Case Summary (G.R. No. L-33052)
Key Dates
Assessment Year : 1969
Installment Due Dates : March 31; June 30; September 30; December 31
Payment Tendered : August 27, 1970 (P124 consigned)
Supreme Court Decision : August 31, 1981
Applicable Law
Constitution : 1935 Constitution
Republic Act No. 521 : Charter of Cagayan de Oro City (real estate tax provisions)
Republic Act No. 5447 : Additional real estate tax; four-installment scheme
Presidential Decree No. 464: Real Property Tax Code (penalty provisions)
Padilla v. City of Pasay : Supreme Court decision interpreting two-installment scheme
Background and Payment Refusal
Quimpo’s property, assessed at P20,000, carried a P400 annual tax under RA 5447’s four-installment system. He timely paid the first three installments (P300). On August 27, 1970 he tendered P124 (P100 installment + P24 penalty) for the final installment. Mendoza refused, insisting on P196 (P100 + P96 penalty) based on RA 521’s penalty provision as interpreted in Padilla. Quimpo then instituted a mandamus suit and consigned P124.
Lower Court Ruling
The Court of First Instance held that, despite installment dates, the annual tax was due in full on June 1, making any late payment delinquent on the entire P400. Relying on Padilla, it computed a P96 penalty (2% per month on P400 from April 1969 to July 1970). It dismissed Quimpo’s suit for lack of payment under protest per RA 521.
Effect of RA 5447 on Due Dates
RA 521 fixed one due date (June 1) with a two-installment option. RA 5447, effective January 1, 1969, amended all city charters to require payment of both basic and additional tax in four equal installments, each with its own due date. As the later statute, RA 5447 superseded RA 521’s singular due-date rule for 1969, making December 31 the final due date and postponing delinquency on that installment until January 1 of the following year.
Penalty Computation Basis
RA 5447 did not amend RA 521’s penalty provision (2% per month on the “original tax due”). By analogy to PD 464’s quarterly penalty rule and construing tax statutes in favor of the taxpayer, the penalty must be calculated on the amount of the delinquent installment (P100), not on the full annual tax.
Revised Liability Calculation
Delinquency on the fourth installment ran eight full months (January–August 1970).
– Installment due: P100.00
– Penalty: 8 months × 2% × P100 = P16.00
– Total liability: P116.00
Suit under Protest Req
...continue readingCase Syllabus (G.R. No. L-33052)
Antecedent Facts
- Petitioner Angel R. Quimpo owns a building in Cagayan de Oro City assessed at ₱20,000 for 1969 (Tax Declaration No. 2102).
- Realty tax for the building fixed at ₱400 yearly, payable in four equal installments: March 31, June 30, September 30, December 31, per Section 4, R.A. 5447.
- Quimpo timely paid the first three installments (₱300) but on August 27, 1970 tendered ₱124 (₱100 installment + ₱24 penalty) to respondent Treasurer.
- Treasurer Mendoza refused acceptance unless Quimpo paid ₱100 plus ₱96 penalty (2% per month on original ₱400, up to July 1970) based on Section 42 of R.A. 521 and Provincial Circular No. 18-64.
- On September 2, 1970, Quimpo deposited ₱124 by consignation and filed an action for mandamus and damages, praying:
• Acceptance of ₱124 as full payment and issuance of official receipt and tax clearance;
• Declaration that imposing penalty on full annual tax was illegal;
• Award of ₱12,000 damages (actual, moral, exemplary, attorneys’ fees, costs);
• Other just reliefs.
Procedural Posture
- The Court of First Instance of Misamis Oriental, Branch IV, dismissed the suit.
- It relied on Padilla v. City of Pasay (23 SCRA 1349), ruling there is one annual tax due March 31, payable in four installments, and delinquency pen