Case Digest (G.R. No. 180651) Core Legal Reasoning Model
Core Legal Reasoning Model
Facts:
In Nursery Care Corporation et al. v. Acevedo et al. (G.R. No. 180651, July 30, 2014), six business entities—Nursery Care Corporation; Shoemart, Inc.; Star Appliance Center, Inc.; H&B, Inc.; Supplies Station, Inc.; and Hardware Workshop, Inc.—challenged the City of Manila’s imposition of local business taxes under Section 21 of the Revenue Code of Manila for the first quarter of 1999. These petitioners had already paid taxes as wholesalers, distributors, dealers and retailers under Sections 15 and 17 of the same Revenue Code. Upon payment under protest of the additional assessments, the petitioners formally requested a tax credit or refund from then-Treasurer Anthony Acevedo, but their claim was denied. They filed petitions for certiorari before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Manila, consolidated in Branch 19, raising two issues: (a) whether the Section 21 levy constituted double taxation in violation of Section 143 of the Local Government Code of 1991; and (b) whether they f Case Digest (G.R. No. 180651) Expanded Legal Reasoning Model
Expanded Legal Reasoning Model
Facts:
- Proceedings
- Petitioners (Nursery Care Corp.; Shoemart, Inc.; Star Appliance Center, Inc.; H&B, Inc.; Supplies Station, Inc.; Hardware Workshop, Inc.) filed separate certiorari petitions in the RTC of Manila (Civil Cases Nos. 99-93668 to 99-93673), later consolidated.
- RTC Branch 19 dismissed the petitions on April 26, 2002, holding no double taxation.
- On appeal, the Court of Appeals (CA) denied the petitioners’ appeal for lack of jurisdiction (June 18, 2007) and likewise denied their motion for reconsideration (November 14, 2007).
- Tax assessments and payments
- The City of Manila assessed local business taxes under:
- Section 15 (tax on wholesalers, distributors, dealers) of the Manila Revenue Code
- Section 17 (tax on retailers) of the Manila Revenue Code
- Section 21 (fifty percent of one percent on gross sales of businesses subject to NIRC excise/VAT, with a proviso exempting “all registered businesses in the City of Manila already paying the aforementioned tax”)
- Petitioners paid under protest the Section 21 tax for the first quarter of 1999 as follows:
- Nursery Care Corp.: P595,190.25
- Shoemart, Inc.: P3,283,520.14
- Star Appliance Center, Inc.: P236,084.03
- H&B, Inc.: P1,271,118.74
- Supplies Station, Inc.: P239,501.25
- Hardware Workshop, Inc.: P609,953.24
- Requests for refund were denied by the City Treasurer; petitioners then filed the said certiorari petitions.
- Issues submitted to the RTC
- Whether the collection of Section 21 taxes constitutes double taxation in violation of the same taxing authority within the same jurisdiction and period.
- Whether failure to exhaust the administrative remedy under Section 187, Local Government Code, warrants dismissal.
Issues:
- Jurisdictional
- Did the CA properly dismiss the petitioners’ appeal for raising pure questions of law under Section 2, Rule 50, Rules of Court?
- Substantive
- Did the imposition and collection of the Section 21 tax by the City of Manila constitute double taxation, entitling petitioners to refund?
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)