Case Digest (G.R. No. L-33052)
Facts:
Angel R. Quimpo v. Leoncio Mendoza, G.R. No. L-33052, August 31, 1981, the Supreme Court First Division, Guerrero, J., writing for the Court.
Petitioner Angel R. Quimpo owned a building in Cagayan de Oro assessed at P20,000 for 1969 and taxed at P400 for the year; under the applicable laws he could pay the tax in four equal installments. Petitioner paid the first three installments on time but, on August 27, 1970, tendered P124 to Leoncio Mendoza, City Treasurer of Cagayan de Oro (respondent) as payment for the fourth installment plus what he understood to be the correct penalty; the Treasurer refused, insisting petitioner must pay P196 (the P100 installment plus P96 penalty) based on his computation under R.A. 521 (City Charter) and a Secretary of Finance circular.
Petitioner deposited P124 by consignation with the Clerk of Court on September 2, 1970 and filed an action for mandamus and damages against the City Treasurer (sued in official and personal capacity), asking the court to order acceptance of P124, issuance of an official receipt and tax clearance, declaration that the Treasurer’s penalty computation was illegal, and damages of P12,000.
The Court of First Instance, Branch IV, Misamis Oriental, dismissed the suit, applying this Court’s earlier decision in Padilla v. City of Pasay and City Treasurer (L-24039, June 29, 1968, 23 SCRA 1349) to hold that the annual tax was due on a single date and that the penalty must be computed on the "original tax due;" it therefore upheld the Treasurer’s larger penalty computation and held the trial court lacked authority to entertain the suit because petitioner had not paid the tax "under protest" as required by R.A. 521, Sec. 58(b).
Petitioner sought relief from this Court by a petition to review on certiorari (Rule 45), challenging (1) the trial court’s application of Padilla and its conclusion on the due date and penalty computation under ...(Pro-only)
Issues:
- Does petitioner’s failure to pay the tax "under protest" pursuant to R.A. 521, Sec. 58(b) bar the court from entertaining his suit attacking the penalty imposed by the City Treasurer?
- Did R.A. 5447, by providing that the basic and additional property tax "shall be due and payable in four equal installments," change the legal effect of the single due date in R.A. 521 so that each installment has its own due date and delinquency (and penalty) on an installment is computed only from the statutory date applicable to that installment?
- On what basis must the penalty for delinquent payment be computed — on the delinquent installment only, or on the "original tax due" (the entire annual tax)?
- Is petitioner entitled to act...(Pro-only)
Ruling:
- (Pro-only)
Ratio:
- (Pro-only)
Doctrine:
- (Pro-only)