Batch 8 cases digest

1. Yaokasin v. Commissioner of Customs

G.R. No. 84111, December 22, 1989
FACTS: On May 27, 1988, the Philippine Coast Guard seized 9000 bags/ sacks of refined
sugar, which were being unloaded from the M/V Tacloban, and turned them over to the
custody of the Bureau of Customs. The petitioner presented a sales invoice from the Jordan
Trading of Iloilo (Annex A, Petition) to prove that the sugar was purchased locally. The
District Collector of Customs, however, proceeded with the seizure of the bags of sugar.
The main issue in this case is whether or not the Commissioner of Customs has the power of
automatic review over decisions of the Collector of Customs in seizure and protest cases.

The Philippine Coast Guard seized 9000 sacks of refined sugar owned by petitioner Yaokasin, which were then
being unloaded from the M/V Tacloban, and turned them over to the custody of the Bureau of Customs. On
June 7, 1988, the District Collector of Customs ordered the release of the cargo to the petitioner but this order
was subsequently reversed on June 15, 1988. The reversal was by virtue ofCustoms Memorandum Order
(CMO) 20-87 in implementation of the Integrated Reorganization Plan under P.D. 1, which provides that in
protest and seizure cases where the decision is adverse to the government, the Commissioner of Customs has
the power of automatic review.
Petitioner objected to the enforcement of Sec. 12 of the Plan and CMO 20-87 contending that these were not
published in the Official Gazette. The Plan which was part of P.D. 1 was however published in the Official
Gazette.

Ruling: Taxes being the lifeblood of the Government, Section 12, which the Commissioner of
Customs in his Customs Memorandum Order No. 20-87, enjoined all collectors to follow strictly, is
intended to protect the interest of the Government in the collection of taxes and customs duties in
those seizure and protest cases which, without the automatic review provided therein, neither the
Commissioner of Customs nor the Secretary of Finance would probably ever know about. Without
the automatic review by the Commissioner of Customs and the Secretary of Finance, a collector in
any of our country's far-flung ports, would have absolute and unbridled discretion to determine
whether goods seized by him are locally produced, hence, not dutiable or of foreign origin, and
therefore subject to payment of customs duties and taxes. His decision, unless appealed by the
aggrieved party (the owner of the goods), would become final with 'the no one the wiser except
himself and the owner of the goods. The owner of the goods cannot be expected to appeal the
collector's decision when it is favorable to him. A decision that is favorable to the taxpayer would
correspondingly be unfavorable to the Government, but who will appeal the collector's decision in
that case certainly not the collector.
2. Metro Manila Shopping v. Toledo
G.R. No. 190818, November 10, 2014

FACTS: On August 2, 2013, petitioners filed a manifestation and motion

seeking the approval of the terms and conditions of the parties Universal
2

Compromise Agreement dated June 1, 2012 (UCA) in lieu of the Court's Decision dated June 5,
2013 (subject Decision) which denied petitioners' claim for tax refund/credit of their local business
taxes paid to respondent City of Manila. Petitioners alleged that pursuant to the UCA, the parties
agreed to amicably settle all cases between them involving claims for tax refund/credit, including
the instant case.

Respondent

submitted that the UCA had no effect on the subject Decision since the taxes paid
subject of the instant case was not included in the agreement.
ISSUE: Is respondents argument meritorious?
RULING: No. compromise agreement is a contract whereby the parties, by making reciprocal
8

concessions, avoid a litigation or put an end to one already commenced. It contemplates mutual
concessions and mutual gains to avoid the expenses of litigation; or when litigation has already
9

begun, to end it because of the uncertainty of the result. Its validity is dependent upon the
fulfillment of the requisites and principles of contracts dictated by law; and its terms and conditions
10

must not be contrary to law, morals, good customs, public policy, and public order. When given
judicial approval, a compromise agreement becomes more than a contract binding upon the parties.
Having been sanctioned by the court, it is entered as a determination of a controversy and has the
force and effect of a judgment. It is immediately executory and not appealable, except for vices of
consent or forgery. The nonfulfillment of its terms and conditions justifies the issuance of a writ of
execution; in such an instance, execution becomes a ministerial duty of the court.

11

12

A review of the whereas clauses of the UCA reveals the various court cases filed by petitioners,
including this case, for the refund and/or issuance of tax credit covering the local business taxes
payments they paid to respondent City of Manila pursuant to Section 21 of the latter's Revenue
13

Code. Thus, contrary to the submission of respondents, the local business taxes subject of the
instant case is clearly covered by the UCA since they were also paid in accordance with the same
provision of the Revenue Code of Manila.
In this relation, it is observed that the present case would have been rendered moot and academic
14

had the parties informed the Court of the UCA's supervening execution. Be that as it may, and
considering that: (a) the UCA appears to have been executed in accordance with the requirements
of a valid compromise agreement; (b) the UCA was executed more than a year prior to the
promulgation of the subject Decision; and (c) the result of both the UCA and the subject Decision
are practically identical, i.e., that petitioners are not entitled to any tax refund/credit, the Court
herein resolves to approve and adopt the pertinent terms and conditions of the UCA insofar as they
govern the settlement of the present dispute.
WHEREFORE, the petitioners' Manifestation and Motion dated August 2, 2013 is GRANTED. The
Decision dated June 5, 2013 of the Court is hereby SET ASIDE. In lieu thereof, the terms and
conditions of the Universal Compromise Agreement between the parties pertinent to the instant
case are APPROVED and ADOPTED as the Decision of the Court.
The parties are ordered to faithfully comply with the terms and conditions of the said agreement.
This case is considered closed and terminated. No costs.

3.

BPI Family Savings Bank Inc. v. CA

G.R. No. 122480, April 12, 2000

FACTS: On October 11, 1990, petitioner filed a written claim for refund in the amount of P112,491.00 with the

respondent Commissioner of Internal Revenue alleging that it did not apply the 1989 refundable amount of
P297,492.00 (including P112,491.00) to its 1990 Annual Income Tax Return or other tax liabilities due to the alleged
business losses it incurred for the same year.
Without waiting for respondent Commissioner of Internal Revenue to act on the claim for refund, petitioner filed a
petition for review with respondent Court of Tax Appeals, seeking the refund of the amount of P112,491.00. The
respondent CTA dismissed petitioners petition and the latter filed a motion for reconsideration but the same was
denied. The Court of Appeals affirmed the CTA. Hence, this petition.

4.

Fishwealth Canning Corporation v. CIR

G.R. No. 179343, January 21, 2010