from the assailed Decision not espoused by this
Court, i.e., that the Decision was essentially based on speculation and an invalid
reversal of the Court En Banc's decision in the Alabang Supermarket Case.
Petitioners hold on to the view that the two (2) year prescriptive period to file a
claim for refund or tax credit under Section 196 of the LGC is about to lapse from the
date of payment, and that they need not wait for the finality of the decision in the CA
Case declaring the tax measure void, invoking their reliance in the Swedish Match
Case and Alabang Supermarket Case. Petitioners advance their apprehension of
losing their right to claim for refund in light of the rulings in the said cases, and made
a speculation by declaring that "it takes no stretch of imagination to see that, had
petitioners not filed the RTC Case, respondents (and even this Court) could invoke the
very same rulings in Swedish Match and Alabang Supermarket to bar the eventual
complaint for refund petitioners would have filed after the final resolution of the
constitutionality issue of the Tax Ordinance".
TacADE
Taxation 2011
As oft repeated Section 196 of the LGC clearly declares, that prescription is not
reckoned only from the date of payment, but also from the "date the taxpayer is
entitled to a refund or credit", viz.:
xxx
xxx
xxx
SECTION 196.
Claim for Refund of Tax Credit. No case or
proceeding shall be maintained in any court for the recovery of any tax, fee, or
charge erroneously or illegally collected until a written claim for refund or credit
has been filed with the local treasurer. No case or proceeding shall be
entertained in any court after the expiration of two (2) years from the date of
the payment of such tax, fee, or charge, or from the date the taxpayer is
entitled to a refund or credit.
xxx
xxx
xxx
Taxation 2011
Taxation 2011
Verily, the crux of the controversy and the reason for the denial of the refund
claim in the Alabang Supermarket Case is the petitioner's failure to file an
administrative claim for refund. Petitioner in the Alabang Supermarket Case
subscribes to the interpretation that Section 196 of the LGC requires it to wait for the
finality of the decision declaring the tax ordinance void before filing an
administrative claim with the treasurer. The Court En Banc did not agree and
affirmed the view of the Court in Division that "[A] taxpayer who believes that he has
paid a tax imposed under a void ordinance should timely exhaust administrative
remedies before resorting to the filing of a judicial claim or timely question its
Copyright 1994-2012
Taxation 2011
In view of the foregoing, We consistently hold the view that petitioners' judicial
claim for refund or tax credit [RTC Case] is premature, such may still be pursued
within two (2) years from the time the assailed ordinance is nullified or from the time
Copyright 1994-2012
Taxation 2011
a decision [CA Case] nullifying the ordinance becomes final and executory, because it
is only at such time when the petitioners become entitled to a refund or credit or their
claim for refund is ripened for administrative and judicial determination.
Elements of litis pendentia and res judicata
On the matter involving the presence of the elements of litis pendentia and res
judicata, this Court maintains its ruling that the elements of litis pendentia and res
judicata are extant in this case. The said finding was reached after a conscientious
analysis of the well-established principles in this jurisdiction and its application to the
present circumstance as revealed by the records at hand.
We have carefully examined each one of the arguments set out in the instant
Motion for Reconsideration on this matter and learned that they were merely lifted
from petitioners' Memorandum. 10(10) There is nothing in the instant Petition for
Review and the said Memorandum that was not considered and exhaustively passed
upon by this Court in the challenged Decision, thus, We find that another discourse is
not necessary.
Suspension of the RTC Case
In the instant case, there is nothing in the LGC, Tax Code, and the Rules of
Court from which this Court can draw, at the very least, an indication, a rule or
remedy which supports the proposition of suspending the proceeding in one case on
the ground of or after finding the presence of litis pendentia.
Thus, We find no plausible reason to disturb the ruling of this Court in the
assailed Decision.
WHEREFORE, premises considered, petitioners' Motion for Reconsideration
is hereby DENIED for lack of merit.
SO ORDERED.
(SGD.) AMELIA R.
COTANGCO-MANALASTAS
Associate Justice
Lovell R. Bautista and Olga Palanca-Enriquez, JJ., concur.
Copyright 1994-2012
Taxation 2011
Footnotes
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
Copyright 1994-2012
Taxation 2011
10
Endnotes
1 (Popup - Popup)
1.
2 (Popup - Popup)
2.
3 (Popup - Popup)
3.
4 (Popup - Popup)
4.
CA-G.R. No. 101482, Mindanao Shopping Destination Corp., et al. vs. Hon. Rodrigo
R. Duterte, et al.
5 (Popup - Popup)
5.
6 (Popup - Popup)
6.
7 (Popup - Popup)
7.
8 (Popup - Popup)
8.
Docket, p. 446.
9 (Popup - Popup)
Copyright 1994-2012
Taxation 2011
11
9.
10 (Popup - Popup)
10.
Copyright 1994-2012
Taxation 2011
12