Powered by Blogger.

About this blog

These are all original case digests or case briefs done while the author was studying law school in the Philippines.

Hopefully these digested cases will help you get a good grasp of the salient facts and rulings of the Supreme Court in order to have a better understanding of Philippine Jurisprudence.

Please forgive any typo/grammatical errors as these were done while trying to keep up with the hectic demands brought about by the study of law.

God bless!

UPDATE:
Since the author is now a lawyer, this blog will now include templates of Philippine legal forms for your easy reference. This blog will be updated daily.

Thank you for the almost 500k views :)

Translate to your language

P.S.

If this blog post as helped you in any way, kindly click on any of the blog sponsors' advertisements. It won't cost you a thing. This would help tremendously.

Thank you for your time.

Tuesday, October 17, 2017

CIR vs Western Pacific L-18804 – May 27, 1965


Facts:
On March 2, 1959, respondent Western Pacific Corp was assessed deficiency income tax for the year 1953. The assessment
was brought about by the disallowance listed in respondent‘s return as bad debts. The assessment was received by respondent on the same date (March 2, 1959). On March 5, 1959, CIR wrote a demand letter with the final breakdown of the assessment. However, on June 29, 1959, Western Pacific Corp requested for non-assessment, claiming that the claim had prescribed and that said items should be considered as allowable deductions. On July 30, 1959, CIR denied the request and

demanded payment of the same within 30 days from receipt of demand.
Respondent corporation, on September 19, 1959, requested that it be allowed until September 25 to submit its formal objections to the assessment. The formal objections submitted by Western Pacific were identical to its former objections and as such, CIR denied the request. The CIR, then, sent on October 28, 1959 a letter demanding payment within 10 days. On appeal, CA absolved the respondent from the assessment however it ruled out that the assessment letter dated March 2, 1959 was within 5-year prescriptive period.

Issue:
WON the assessment had prescribed

Ruling:
No. February 28, 1959 fell on a Saturday. Pursuant to Republic Act No. 1880, as, implemented by Executive Order No. 25, effective July 1, 1959, all bureaus and offices of the government, except schools, court, hospitals and health clinics, hold office only five days a week or from Monday to Friday. Saturday and Sunday, are constituted public holidays or days of exemption from labor or work as far as government offices, including that of respondent Commissioner, are concerned. The offices and bureaus concerned are officially closed on those days. So that on February 28, 1959 and March 1, 1959, which were Saturday and Sunday, respectively, the office of respondent was officially closed. And where the last day for doing an act required by law falls on a holiday, the act may be done on the next succeeding business day. (Section 31, Revised Administrative Code.) Similarly, in computing any period of time prescribed by statute, the day of the act after which the designated period of time begins to run is not included. But the last day of the period so computed is to be included, unless it is a Sunday or a legal holiday, in which event the time shall run until the end of the next day which is neither a Sunday or a holiday (Section 1, Rule 28, Rules of Court).
Consequently, since February 28, 1959 was a Saturday and the next day, March 1, 1959, a Sunday, respondent had until the next succeeding business day, March 2, 1959, Monday, within which to issue the deficiency assessment. The assessment in question having been issued on March 2, 1959, it was, therefore, seasonably made. However, contrary to the ruling of the CTA, the assessment made by the Commissioner should be maintained, for the simple reason that when the petition for review was brought to the CTA by the respondent corporation, the said Court no longer had jurisdiction to entertain the same. The assessment had long become final. A petition for review should be presented, within the reglementary period, as provided for in Section 11, Republic Act No. 1125, which is "thirty (30) days from receipt of the assessment." The thirty (30) day period is jurisdictional. The assessment was received by the respondent corporation on March 2, 1959. It was only on June 29, 1959, when said corporation formally assailed the assessment, on the grounds of prescription in making the assessment and the impropriety of the disallowance of the listed deductions. From March 3 to June 29, 1959, manifestly more than thirty (30) days had lapsed and the assessment became final, executory and demandable. 

No comments:

Post a Comment

Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...

Treat yourself