Case Digest (G.R. No. 213027)
Facts:
In 1958, Gonzalo Puyat & Sons, Inc., a Philippine corporation manufacturing furniture at 190 Rodriguez-Arias, San Miguel, Manila with a display room at 604–606 Rizal Avenue, paid quarterly retail dealer’s taxes of P1,250.00 from the first quarter of 1950 through the third quarter of 1956 under Manila Ordinance No. 3364, believing such payments were due, and did so without protest, totaling P33,785.00. Under Section 18(a) of Republic Act No. 409 (Revised Charter of Manila), as reiterated in Ordinance No. 8816, sales of locally manufactured furniture were exempt, leaving only imported accessories taxable. On October 30, 1956, the plaintiff made a formal extrajudicial demand for refund, which the City Treasurer Marcelino Sarmiento denied on July 24, 1958. Consequently, on August 11, 1958, the plaintiff filed suit in the Court of First Instance of Manila seeking recovery. The trial court found only the payment of October 25, 1950 had prescribed and ordered refund of P29,824.00 withoCase Digest (G.R. No. 213027)
Facts:
- Stipulated Facts
- Plaintiff Gonzalo Puyat & Sons, Inc., a Philippine corporation with factory in San Miguel and display room on Rizal Avenue, Manila, manufactures and sells furniture and imports billiard balls, bowling balls, and accessories.
- Defendant City of Manila, through City Treasurer Marcelino Sarmiento, assessed retail dealer’s taxes under Ordinance No. 3364 (as amended) on plaintiff’s factory and display-room sales for the first quarter of 1950 through the third quarter of 1956.
- Plaintiff paid P33,785.00 in quarterly taxes from January 25, 1950 to July 25, 1956 without protest, believing in good faith that it was liable.
- Under Sec. 18(a) of Republic Act No. 409 (Revised Manila Charter) and Ordinance No. 8816, plaintiff was exempt from tax on its manufactured furniture but remained liable for taxes on imported billiard and bowling balls.
- On October 30, 1956 plaintiff filed a written extrajudicial request for refund; this was denied on July 24, 1958, prompting the August 21, 1958 suit in the Court of First Instance of Manila.
- Trial Court Decision
- Held that only the October 25, 1950 payment of P1,250.00 had prescribed; all payments made in 1951 and thereafter were recoverable because the October 30, 1956 demand fell within the six-year prescriptive period of the New Civil Code.
- Ordered refund of P29,824.00 without interest; dismissed defendants’ counterclaim; no costs awarded.
Issues:
- Whether retail dealer’s taxes paid without protest under an erroneous assessment are recoverable.
- Whether claims for refund of taxes paid from 1950 to 1952 have prescribed.
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)