G.R. No. L-10961. February 28, 1958
ADRIANO CHUA JOY, PETITIONER-APPELLEE, VS. THE COLLECTOR OF INTERNAL REVENUE, RESPONDENT-APPELLANT
BENGZON, J.:
25, 1956, declaring null and void the distraint and levy issued by the Collector
of Internal Revenue on January 26 same year, and ordering him to desist from
taking any further proceedings thereunder and to return the properties
seized,
Said decision was issued upon a motion for judgment on the pleadings in a
Petition for Review with Preliminary Injunction by Adriano Chua Joy, which was
duly answered by respondent official. The facts as shown by the pleadings are
these:
On August 10, 1948, the Collector of Internal Revenue assessed against
petitioner as war profits tax, surcharge included,the sum of P20,145.00 and as
income tax, surcharge included, the total amount of P123,529.14 for the years
1938, 1939, 1940, 1941, 1945 and 1946. Petitioner disputed the assessments, but
expressed willingness to pay liabilities up to P19,187.74. The Collector
insisted on his assessment and on January 26, 1956, issued a warrant of
distraint and levy which was served upon petitioner and executed on February 9,
1956, by the seizure of his three motorships Neptune, Apolo and Diana and some
motor vehicles and office equipment. Sale at public auction of such properties
was set for May 26, 1956.
On March 9, 1956, this petition was filed.
After considering memoranda submitted by the parties, the Court of Tax
Appeals held that in view of the number of years that had passed from the time
of assessment in 1948 the Collector of Internal Revenue lost the power to
collect in 1956 the taxes allegedly due by the summary method of distraint and
levy, in view of the provision of sec. 51(d) of the National Internal Revenue
Code, which is also applicable to war profits taxes.
“In the case at bar,” explained the Court below, “the records do not show the
dates when the returns were made and filed. Even if we were to be very liberal
to the respondent and assume that the returns were made and filed on the same
day when the assessment was made, that is, on August 10, 1948, and count the
three-year statutory period of limitation from said date, undoubtedly, the
authority of the Collector of Internal Revenue to collect the income tax
assessed against petitioner for the years 1938, 1939, 1940, 1941, 1945 and 1946
by distraint and levy or by any other summary method had already long prescribed
when the warrant of distraint and levy was issued and executed on February 9,
1956, more than seven (7) years and five (5) months after the assessment in
question was made. Accordingly, the said warrant of distraint and levy was
issued in violation of sec. 51(d) of the Revenue Code.”
And the Court cited several decisions of this Tribunal in support of its
view.[1]
The appellant insists that the Court of Tax Appeals has no power or
jurisdiction to restrain or enjoin the collection of taxes by distraint. This
issue has been decided against the Government in Collector v. Reyes, G. R. No.
L-8695, January 21, 1957 and Collector v. Zulueta G. R. No. L-8840, February 8,
1957; Collector v. Avelino L-9202, November 19, 1956; Collector v. Aznar
L-10370, January 31, 1958, which are cases similar to this. In fairness to
appellant, however, it must be stated that this appeal was perfected and the
appellant’s brief was filed on or before October 12, 1956.
Appellant further insists that the prescription period for the collection of
these taxes has been suspended by the several requests for reconsideration filed
by respondent Adriano Chua Joy. However, this case was submitted to the Court of
Tax Appeals on the parties’ pleadings, which do not mention such requests. And
the expediente before us does not show any document in support of such defense
against the taxpayer’s plea of prescription.
No reversible error in the appealed decision. It is therefore affirmed.
Paras, C.J., Padilla, Montemayor, Reyes, A., Bautista Angelo,
Labrador, Concepcion, Reyes, J.B.L., Endencia and Felix, JJ.,
concur.
[1]Collector of Internal Revenue v.
Villegas, 56 Phil. 554 Juan de la Viña v. Government of the Philippines., 65
Phil. 262; Collector of Internal Revenue v. Haygood, 65 Phil. 520; Phil. Sugar
Estate Development Co., Inc. v. Posadas, 68 Phil. 216.