166134
June 29, 2010
ANGELES CITY vs. ANGELES CITY ELECTRIC
CORPORATION
AND
REGIONAL
TRIAL
COURT BRANCH 57, ANGELES CITY
Facts:
Respondent Angeles City Electric Corporation
(AEC), which was granted a legislative franchise
to generate and distribute electricity in Angeles
City, Pampanga, pays a franchise tax of two
percent (2%) of its gross receipts to the BIR.
When the Local Government Code (LGC) of 1991
was passed into law, the Sangguniang
Panlungsod of Angeles City enacted a tax
ordinance known as the Revised Revenue Code
of Angeles City (RRCAC) which imposed a local
franchise tax upon AEC. Metro Angeles Chamber
of Commerce and Industry Inc. (MACCI) of which
AEC is a member filed a petition seeking the
reduction of the tax rates and a review of the
provisions of the RRCAC was filed by, claiming
that the ordinance is oppressive. The petition
was referred to the Bureau of Local Government
Finance (BLGF) and an indorsement was issued
to the City Treasurer of Angeles City, instructing
the latter to make representations with the
Sanggunian for the appropriate amendment of
the RRCAC.
1)
Position of CA: RTC, in reviewing denials of
protests by local treasurers, exercises appellate
jurisdiction. This is anchored on the language of
Sec. 195 of the LGC which states that the
remedy of the taxpayer whose protest is denied
by the local treasurer is to appeal with the
court of competent jurisdiction. The LGC
however does not elaborate on how such
appeal should be undertaken.
2)
Position of City Treasurer: jurisdiction
exercised is original in character.
Court affirmed the position of the City Treasurer.
The LGC does not expressly confer appellate
jurisdiction on the part of RTCs from the denial
of a tax protest by a local treasurer. On the
other hand, Section 22 of BP 129 expressly
delineates the appellate jurisdiction of the RTCs,
confining appellate jurisdiction to cases decided
by Metropolitan, Municipal, and Municipal Circuit
Trial Courts. BP 129 does not confer appellate
jurisdiction on RTCs over rulings made by nonjudicial entities.
HOWEVER, this pronouncement is subject to two
qualifications.
First, in this case there are significant
reasons for the Court to overlook the procedural
error and ultimately uphold the adjudication of
the jurisdiction exercised by the CA.
Second, the doctrinal weight of the
pronouncement is confined to cases and
controversies that emerged prior to the
rules
must
not
be
(a)
declaring null and void the DOJ
Decision dated July 5, 1993; and
(b)
allowing the full implementation of
Makati Municipal Ordinance No. 92-072.
October 6, 1995
Feliciano,
Padilla,
Regalado,
Davide,
Jr.,
Bellosillo, Puno, Vitug, Kapunan, Mendoza,
Francisco and Hermosisima, Jr., JJ., concur.
SBMA v. RODRIGUEZ ET. AL
SHORT DIGEST:
FACTS: On September 29, 2001, a shipment
described as agricultural product arrived at
Subic Bay Freeport Zone. The BOC issued a
Memorandum stating that upon examination the
shipment was found to contain rice. The
representative of the importer then stated that
there was a misshipment and manifested
willingness to pay appropriate duties and taxes.
Later on, the BOC then issued a Hold Order.
Despite several certifications for its clearance,
Petitioner SBMA refused to allow the release of
the rice shipment. Hence, the respondentimporters filed with RTC Olongapo a complaint
for Injunction and Damages against SBMA.
ISSUE: Did the RTC have jurisdiction over the
case?
HELD: NO. The Collector of Customs has
exclusive jurisdiction over seizure and forfeiture
proceedings and the regular courts cannot
interfere nor can it enjoin these proceedings.
This is the rule from the moment the imported
goods are in the possession or control of the
Customs authorities even if no warrant for
seizure or detention had previously been issued.
4.
5.
6.
7.
xxx
xxx
RIGOR v. ROSALES
FACTS:
Collector Sabino Rigor issued a Warrant of
Seizure and Detention against the vessel LCT759 and its cargo, consisting of 103 pieces of
logs for failure to present a manifest for the said
logs within the period prescribed. The parties
who were duly notified and represented,
voluntarily submitted to the jurisdiction of the
respondent Collector. After hearing,
the
Collector rendered a decision ordering the
PAPA v. MAGO
G.R. No. L-27360/February 28, 1968/EN
BANCOriginal action in the SC for prohibition
and certiorari , praying for the annulment of the
order issued by respondent judge
Parties: Petitioners:Ricardo G. Papa (Chief of
Police
of
Manila),
Juan
Ponce
Enrile
(Commissioner
of
Customs),
Pedro
Pacis(Collector of Customs of the Port of Manila),
Martin Alagao (Patrolman, head of counterintelligence
of
theManila
Police
Department)Respondents:Remedios
MagoHilarion Jarencio (Presiding Judge of Br. 23,
CFI of Manila)
J. Zaldivar
November
4,
1966
having
received
information the day before that a certain
shipment of misdeclared and undervalued
personal effects would be released from the
customs zone of the port of Manila, Alagao and
aduly deputized agent of the Bureau of Customs
conducted surveillance of two trucks allegedly
carrying thegoods. When the trucks left the
customs zone, elements of the counterintelligence unit intercepted them inErmita. The
trucks and the nine bales of goods they carried
were seized on instructions of the Chief of
Police. Upon investigation those claiming
ownership showed the policemen a Statement
of Receipts of Duties Collected in Informal Entry
No. 147-5501 issued by the Bureau of Customs
vs.
CA/
Shielas
Facts:
Philfire issued insurance policy to R.V Marzan,
owner of a customs bonded warehouse. Shielas
manufacturing engaged in the garment
business, the consignee of raw materials from
Taiwan. The BOC treated the materials as
subject to ordinary import taxes and were not
THE
COMMISSIONER
OF
CUSTOMS,
petitioner,
vs.
MANILA
STAR
FERRY,
INC.,
UNITED
NAVIGATION & TRANSPORT CORPORATION,
CEABA SHIPPING AGENCY, INC., and THE
COURT' OF TAX APPEALS, respondents.
QUIASON, J.:
This is a petition for review under Rule 44 of the
Revised
Rules
of
Court
filed
by
the
Commissioner of Customs to set aside the
consolidated Decision dated September 30,
1969 of the Court of Tax Appeals in C.T.A. Cases
Nos. 1836, 1837 and 1839, modifying his
decision by ordering only the payment of a fine,
in lieu of the forfeiture of private respondents
vessels used in the smuggling of foreign-made
cigarettes and other goods.
Private respondents Manila Star Ferry, Inc. and
the United Navigation & Transport Corporation
xxx xxx
xxx xxx
SO ORDERED.
Thereafter, the Commissioner elevated the
aforesaid CA Decision to this Court via a petition
for review on certiorari, docketed as G.R. No.
139050 and entitled "Republic of the Philippines
represented by the Commissioner of Customs v.
The Court of Tax Appeals and AGFHA, Inc."
On October 2, 2001, the Court dismissed the
petition.8
On January 14, 2002, the Court denied with
finality
the
Commissioners
motion
for
reconsideration of its October 2, 2001 Decision.
On March 18, 2002, the Entry of Judgment was
issued by the Court declaring its aforesaid
decision final and executory as of February 5,
2002.
In view thereof, the CTA-Second Division issued
the Writ of Execution, dated October 16, 2002,
directing the Commissioner and his authorized
subordinate or representative to effect the
immediate release of the subject shipment. It
further ordered the sheriff to see to it that the
writ would be carried out by the Commissioner
and to make a report thereon within thirty (30)
days after receipt of the writ. The writ, however,
was returned unsatisfied.
ISSUE
Whether or not the Court of Tax Appeals was
correct in awarding the respondent the amount
of US$160,348.08, as payment for the value of