Case Digest (G.R. No. L-15044)
Facts:
Belman Compania Incorporada v. Central Bank of the Philippines, G.R. No. L-15044, May 30, 1960, the Supreme Court En Banc, Barrera, J., writing for the Court (with a resolution of July 14, 1960). Paras, C.J., Bengzon, Montemayor, Bautista Angelo, Concepcion, and Gutierrez David, JJ., concurred; Reyes, J.B.L., J., on leave, took no part.The plaintiff-appellee Belman Compania Incorporada paid its obligations to the Philippine National Bank (PNB) under Credits Nos. 43729 and 41347 on April 26, 1951 and May 4, 1951 respectively. On those same dates the Central Bank of the Philippines collected, pursuant to Monetary Board Resolution No. 286, series of 1951, exchange-tax amounts of P273.41 (O.R. No. 002801) and P172.87 (O.R. No. 002928), which Belman paid under protest.
On November 8, 1951 Belman made a written demand for refund; Central Bank refused. Belman made further written demands (September 2, October 7, and December 2, 1957) which were likewise refused. On December 20, 1957 Belman filed suit in the Court of First Instance (Civil Case No. 34566) seeking, inter alia, a declaration that Monetary Board Resolution No. 286 was null and void and recovery of the two amounts.
Central Bank moved to dismiss on January 3, 1958, asserting lack of jurisdiction, failure to state a cause of action and prescription; the trial court held the motion in abeyance, received evidence, and Central Bank filed an answer on April 11, 1958. The Court of First Instance rendered judgment for Belman, declaring Resolution No. 286 illegal and ordering refund of P273.41 and P172.87 with legal interest from filing of the complaint, P250 attorney’s fees and costs; the trial court reasoned the exchange transactions were consummated before R.A. No. 601 and relied on transitional Article 2254 of the New Civil Code to deny prescription.
Central Bank appealed to the Supreme Court. The Court framed two legal issues: (1) whether the action had prescribed, and (2) whether Central Bank could be compelled to refund after the amounts had been turned over to the National Treasury; the Court took up only the prescription issue as dispositive. After its May 30, 1960 decision reversing the trial court for pres...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Did Belman’s action for refund of exchange tax prescribed?
- Can the Central Bank be compelled to refund the amounts after they had been turned over to the National T...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)