BENITO GARCIA, PLAINTIFF AND APPELLEE, VS. THE COLLECTOR OF INTERNAL REVENUE, DEFENDANT AND APPELLANT.

The
Collector of Internal Revenue, defendant herein, required Benito Garcia
to pay a specific tax of P204.08 after the latter had been sentenced in
a criminal case to pay a fine for having taken six hundred and sixteen
liters of alcohol from the distillery of Jose B. Suntay for the purpose
of removing the same to a distant store without having previously paid
the corresponding specific tax therefor. Appellee paid the tax under
protest, filing afterwards a complaint to recover its amount. The court
decided the case in favor of plaintiff, and the Collector of Internal
Revenue appealed from the decision to this court.

Appellant, in his brief, assigned the following as errors committed by the lower court:

“The
lower court erred in holding that the Government had made a claim
against Benito Garcia for the amount of P204.08 as specific tax, in
criminal case No. 5922 of the Court of First Instance of Bulacan, and
that the court, in its decision, declined to award it to the Government.

“The
lower court erred in holding that the manufacturer of alcohol
ordinarily pays the tax and that, as the manufacturer of the alcohol in
question was Jose B. Suntay, and Benito Garcia was a mere employee, the
latter cannot be made to pay the tax in question.

“The lower court erred in ordering the defendant to pay the plaintiff the amount of P204.08, plus costs.

“The lower court erred in denying the motion for new trial filed by the defendant.”

In the decision appealed from the court has proceeded upon the
assumption that in the criminal case filed against plaintiff herein,
the Government had sought payment from him of the amount of P204.08 as
specific tax; but that the court in its decision refused to impose the
same for the alleged reason that, as the alcohol in question had been
confiscated and as the value of the same was probably greater than the
amount of the tax, the Government already has had an opportunity to
recover it. In truth, however, the payment of the tax was not sought in
the criminal case above referred to because the object of the
information was the imposition upon the offender of the corresponding
penalty for violation of section 2727 of the Revised Administrative
Code. The tax should have been recovered by the Collector of Internal
Revenue independently of the criminal action instituted by the People
of the Philippines against the accused Benito Garcia. Therefore, the
fact that in the judgment rendered in said case no pronouncement
whatsoever as regard said tax had been made, was no bar to the
Government’s recovering it afterwards, as the Collector of Internal
Revenue, appellant herein, has done in his own name.

Furthermore, the confiscation in the criminal case was an accessory
penalty imposed by article 25 of the Revised Penal Code, which is
entirely different from the payment of the tax.

Another
ground of the appealed decision, according to the reasoning of the
court, is that the payment of the tax is in reality made by the
consumer, although the distiller has to pay it first, charging the same
later in the price of the sale. In the present case, says the court,
the plaintiff Garcia never had the opportunity to sell the alcohol and
consequently would never be reimbursed for the amount of the
corresponding specific tax. All this loses its apparent merit by the
single consideration that one who violates the law must suffer all the
consequences of his own acts. One of the consequences of violating the
law is confiscation.

According to section 1479 of the
Revised Administrative Code, the tax should be paid immediately before
the removal of the article from the place of production. The law does
not say that the tax may be paid immediately before the sale.

The second error committed by the court consists in holding that the
distiller of alcohol ordinarily is the one who pays the tax and
inasmuch as Jose B. Suntay was the distiller of the alcohol in
question, while Benito Garcia was a mere employee, the latter could not
be compelled to pay the tax referred to. This is an inaccurate
interpretation of the law. Section 1479 aforecited of the Revised
Administrative Code provides that the specific taxes on domestic
products shall be paid by the manufacturer, producer, owner or person having possession of the same.

It is a fact that the six hundred and sixteen liters of alcohol were
found in the possession of plaintiff when he transferred them from the
factory to a distant store and there is neither allegation nor evidence
that plaintiff had taken the alcohol from the distillery to remove the
same to the store by order of his principal, Jose B. Suntay. In order
to avoid disputes and to determine easily the person who should pay the
specific tax, section 1479 of the Revised Administrative Code has
farsightedly provided that the manufacturer, producer, owner or person having possession of the article shall pay the tax.

The judgment appealed from is reversed without a special pronouncement as to costs. So ordered.

Avanceña, C. J., Villa-Real, Abad Santos, Imperial, Diaz, and Laurel, JJ., concur.