Professional Documents
Culture Documents
68 Philippine Refining Company Vs CA
68 Philippine Refining Company Vs CA
_______________
* SECOND DIVISION.
668
668 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
669
VOL. 256, MAY 8, 1996 669
670
670 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
Philippine Refining Company vs. Court of Appeals
REGALADO, J.:
_______________
1 Justice Eduardo G. Montenegro, ponente, and Justices Minerva
GonzagaReyes and Conrado M. Vasquez, Jr., concurring.
2 Rollo, 48.
671
Out of the sixteen (16) accounts alleged as bad debts, We find that
only three (3) accounts have met the requirements of the
worthlessness of the accounts, hence were properly written off as
bad debts, namely:
672
xxx
With regard to the other accounts, namely:
_______________
5 Rollo, 4243.
6 L22265, December 26, 1967, 21 SCRA 1336.
673
_______________
7 Rollo, 58.
674
675
_______________
677
modified by the CTA and the decision of said court has not
yet become final and executory.
Regarding the 25% surcharge penalty, Section 248 of the
Tax Code provides:
678
11, 1989, should have been paid within thirty (30) days
from receipt thereof. By reason of petitioners default
thereon, the delinquency penalties of 25% surcharge and
interest of 20% accrued from April 11, 1989. The fact that
petitioner appealed the assessment to the CTA and that
the same was modified does not relieve petitioner of the
penalties incident to delinquency. The reduced amount of
P237,381.25 is but a part of the original assessment of
P1,892,584.00.
Our attention has also been called to two of our previous
rulings and these we set out here for the benefit of
petitioner and whosoever may be minded to take the same
stance it has adopted in this case. Tax laws imposing
penalties for delinquencies, so we have long held, are
intended to hasten tax payments by punishing evasions or
neglect of duty in respect thereof. If penalties could be
condoned for flimsy reasons, the law imposing penalties for
delinquencies would be rendered nugatory, and the
maintenance of the Government11 and its multifarious
activities will be adversely affected.
We have likewise explained that it is mandatory to
collect penalty and interest at the stated rate in case of
delinquency. The intention of the law is to discourage delay
in the payment of taxes due the Government and, in this
sense, the penalty and interest are not penal but
compensatory for the concomitant use of the funds by the
taxpayer beyond the date when 12
he is supposed to have paid
them to the Government. Unquestionably, petitioner
chose to turn a deaf ear to these injunctions.
ACCORDINGLY, the petition at bar is DENIED and the
judgment of respondent Court of Appeals is hereby
AFFIRMED, with treble costs against petitioner.
SO ORDERED.
_______________
679
o0o
Copyright2017CentralBookSupply,Inc.Allrightsreserved.