Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 1

JARDINE DAVIES INSURANCE BROKERS v.

ALIPOSA overpayments without first filing a protest to the payment of taxes due under the
G.R. No. 118900 ordinance
February 27, 2003 In the case at bar, Petitioner Jardine Brokers relied on the resolution of the DOJ
in PRCI v. MAKATI when it posited its complaint that ordinance was null and void.
DOCTRINE: Taxpayer may file a complaint assailing the validity of the ordinance and However, the Court agrees with the contention of respondents that petitioner
praying for a refund of its perceived overpayments without first filing a protest to the was proscribed from filing its complaint with the RTC of Makati for the reason that
payment of taxes due under the ordinance petitioner failed to appeal to the DOJ within 30 days from effectivity date of the ordinance,
as mandated by Sec. 187 of LGC
FACTS: Pursuant to LGC of 1991, Makati enacted the Makati Revenue Code, which proves, As held in Reyes v. CA, it was ruled that failure of a taxpayer to interpose the
for the schedule of real estate, business and franchise taxes in the Municipality of Makati requisite appeal to the Secretary of Justice is fatal to its complaint for a refund
at rates higher than those in the Metro Manila Revenue Code. “dissatisfied taxpayer must file his appeal to the Secretary of Justice, within 30 days
On 1993, the PH Racing Club, Inc. (PRCI) appealed to the DOJ for the nullification from effectivity thereof. In case the Secretary decides the appeal, a period also of 30
of the said ordinance, alleging that no previous public hearings were held and its some days is allowed for an aggrieved party to go to court. But if the Secretary does not act
thereon, after the lapse of 60 days, a party could already proceed to seek relief in
provisions were unconstitutional:
court.”
 “The imposition of the franchise tax is not within the scope of the taxing powers
of the Municipality of Makati Moreover, petitioner even paid without any protest the amounts of taxes
 The Municipality of Makati already shares 5 of the 25% franchise tax provided assessed by respondents Makati. Evidently, the complaint of petitioner with the
for in Section 8 of the franchise of the Philippine Racing Club Regional Trial Court was merely an afterthought.
o To allow the said municipality to impose another franchise tax would
certainly be unjust, excessive oppressive or confiscatory DISPOTION: petition DENIED

DOJ declared the resolution to be null and void. Makati sought reconsideration.
But pending resolution of DOJ, Makati filed a petition in court alleging that the ordinance
was valid.
In the meantime, respondent Makati continued to implement the ordinance.
Petitioner Jardine Insurance Brokers was assessed and billed for taxes under the
ordinance for 1993. Jardine did not protest.
However, on 1994, petitioner wrote the municipal treasurer of Makati
requesting that respondent Makati compute its business tax liabilities in accordance with
the Metro Manila Revenue Code and not under the ordinance considering that said
ordinance was already declared by the DOJ null and void. Makati denied the request.
In the meantime, the RTC declared the ordinance valid.

Petitioner contends that it was not mandated to first file a protest with
respondents before instituting its action for a refund of its overpayments or for it to be
credited for said overpayments.
Respondent Makati avers that petitioner was proscribed from filing its complaint
with the RTC and for a refund of its alleged overpayment, petitioner having paid without
any protest the taxes due to respondent Makati under the ordinance.

ISSUE: WON petitioner is proscribed from filing the petition challenging the validity
of the ordiance. [YES]

HELD:
The Court agrees with petitioner that as a general precept, a taxpayer may file a
complaint assailing the validity of the ordinance and praying for a refund of its perceived

Вам также может понравиться