Case Digest (G.R. No. L-2963)
Facts:
Compania General de Tabacos de Filipinas v. The City of Manila, G.R. No. 2963, February 14, 1907, the Supreme Court En Banc, Johnson, J., writing for the Court.
The plaintiff-appellee Compania General de Tabacos de Filipinas, a Spanish corporation with domicile in Barcelona and an agency in Manila, sued the defendant-appellant the City of Manila in the Court of First Instance of the City of Manila on March 21, 1905, seeking recovery of P134,444.97 alleged to have been illegally collected from the plaintiff as taxes for the years 1898–1903. The defendant filed a general demurrer which the trial court overruled.
On June 14, 1905 the parties executed a detailed stipulation of facts. The stipulation recited that on May 9, 1901 the Department of Internal Revenue assessed and the plaintiff paid industrial (contribucion industrial) taxes for 1898–1900; that in 1899–1903 the plaintiff also paid various sums described as contribucion urbana, contribucion territorial, industrial taxes and surcharges (recargos) through its Manila agency and branches in several provinces; and that on April 13, 1904, under protest and to avoid enforcement, the plaintiff paid P88,698 to the defendant as industrial tax for 1901–1903, said amount having been demanded under article 4 of Tariff 1.a of the Industrial Tax Regulations of June 19, 1890 (5% on dividends), applied to dividends reduced at a stated exchange rate.
The parties disputed two principal points: (a) whether payment of the industrial tax under the 1890 regulation relieved banks and commercial corporations from territorial and urbana taxes; and (b) whether, even if some payments were illegal, the City of Manila was the proper defendant for recovery given that many payments had been made to the Department of Internal Revenue or to provincial authorities. The Supreme Court reviewed historical fiscal practice under Spanish sovereignty and subsequent changes effected by the Philippine Commission, in particular Act No. 133, Sec. 18, which altered the collection and distribution of urbana, industrial and related taxes effective June 30, 1901.
The trial court entered a judgment (details not reproduced in the stipulati...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Did the plaintiff prove that the City of Manila actually received the allegedly illegal taxes such that the City can be required to refund them?
- Were amounts paid by the plaintiff under the Industrial Tax Regulations of June 19, 1890 (5% on dividends) recoverable as illegal overpayments notwithstanding the regulation's note treating city tax as...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)