Case Digest (G.R. No. 224764)
Facts:
Bureau of Internal Revenue, Assistant Commissioner Alfredo V. Misajon, Group Supervisor Rolando M. Balbido, and Examiner Reynante DP. Martirez v. Lepanto Ceramics, Inc., G.R. No. 224764, April 24, 2017, First Division, Perlas‑Bernabe, J., writing for the Court.On December 23, 2011, Lepanto Ceramics, Inc. (LCI) filed a petition for corporate rehabilitation under Republic Act No. 10142 (the Financial Rehabilitation and Insolvency Act of 2010) before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Calamba City, Branch 34, the designated Special Commercial Court in Laguna. The petition alleged insolvency and listed tax liabilities to the national government of at least P6,355,368.00. The Rehabilitation Court issued a Commencement Order on January 13, 2012 that declared LCI under rehabilitation, suspended all actions or proceedings for enforcement of claims against LCI, prohibited payment of outstanding liabilities except as provided by RA 10142, and directed the BIR to file its comments or claims.
Despite personal service and publication of the Commencement Order, officers of the Bureau of Internal Revenue (BIR) — Assistant Commissioner Alfredo V. Misajon, Group Supervisor Rolando M. Balbido, and Examiner Reynante DP. Martirez — sent LCI a notice of informal conference (dated May 27, 2013) and, later, a Formal Letter of Demand (dated May 9, 2014) demanding payment of deficiency taxes totaling P567,519,348.39. LCI’s court‑appointed receiver reminded the BIR of the pending rehabilitation and the Commencement Order, but the BIR proceeded with its assessment and demand.
LCI filed a petition for indirect contempt on August 13, 2014 against Misajon, et al., before RTC Branch 35, asserting that the BIR officials’ actions constituted defiance of the Rehabilitation Court’s Commencement Order and thus amounted to indirect contempt under Rule 71 of the Rules of Court in relation to Section 16 and Section 17 of RA 10142.
In a Decision dated June 1, 2015, RTC Branch 35 found Misajon, et al. guilty of indirect contempt and imposed a fine of P5,000.00 each. The RTC ruled it had jurisdiction because the contempt petition was docketed and decided separately from the principal rehabilitation case; it held that the termination of the rehabilitation proceedings did not moot the contempt petition because the alleged contumacious acts were already consummated; and it concluded that sending the notice and Formal Letter of Demand were acts in enforcement of claims barred by the Commencement Order. Reconsideration was denied by Order dated October 26, 2015.
Petitioners brought a petition for review on certiorari to the Supreme Court, challenging the RTC’s finding of indirect...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Did the Regional Trial Court, Branch 35, correctly find Misajon, Balbido, and Martirez to have defied the Rehabilitation Court’s Commencement Order and properly cite them for indirect ...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)