Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 609 views

    2 - Proton Pilipinas Corp Vs Republic

    Uploaded by

    Vincent Ong
    The Supreme Court ruled that the RTC, not the Sandiganbayan, had jurisdiction over a civil case filed by the Bureau of Customs against Proton Pilipinas Corp to collect unpaid taxes and duties. While criminal cases regarding the same tax credit certificates were filed in the Sandiganbayan against Proton officers, the civil case involved only Proton as a corporate taxpayer. As the parties were different, the rule on litis pendentia did not apply and the civil case was not premature, despite the ongoing criminal cases. The Court affirmed the CA's ruling that the RTC properly exercised jurisdiction over the collection case.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOC, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    2 - Proton Pilipinas Corp Vs Republic

    Uploaded by

    Vincent Ong
    609 views2 pages
    The Supreme Court ruled that the RTC, not the Sandiganbayan, had jurisdiction over a civil case filed by the Bureau of Customs against Proton Pilipinas Corp to collect unpaid taxes and duties. While criminal cases regarding the same tax credit certificates were filed in the Sandiganbayan against Proton officers, the civil case involved only Proton as a corporate taxpayer. As the parties were different, the rule on litis pendentia did not apply and the civil case was not premature, despite the ongoing criminal cases. The Court affirmed the CA's ruling that the RTC properly exercised jurisdiction over the collection case.

    Original Description:

    CRIMPRO rule 111

    Original Title

    2_Proton Pilipinas Corp vs Republic

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOC, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The Supreme Court ruled that the RTC, not the Sandiganbayan, had jurisdiction over a civil case filed by the Bureau of Customs against Proton Pilipinas Corp to collect unpaid taxes and duties. While criminal cases regarding the same tax credit certificates were filed in the Sandiganbayan against Proton officers, the civil case involved only Proton as a corporate taxpayer. As the parties were different, the rule on litis pendentia did not apply and the civil case was not premature, despite the ongoing criminal cases. The Court affirmed the CA's ruling that the RTC properly exercised jurisdiction over the collection case.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOC, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as doc, pdf, or txt
    609 views2 pages

    2 - Proton Pilipinas Corp Vs Republic

    Uploaded by

    Vincent Ong
    The Supreme Court ruled that the RTC, not the Sandiganbayan, had jurisdiction over a civil case filed by the Bureau of Customs against Proton Pilipinas Corp to collect unpaid taxes and duties. While criminal cases regarding the same tax credit certificates were filed in the Sandiganbayan against Proton officers, the civil case involved only Proton as a corporate taxpayer. As the parties were different, the rule on litis pendentia did not apply and the civil case was not premature, despite the ongoing criminal cases. The Court affirmed the CA's ruling that the RTC properly exercised jurisdiction over the collection case.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOC, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as doc, pdf, or txt
    of 2

    CRIMPRO

    Title
    Proton Pilipinas Corp vs Republic

    GR No. 165027
    Date: Oct. 16, 2006
    Ponente: CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
    Proton Pilipinas Corp Petitioners
    Republic of the Philippines, represented by
    Bureau of Customs Respondents
    Nature of the case: Petition for review on Certiorari under rule 45 seeking to annul and set aside
    CA Decision
    FACTS
    -Proton is duly organized and existing under Philippine Laws and registered in Board of
    Investements(BOI) and is engaged in business of importing, manufacturing and selling vehicles.
    -Devmark Textile Industries (DEVMARK) and Texasia Inc purchased 13 vehicles using tax Credit
    Certificates(TCCs) amounting to P 30,817,191. They guaranteed Proton that the TCCs were valid,
    genuine and subsisting and was issued by the Dept. of Finance(DOF) and duly honoured and
    accepted by the Bureau of Customs. After this the 2 companies(proton &Devmark) transacted the
    said TCCs and Paul Rodriguez, exec vice pres of Proton, signed a Deed of Assignment with Eulogio
    Reyes,General Manager of Devmark.
    -The TCCs were evaluated and cleared by DOF undersecretary Antonio Belicena and petitioner
    delivered the vehicles(worth P10,778,500) and post-dated checks(P10,592,618) in exchange of the
    TCCs.
    -March 30, 1999- 4 TCCs were investigated for being irregularly issued to Devmark; Oct 1999 the
    fact finding committee of the ombudsman found that the said TCCs were irregularly and
    fraudulently issued by several officers of DOF, including Belicena, to Devmark prior to its
    assignment to Proton. They were found to be fake and spurious therefore its transfer to Proton was
    invalid and illegal.
    -Due to the result of the said investigation, Belicena,Reyes(in his capacity as General manager of
    Devmark) and Rodriguez(in his capacity as exec vp for
    Proton) were charged in the
    Sandiganbayan with the violation of Sec3 (e) and (J) of RA 3019.
    -Petitioner filed estafa against officers of Devmark in the City Prosecutor of Mandaluyong.
    -BOC filed a civil case against the petitioner before RTC for the collection of taxes and customs
    duties, which remain unpaid because the subject TCCs had been cancelled brought about by
    petitioners use of fraudulent TCCs in paying its obligation.
    -Petitioner filed for motion to dismiss in the BOCs civil case against it on the grounds of lack of
    jurisdiction, prematurity of action and litis pendentia but was denied in trial court and CA.
    Petitioners contentions:
    -CA erred in not dismissing the civil case because Sec4 of RA8249 states that the Sandiganbayan
    has sole and exclusive jurisdiction over the subject matter.
    -CA erred in holding Litis pendentia rule is inappliacable and that civil case is not premature.
    ISSUE/S
    A. WON the jurisdiction over Civil Case No. 02-102650, involving collection of unpaid
    customs duties and taxes of petitioner, belongs to the Sandiganbayan and not to
    the RTC, as it can be considered the civil aspect of the Criminal Cases filed before
    the Sandiganbayan, hence, deemed instituted in the latter.-NO
    B. WON the Court of Appeals erred in holding that, the rule on litis pendentia is
    inapplicable in the present case.-NO
    C. WON the institution of the aforesaid Civil Case is premature as the determination of
    the validity or invalidity of the TCCs is a prejudicial issue that must first be resolved
    with finality in the Criminal Cases filed before the Sandiganbayan.-NO
    RATIO
    A. While it is true that according to the aforesaid Section 4, of Republic Act No. 8249, the
    institution of the criminal action automatically carries with it the institution of the civil
    action for the recovery of civil liability, however, in the case at bar, the civil case for the
    collection of unpaid customs duties and taxes cannot be simultaneously instituted and
    determined in the same proceedings as the criminal cases before the Sandiganbayan, as it
    cannot be made the civil aspect of the criminal cases filed before it. It should be borne in
    mind that the tax and the obligation to pay the same are all created by statute; so are its

    collection and payment governed by statute. Hence, the payment and collection of customs
    duties and taxes in itself creates civil liability on the part of the taxpayer.
    B&C. Petitioner avers that the Court of Appeals erred in not applying the rule on litis
    pendentia despite the fact that all its requisites are present in both criminal and civil
    cases. Petitioner also avows that the institution of the civil case for collection of unpaid
    customs duties and taxes was premature since the validity or invalidity of the TCCs was a
    prejudicial issue that has yet to be resolved with finality by the Sandiganbayan in the Criminal
    Cases before it. Conversely, the Government claims that in Criminal Cases No. 26168 to 71
    filed before the Sandiganbayan, the petitioner was not the party accused, but its corporate
    officers, whereas in Civil Case No. 02-102650 the party sued is not the corporate officers, but
    the corporation. Accordingly, there can be no litis pendentia as the requisite of identity of
    parties was absent.
    In the case at bar, in Criminal Cases No. 26168 to 71 only the responsible officers of the
    petitioner are charged in the Information, while in Civil Case No. 02-102650, it is only the
    corporation that is impleaded, holding it liable for the unpaid customs duties and taxes as a
    corporate taxpayer. Taxes being personal to the taxpayer, it can only be enforced against
    herein petitioner because the payment of unpaid customs duties and taxes are the personal
    obligation of the petitioner as a corporate taxpayer, thus, it cannot be imposed on its
    corporate officers, much so on its individual stockholders, for this will violate the principle
    that a corporation has personality separate and distinct from the persons constituting it.
    Having said that, the parties in the two actions are entirely different, hence, petitioner
    failed to establish the first requisite of litis pendentia as to identity of parties.
    RULING
    IN VIEW WHEREOF, the instant Petition is hereby DENIED. The Decision as well as the
    Resolution of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 77684 dated 29 April 2004and 2 August 2004,
    respectively, affirming the Orders of the RTC are hereby AFFIRMED. Costs against petitioner.
    Notes
    -Jurisdiction of the court over a subject matter is conferred only by the Constitution or by law;
    Jurisdiction is also determined by the allegations in the complaint.
    Litis pendentia is a Latin term, which literally means a pending suit. Litis pendentia as a
    ground for the dismissal of a civil action refers to that situation wherein another action is pending
    between the same parties for the same cause of action, such that the second action becomes
    unnecessary and vexatious. For litis pendentia to be invoked, the concurrence of the following
    requisites is necessary:
    (a) identity of parties or at least such as represent the same interest in both actions;
    (b) identity of rights asserted and reliefs prayed for, the reliefs being founded on the
    same facts; and
    (c) the identity in the two cases should be such that the judgment that may be
    rendered in one would, regardless of which party is successful, amount to res
    judicata in the other.
    ONG
    http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2006/october2006/165027.htm

    You might also like