Sie sind auf Seite 1von 5

1. Commissioner of customs v Manila Star Ferry G.R. Nos.

L-31776-78 October 21, 1993


Facts:
Respondent is the owner of 3 vessels. The three vessel where subjected to a seizure and
forfeiture proceeding after being apprehended for smuggling. The Collector of Customs declared
the forfeiture of the vessels but the CTA modified the decision that the liability of the vessels is
only to pay fines on the ground that the smuggling took place in Manila Bay, a port of entry, and
not a port of destination which is required by law for a vessel to be forfeited.

Issue:
Whether the CTA is correct in its decision that the vessel should not be forfeited

Ruling:
Yes. Sec 2530(a) in unmistakable terms provides that a vessel engaged in smuggling “in a port of
entry” cannot be forfeited.

2. Bastida v Commissioner of Customs G.R. No. L-24011 October 24, 1970


Facts:
Customs authorities seized from respondent various checks, money orders, and traveler’s
checks payable in US dollars. The respondent opposed as to the forfeiture of these checks
contending that they are not “merchandise” as contemplated by law.
Issue: whether the various check may be forfeited
Ruling:
Yes. Merchandise, when used with reference to importations or exportations, includes goods,
wares, and in general anything that may be made the subject of importation or exportation. that
part of the definition of "merchandise" which states, "in general anything that may be made the
subject of importation or exportation," is sufficiently clear and comprehensive to include checks
and money orders.

3. City of Pasig v Manila Electric Company gr no 181710 March 7, 2018


Facts:
In 1992, the municipality of pasig passed an ordinance which imposed a franchise tax on all
business venture operations carried through franchise within the municipality. In 1995, the
Municipality of Pasig was converted into a city. On 2001, the treasurer’s office of pasig city
informed Respondent that it is liable for franchise tax for the year 1996 to 1991. Respondent
opposed on the ground that the ordinance which imposes a franchise tax is void an initio.

Issue:
whether a municipality can pass an ordinance which imposes franchise tax

Ruling:
no. Under the Local Government Code (LGC) of 1991, a municipality is bereft of authority to levy
and impose franchise tax on franchise holders within its territorial jurisdiction. That authority
belongs to provinces and cities only. A franchise tax levied by a municipality is, thus, null and
void. The nullity is not cured by the subsequent conversion of the municipality into a city

4. City of Manila v Cosmos [gr no 196682, June 27, 2018]


Facts:
Petitioner assessed respondent for local business taxes and regulatory fees. Respondent
opposed the amount contained in the assessment and instead tendered payment of an amount
what they believe as the correct computation. The said payment was denied by the City
Treasurer, hence, the Respondent paid the amount in the assessment and thereafter filed a
claim for refund in which the CTA granted. Petitioner now argue before the SC that the
assessment had become final and executory when the respondent abandoned its protest and
instead sued in court for refund.

Issue:
Whether the assessment had become final and executory
Ruling:
No. In local taxation, an assessment for deficiency taxes made by the local government unit may
be protested before the local treasurer without necessity of payment under protest. But if
payment is made simultaneous with or following a protest against an assessment, the taxpayer
may subsequently maintain an action in court, whether as an appeal from assessment or a claim
for refund, so long as it is initiated within thirty (30) days from either decision or inaction of the
local treasurer on the protest.

5. Berdin v Mascarinas Gr no 135928, July 6, 2007


Facts:
The Sangguniang Bayan of Tubigon enacted Tax Ordinance No. 88-11-36. Petitioner questioned
the validity of the said ordinance on the ground that the requirements of public hearing and
publication was not satisfied as required by the Local Tax Code. Respondents, on the other
hand, claim that a public hearing was no longer necessary considering that the ordinances in
question were merely revisions of an existing tax ordinance and not new enactments.

Issue:
Whether public hearing and publication is necessary for the enactment of Ordinance No. 88-11-
36

Ruling:
Yes. The taxes and fees imposed by Tax Ordinance 88-11-36 are on a tax base similar to those
authorized in the local tax code but not specifically enumerated and on a tax base or subject
which are not similar or comparable to any tax base or subject specifically mentioned in the
Local tax code. Hence, public hearing and publication is necessary for its enactment.

6. Phil Ports Authority v City of Davao [gr no 190324, June 06, 2018]
Facts:
Petitioner received a letter from the City Assessor of Davao for the assessment and collection of
real property taxes against its administered properties. The petitioner appealed the assessment
but its appeal were denied by the LBAA and subsequently by the Central Board of Assessment
Appeals. A warrant for levy was issued against the properties of the petitioner. The petitioner
filed a petition for review with the CTA and also filed a petition for certiorari with the CA alleging
that the City of Davao’s taxation of its property were without or in excess of its jurisdiction.

Issue:
Whether the CA has jurisdiction to issue injunctive relief

Ruling:
No. When a tax case is pending on appeal with the Court of Tax Appeals, the Court of Tax
Appeals has the exclusive jurisdiction to enjoin the levy of taxes and the auction of a taxpayer's
properties in relation to that case.

7. NPC v Provincial Treasurer of Benguet gr no 209303 November 14, 2016


Facts:
NPC is a GOCC engage in power generation. Respondents issued an assessment against NPC
which the latter challenged its validity before the LBAA on the ground that NPC is exempt from
real property tax. The LBAA, however, suspend the proceeding until the NPC pays the real
property tax under protest being necessary condition to a protest against the assessment issued
by the Respondent.
Issue: whether payment under protest is necessary in a protest of real property tax assessment
Ruling:
Yes. Section 252 of the LGC of 1991 directs that the taxpayer should first pay the tax due before
his protest can be entertained. It is only after the taxpayer has paid the tax due that he may file
a protest in writing within 30 days from payment of the tax to the Provincial, City or Municipal
Treasurer, who shall decide the protest within sixty days from receipt. In no case is the local
treasurer obliged to entertain the protest unless the tax due has been paid.

8. Steel Corp. v BOC G.R. No. 220502, February 12, 2018


Facts:
Petitioner was assessed for tax purposes by the BOC on its imported products. Petitioner
opposed on the ground that it is exempt thereof because it is under rehabilitation. The
Respondents denied the contention of the Petitioner, hence, the Petitioner filed an injunction
with the RTC in which the RTC approved and issued a Status Quo Order. However, the said
orders were later lifted by the RTC and dismiss the case for lack of jurisdiction. The petitioner
appealed the case to the CA which was also dismissed on the ground of lack of jurisdiction.
Issue:
Whether the lower courts are correct in dismissing the case before them
Ruling:
Yes. The CTA has exclusive jurisdiction to resolve all tax problems. Petitions for writs of certiorari
against the acts and omissions of the said quasi-judicial agencies (BOC, BIR, etc.) should, thus, be
filed before the Court of Tax Appeals.
9. CIR v Bank of the Phil Islands G.R. No. 224327, June 11, 2018
Facts:
CIR assessed CBC for deficiency taxes. CBC issued a letter of compromise addressed to the CIR.
Meanwhile, CBC merge with BPI, the latter as the surviving corporation. The CIR issued a Notice
of Denial with respect to the compromise and subsequently issued a warrant of distraint and
levy. BPI filed a petition for review with the CTA in which the latter granted the cancellation of
the said warrant. The petitioner now argue before the SC that the CTA has no jurisdiction to
cancel the warrant of distraint and levy.
Issue:
Whether the CTA has jurisdiction to cancel the warrant of distraint and levy
Ruling:
Yes. CTA has jurisdiction over cases asking for the cancellation and withdrawal of a warrant of
distraint and/or levy as provided under Section 7 of Republic Act (R.A.) No. 9282

10. Power Sector Assets and Liabilities Management Corp. v CIR G.R. No. 198146, August 8, 2017
Facts:
Petitioner is a GOCC and its main purpose is to manage orderly sale, disposition, and
privatization of the NPC general assets. It sold power plants through public bidding and was
assessed by the BIR and asked to pay deficiency VAT for the sale of the power plants. The
Petitioner filed with the DOJ a petition for the adjudication of the dispute with the BIR to resolve
the issue of whether the sale should be subject to VAT. The BIR now contends that the DOJ has
no jurisdiction since the dispute involves tax laws.
Issue:
Whether the DOJ has jurisdiction over the case
Ruling:
Yes. This case involves a dispute between the Petitioner, a GOCC, and the BIR, a government
office. Under Presidential Decree No. 24224(PD 242), all disputes and claims solely between
government agencies and offices, including government-owned or controlled corporations, shall
be administratively settled or adjudicated by the Secretary of Justice, the Solicitor General, or
the Government Corporate Counsel, depending on the issues and government agencies
involved. As regards cases involving only questions of law, as in this case, it is the Secretary of
Justice who has jurisdiction.

11. Aichi Forging Company of Asia, Inc. v CTA G.R. No. 193625, August 30, 2017
Facts:
Petitioner filed for a claim of refund or tax credit of alleged unutilized input VAT before the BIR
on Sept. 26, 2002. After 4 days, or on Sept 30, 2002, without any act of BIR, Petitioner elevated
the matter and file a judicial claim before the CTA.
Issue:
Whether the CTA acquire jurisdiction over the case
Ruling:
No. From the submission of the complete documents to support the claim, the CIR has a period
of one hundred twenty (120) days to decide on the claim. If the CIR decides within the 120-day
period, the taxpayer may initiate a judicial claim by filing within 30 days an appeal before the
CTA. The 120-day waiting period is both mandatory and jurisdictional. Being filed only after 4
days, Petitioner’s judicial claim was filed prematurely and, thus, without cause of action. Hence,
the CTA has no jurisdiction over the claim.

12. BIR v Acosta G.R. No. 195320, April 23, 2018


Facts:
Private respondent filed with the BIR a claim for refund. The BIR, however, did not act on the
claim. Thus, Private respondent elevated the case to the CTA-Special First Division via a petition
for review. The CTA rendered a decision partly granting petition. The BIR moved for a
reconsideration but was denied. BIR then filed a petition for certiorari before the SC.

Issue:
Whether a Special Civil Action for Certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court is available as a
remedy to the BIR

Ruling:
A writ of certiorari is not a substitute for a lost appeal. Under the Rules of Court, the remedy
against a final judgment or order is an appeal. For cases before the CTA, a decision rendered by
a division of the CTA is appealable to the CTA En Banc. Section 2 of Rule 4 of the Revised Rules of
the CTA also states that the CTA En Banc has exclusive appellate jurisdiction relative to the
review of the court divisions' decisions or resolutions on motion for reconsideration or new trial,
in cases arising from administrative agencies such as the BIR.