Case Digest (G.R. No. 179469)
Facts:
In April 1947, the Collector of Internal Revenue, Bibiano L. Meer, assessed an income tax on the 1946 salary of Associate Justice Gregorio Perfecto of the Supreme Court. Justice Perfecto paid P802 under protest and filed Civil Case No. 599 in the Manila Court of First Instance, arguing that taxing his judicial salary violated Art. VIII, Sec. 9 of the 1935 Constitution, which guarantees that judges’ compensation “shall not be diminished during their continuance in office.” The trial court agreed, ordered a refund of the amount collected, and declared the assessment illegal. The Collector appealed to the Supreme Court under G.R. No. L-2348.Issues:
- Does the imposition of the Income Tax Law on the salary of a Supreme Court Justice constitute a prohibited diminution of compensation under the 1935 Constitution?
- Can the Executive branch, through administrative interpretation or circular, validly subj
Case Digest (G.R. No. 179469)
Facts:
- Parties and Subject Matter
- Plaintiff-Appellee: Justice Gregorio Perfecto of the Supreme Court.
- Defendant-Appellant: Bibiano L. Meer, Collector of Internal Revenue.
- Background and Procedural History
- In April 1947, the Collector assessed and required Justice Perfecto to pay income tax on his 1946 Supreme Court salary (P 15,000), which he paid (P 802) under protest.
- Perfecto filed suit in the Manila Court of First Instance seeking refund, arguing that taxing his salary violated the Constitution’s prohibition on diminishing judicial compensation.
- The trial court ruled in his favor and ordered refund. The Collector appealed to the Supreme Court.
- During the appeal, Justice Perfecto died; nevertheless, the Court proceeded given the broader impact on the judiciary and other constitutional officers.
- Constitutional and Statutory Context
- Philippine Constitution, Art. VIII, § 9: “Members of the Supreme Court and all judges… shall receive such compensation as may be fixed by law, which shall not be diminished during their continuance in office.”
- Interim salary in 1946 remained P 15,000 as Congress had not “provided otherwise.”
- National Income Tax Law (Commonwealth Act No. 466, Title II, §§ 21, 26, 29) imposes tax on “entire net income… from all sources,” including salaries, with no express exemption for protected judicial compensation.
Issues:
- Primary Issue
- Does the imposition of an income tax on the Supreme Court Justice’s salary in 1946 constitute a prohibited diminution of judicial compensation under Art. VIII, § 9 of the Constitution?
- Subsidiary Considerations
- Whether executive interpretation or order (rather than legislative enactment) can validly subject protected judicial salaries to income tax.
- Whether foreign (U.S.) jurisprudence construing similar constitutional provisions is persuasive in Philippine context.
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)