Scribd
Upload
109 views

Mitsubishi Motors Philippines Corporation v. Bureau of Customs G.R. No. 209830 June 17, 2015

The Bureau of Customs filed a collection suit against Mitsubishi Motors for unpaid taxes and customs duties from 1997-1998. Mitsubishi Motors claimed it had purchased Tax Credit Certificates to cover the amounts, but the certificates were later discovered to be fraudulent. The Regional Trial Court ruled in favor of Mitsubishi Motors. The Bureau of Customs appealed to the Court of Appeals, which referred the case to the Court of Tax Appeals instead of dismissing it. Mitsubishi Motors argued the Court of Appeals should have dismissed the case for lack of jurisdiction. The Supreme Court ruled the Court of Tax Appeals had exclusive appellate jurisdiction over tax collection cases from regional trial courts. However, the Bureau of Customs' appeal

Uploaded by

Brian Jonathan Paraan
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
109 views

Mitsubishi Motors Philippines Corporation v. Bureau of Customs G.R. No. 209830 June 17, 2015

The Bureau of Customs filed a collection suit against Mitsubishi Motors for unpaid taxes and customs duties from 1997-1998. Mitsubishi Motors claimed it had purchased Tax Credit Certificates to cover the amounts, but the certificates were later discovered to be fraudulent. The Regional Trial Court ruled in favor of Mitsubishi Motors. The Bureau of Customs appealed to the Court of Appeals, which referred the case to the Court of Tax Appeals instead of dismissing it. Mitsubishi Motors argued the Court of Appeals should have dismissed the case for lack of jurisdiction. The Supreme Court ruled the Court of Tax Appeals had exclusive appellate jurisdiction over tax collection cases from regional trial courts. However, the Bureau of Customs' appeal

Uploaded by

Brian Jonathan Paraan
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 3

Mitsubishi Motors Philippines Corporation v.

Bureau of Customs
G.R. No. 209830
June 17, 2015
Facts:
The Bureau of Customs filed a collection suit against Mitsubishi Motors
for the amount of P46,844,385.00 for unpaid taxes and customs duties for its
several importations made during 1997-1998. Mitsubishi Motors, during that
time, purchased Tax Credit Certificates (TCC) in the same amount mentioned
which it in turn used to pay for the taxes and customs duties due on their
importations on said period. The Department of Finance discovered during a
post-audit investigation that the TCCs were fraudulently secured and thus
Mitsubishi Motors never covered their tax obligations. The collection case
was filed in the RTC which ruled in favor of Mitsubishi Motors for the Bureau
of Customs failure to prove the fraud. The Bureau of Customs appealed to
the CA, who in turn referred the case to the CTA instead of dismissing the
same for lack of jurisdiction. Mitsubishi Motors now contends that the CA
should have dismissed the case as it cannot take any action over the matter
since it does not have jurisdiction over the subject matter of the case.
Issue:
Whether or not the case should have been referred to the CTA?
Ruling:
Republic Act 1125 as amended by Republic Act 9282 specifically gave
the CTA exclusive appellate jurisdiction over appeals from the judgments,
resolutions or orders of the Regional Trial Courts in tax collection cases
originally decided by them in their respective territorial jurisdiction. Thus, the
case falls within the exclusive jurisdiction of the CTA. The Bureau of Customs
failed to appeal the case from the RTC to the CTA within 30 days from
receipts of the RTCs ruling therefore making the RTCs dismissal of its case
final and executory.

Republic of the Philippines v. Philippine Airlines, Inc. (PAL)


Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Philippine Airlines, Inc. (PAL)
G.R. Nos. 209353-54
July 06, 2015
Facts:
The petitioners Republic of the Philippines, as represented by the
Commissioner of Customs, and the Commissioner of Internal Revenue
questions the entitlement of PAL to a tax refund of P4,469,199.98 for
erroneously paid excise tax for the period covering July 2005 to February
2006 pursuant to Section 13 of Presidential Decree 1590, which states that
the payment of PAL of its basic corporate income tax shall be considered as
tax paid in lieu of all other taxed that may be imposed, including those on
imported goods. The Petitioners argue that P.D. 1590, the PAL charter, had
already been expressly amended by Republic Act 9334, amending the Tax
Code, which states that:
The provision of any special or general law to the contrary
notwithstanding, the importation of cigars and cigarettes, distilled spirits,
fermented liquors, and wines into the Philippines even if destined for tax and
duty-free shops, shall be subject to all applicable taxes, duties, charges,
including excise taxes due thereon
Issue:
Whether or not P.D. 1590 has been amended by R.A. 9334
Ruling:
The franchise of PAL remains the governing law on its exemption from
taxes. Its payment of either basic corporate income tax or franchise tax whichever is lower - shall be in lieu of all other taxes, duties, royalties,
registrations, licenses, and other fees and charges, except only real property
tax. The phrase "in lieu of all other taxes" includes but is not limited to taxes,
duties, charges, royalties, or fees due on all importations by the grantee of
the commissary and catering supplies, provided that such articles or supplies
or materials are imported for the use of the grantee in its transport and nontransport operations and other activities incidental thereto and are not
locally
available
in
reasonable
quantity,
quality,
or
price.
However, upon the amendment of the 1997 NIRC, Section 22 of R.A.
9337 abolished the franchise tax and subjected PAL and similar entities to
corporate income tax and value-added tax (VAT). PAL nevertheless remains
exempt from taxes, duties, royalties, registrations, licenses, and other fees
and charges, provided it pays corporate income tax as granted in its

franchise agreement. Accordingly, PAL is left with no other option but to pay
its basic corporate income tax, the payment of which shall be in lieu of all
other taxes, except VAT, and subject to certain conditions provided in its
charter.

You might also like