Professional Documents
Culture Documents
CIR V Fortune Tobacco Escra
CIR V Fortune Tobacco Escra
*
G.R. No. 119322. June 4, 1996.
_______________
* FIRST DIVISION.
201
202
202 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
203
204
205
206
nullify the abusive act—but only that. The main case should be
allowed to proceed according to due process. The trial court should
receive the evidence from the contending parties, weigh and
evaluate the same and then make its findings. Clearly, the
dismissal of the main case as a result of a mere incident relative
to the issuance of an ancillary writ is procedurally awkward and
violates due process, as it deprives private respondents of their
right to present their case in court and support it with its
evidence.
Taxation; While “taxes are the lifeblood of the government,”
the power to tax has its limits, inspite of all its plenitude.—In
resolving the fundamental issue at hand, i.e., whether the trial
court committed grave abuse of discretion in issuing the subject
writs of preliminary injunction, we cannot avoid balancing on the
scales the power of the State to tax and its inherent right to
prosecute perceived transgressors of the law on one side, and the
constitutional rights of a citizen to due process of law and the
equal protection of the laws on the other. Obviously the scales
must tilt in favor of the individual, for a citizen’s right is amply
protected by the Bill of Rights of the Constitution. Thus while
“taxes are the lifeblood of the government,” the power to tax has
its limits, inspite of all its plenitude. Hence in Commissioner of
Internal Revenue v. Algue, Inc., we said—Taxes are the lifeblood
of the government and so should be collected without unnecessary
hindrance. On the other hand, such collection should be
accordance with law as any arbitrariness will negate the very
reason for government itself. It is therefore necessary to reconcile
the apparently conflicting interests of the authorities and the
taxpayers so that the real purpose of taxation, which is the
promotion of the common good, may be achieved.
Courts; Judicial Statesmanship; In days of great pressure, it
is alluring to take short cuts by borrowing dictatorial techniques,
but when courts do, they set in motion an arbitrary or subversive
influence by their own design which destroys them from within.—
Finally, courts indeed should not hesitate to invoke the
constitutional guarantees to give adequate protection to the
citizens when faced with the enormous powers of the State, even
when what is in issue are only provisional remedies, as in the case
at hand. In days of great pressure, it is alluring to take short cuts
by borrowing dictatorial techniques. But when we do, we set in
motion an arbitrary or subversive influence by our own design
which destroys us from within. Let not the present case
dangerously sway towards that trend.
207
208
KAPUNAN, J.:
_______________
209
_______________
149-153.
3 Philippine Airlines, Inc. v. Confesor, 231 SCRA 41 (1994); Sinon v.
Civil Service Commission, 215 SCRA 410 (1992); Producers Bank of the
Philippines v. NLRC, 165 SCRA 248 (1988); Litton Mills, Inc. v. Galleon
Trader, Inc., 163 SCRA 494 (1988).
210
________________
211
_______________
5 Id., at 13.
6 Id., at 16.
7 Id., at 264-325.
213
_______________
8 Id., at 402-405.
9 Id., at 412-415.
10 Id., at 416-421.
11 Rollo, pp. 539-545.
214
_______________
12 Id., at 156-263.
13 Id., at 18.
14 Annex “C,” Petition, Rollo, pp. 128-142.
215
216
217
_______________
15 Rollo, p. 21.
16 Annex “D,” Petition, Rollo, pp. 143-145.
218
17
evasion can be initiated.
On February 14, 1994, the trial court issued an order
granting private respondents’ petition for a supplemental
writ of preliminary injunction, likewise enjoining the
preliminary investigation of the two (2) other complaints
filed with the Quezon City Prosecutor’s Office and the DOJ
for fraudulent tax evasion, I.S. 93-17942 and I.S. 93-584,
for alleged tax
18
evasion for the taxable years 1990 and 1991,
respectively. In granting the supplemental writ, the trial
court stated that the two other complaints are the same as
in I.S. 93-508, except that the former refer to the taxable
years 1990 and 1991.
On March 7, 1994, petitioners filed a petition for
certiorari and prohibition with prayer for preliminary
injunction before this Court. However, the petition was
referred to the Court of Appeals for disposition by virtue of
its original concurrent jurisdiction over the petition.
On December 19, 1994, the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R.
No. SP-33599 rendered a decision denying the petition. The
Court of Appeals ruled that the trial court committed no
grave abuse of discretion in ordering the issuance of writs
of preliminary injunction and in denying petitioners’
motion to dismiss. In upholding the reasons and
conclusions given by the trial court in its orders for the
issuance of the questioned writs, the Court of Appeals said
in part:
_______________
219
220
_______________
221
Sec. 127. x x x
_______________
20 Rollo, p. 33.
222
x x x.
_______________
224
_______________
22 Id.
23 Rollo, pp. 135-136.
225
_______________
226
_______________
227
_______________
228
_______________
30 19 SCRA 95 (1967).
31 104 SCRA 607 (1981).
32 Salonga v. Cruz Paño, 134 SCRA 438 (1985).
230
230 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
Commissioner of Internal Revenue vs. Court of Appeals
231
VOL. 257, JUNE 4, 1996 231
Commissioner of Internal Revenue vs. Court of Appeals
_______________
232
232 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
Commissioner of Internal Revenue vs. Court of Appeals
_______________
233
BELLOSILLO, J.:
_______________
235
236
_______________
237
_______________
238
_______________
415.
9 Searth Commodities Corporation v. Court of Appeals, See Note 3;
Rivas v. Securities and Exchange Commission, G.R. No. 53772, 4 October
1990, 190 SCRA 295; Government Service Insurance System v. Judge
Florendo, See Note 3; Ortigas & Company Limited Partnership v. Court of
Appeals, G.R. No. 79128, 16 June 1988, 162 SCRA 165.
239
_______________
240
_______________
241
DISSENTING OPINION
PADILLA, J.:
THE ISSUE
The main issue in this petition for review on certiorari is
whether or not there are valid grounds to stop or stay the
preliminary investigation of complaints filed by the Bureau
of Internal Revenue (BIR) with the Department of Justice
(DOJ) Revenue Cases Task Force against private
respondents for alleged fraudulent tax evasion for the years
1990, 1991 and 1992. Stated differently, the issue is: did
respondent trial court commit grave abuse of discretion
amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction in stopping the
subject preliminary investigation?
242
_______________
1 Rollo, p. 13.
2 Rollo, p. 16.
3 Rollo, pp. 264-325.
4 Rollo, pp. 402-403.
243
a. denying reconsideration;
b. denying suspension of investigation; and
c. denying the motion to inhibit the investigating
state prosecutors.
_______________
244
_______________
10 Rollo, p. 21.
245
246
246 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
Commissioner of Internal Revenue vs. Court of Appeals
on the part of the issuing court. The factual and legal issues
involved in the main case still before the respondent Court are
best resolved after trial. Petitioners, therefore, instead of
resorting to this petition for certiorari and prohibition should
have filed an answer to the petition as ordained in Section 4, Rule
16, in connection with Rule 11 of the Revised Rules of Court,
interposing as defense or defenses the objection or objections
raised in their motion to dismiss, then proceed to trial in order
that thereafter the case may be decided on the merits by the
respondent Court. In case of an adverse decision, they may appeal
therefrom by which the entire record of the case would be elevated
for review. Therefore, certiorari and prohibition resorted to by
herein petitioners will not lie in view of the remedy open to them.
Thus, the resulting delay in the final disposition of the case before
the respondent Court would not have been incurred.
Grave abuse of discretion as a ground for issuance of writs of
certiorari and prohibition implies capricious and whimsical
exercise of judgment as is equivalent to lack of jurisdiction, or
where the power is exercised in an arbitrary or despotic manner
by reason of passion, prejudice, or personal hostility, amounting
to an evasion of positive duty or to a virtual refusal to perform the
duty enjoined, or to act at all in contemplation of law. For such
writs to lie, there must be capricious, arbitrary and whimsical
exercise of power, the very antithesis of the judicial prerogative in
accordance with centuries of both civil law and common law
traditions. Certiorari and prohibition are remedies narrow in
scope and inflexible in character. They are not general utility
tools in the legal workshop. Their function is but limited to
correction of defects of jurisdiction solely, not to be used for any
other purpose, such as to cure errors in proceedings or to correct
erroneous conclusions of law or fact. Due regard for the foregoing
teachings enunciated in the decision cited can not bring about a
decision other than what has been reached herein.
Needless to say, the case before the respondent Court involving
those against herein respondents for alleged non-payment of the
correct amount due as income tax, ad valorem tax and value-
added tax for the years 1990, 1991, and 1992 is not ended by this
decision. The respondent Court is still to try the case and decide it
on the merits. All that is decided here is but the validity of the
orders of the respondent Court granting herein respondents’
application for preliminary injunction and denying herein
petitioners’ motion to dismiss. If upon the facts established after
trial and the applicable law, dissolution of the writ of preliminary
injunction allowed to be issued .
247
VOL. 257, JUNE 4, 1996 247
Commissioner of Internal Revenue vs. Court of Appeals
_______________
248
248 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
Commissioner of Internal Revenue vs. Court of Appeals
DISCUSSION
At the outset, it should be pointed out that respondent
appellate court’s observations to the effect that herein
petitioners’ recourse to said court through a special civil
action of certiorari and prohibition was improper (as
discussed in the aforequoted portion of the CA decision)
actually and appropriately apply to private respondents
when they resorted to the remedy of certiorari and
prohibition with application for preliminary injunction with
the respondent Regional Trial Court to stop the
preliminary investigation being conducted by the DOJ
Revenue Cases Task Force of the BIR complaints for
fraudulent tax evasion against private respondents. It is to
be noted that the proceedings before the investigators
(preliminary investigation before the DOJ Revenue Cases
Task Force) are far from terminated. In fact, private
respondents were merely subpoenaed and asked to submit
counter-affidavits. They instead resorted to the courts for
redress after denial of their motion to dismiss. The proper
procedure on the part of private respondents after their
motion to dismiss was denied by the investigating panel,
should have been an appeal from such an adverse
resolution to the Secretary of Justice, not a special civil
action for certiorari and prohibition with application for
preliminary injunction before the respondent trial court.
As a corollary, the respondent trial court should have
desisted from entertaining private respondents’ original
petition for certiorari and prohibition with prayer for
preliminary injunction because a court order to stop a
preliminary investigation is an act of interference with the
investigating officers’ discretion, absent any showing of
grave abuse of discretion on the part of the latter in
conducting such preliminary investigation.
The rule is settled that the fiscal (prosecutor) cannot be
prohibited from
13
conducting and finishing his preliminary
investigation. The private respondents’ petition before the
_______________
249
trial court in this case was clearly premature since the case
did not fall within any of the exceptions14
when prohibition
lies to stop a preliminary investigation.
The decision of the majority in this case clearly
constitutes an untenable usurpation of the primary duty
and function of the prosecutors to conduct the preliminary
investigation of a criminal offense and the power of the
Secretary of Justice to review the resolution of said
prosecutors.
In Guingona, supra, the Court en banc ruled thus:
_______________
250
250 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
Commissioner of Internal Revenue vs. Court of Appeals
tigation.
C.) The complaints for fraudulent tax evasion are
unsupported by any evidence to serve as basis for
the issuance of a subpoena.
D.) The lack of final determination of Fortune’s tax
liability precludes criminal prosecution.
251
_______________
253
_______________
19 Ungab vs. Cusi, Jr., L-41919-24, 30 May 1980, 97 SCRA 877, 884.
254
_______________
“Sec. 127 x x x x x x
“Sec. 142 x x x x x x
257
21
criminal liability. Payment of ad valorem and other taxes
based on the wholesale price registered with the BIR
presupposes and naturally assumes that the registered
wholesale prices correspond to the actual wholesale prices at
which the manufacturer sells the product. If a
manufacturer makes use of a method or device to make it
appear that products are sold at a wholesale price lower
than the amounts that the manufacturer actually realizes
from such wholesale of its products, as what respondent
Fortune is accused of doing, through the use of dummy
entities, then there arises criminal liability under the penal
provisions of the Tax Code. This is clear from Section
127(b) aforequoted in relation to the penal provisions of the
Tax Code.
10. Private respondents contend that the registration
with the BIR of manufacturer’s wholesale price and the
corresponding close supervision and monitoring by BIR
officials of the business operations of cigarette companies,
ensure payment of correct taxes. The argument is baseless.
It does not follow that the cited procedure is a guarantee
against fraudulent schemes resorted to by tax-evading
individuals or entities. It only indicates that taxpayers bent
on evading payment of taxes would explore more creative
devices or mechanisms in order to defraud the government
of its sources of income even under its very nose. It is
precisely to avoid and detect cases like this that the
President issued a Memorandum on 1 June 1993 creating a
task force to investigate tax liabilities of manufacturers
engaged in tax evasion schemes, such as selling products
through dummy marketing companies at underdeclared
wholesale prices registered with the BIR.
Moreover, the Manufacturer’s Declaration which is the
basis for determining the “Manufacturer’s Registered
Wholesale Price” (which in turn becomes the basis for the
imposition of ad valorem tax), even if verified by revenue
officers and approved by the Commissioner of Internal
Revenue, does not necessarily reflect the actual wholesale
price at which the
_______________
259
260
261
262
“By statute, the prosecuting officer of the City of Manila and his
assistants are empowered to investigate crimes committed within
the city’s territorial jurisdiction. Not a mere privilege, it is the
sworn duty of a Fiscal to conduct an investigation of a criminal
charge filed with his office. The power to investigate postulates
the other obligation on the part of the Fiscal to investigate
promptly and file the case of as speedily. Public interest—the
protection of society—so demands. Agreeably to the foregoing, a
rule—now of long standing and frequent application—was
formulated that ordinarily criminal prosecution may not be
blocked by court prohibition or
_______________
263
_______________
264
265
_______________
30 Mercado v. The Honorable Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 109036, 5 July
1995, 245 SCRA 594.
266
SEPARATE OPINION
VITUG, J.:
A final word: The matter affecting the civil liability for the
due payment of internal revenue taxes, including the
applicable remedies and proceedings in the determination
thereof, must be considered apart from and technically
independent of the criminal aspect that may be brought to
bear in appropriate cases. A recourse in one is not
necessarily preclusive of, nor would the results thereof be
conclusive on, the other. Accordingly, I vote to grant the
petition.
Petition dismissed.
——o0o——
268