This case has been cited 3 times or more.
|
2015-06-22 |
VELASCO JR., J. |
||||
| A tax amnesty, much like a tax exemption, is never favored or presumed in law. The grant of a tax amnesty, similar to a tax exemption, must be construed strictly against the taxpayer and liberally in favor of the taxing authority.[34] Taxes being the lifeblood of the nation through which the government agencies continue to operate and with which the State effects its functions for the welfare of its constituents[35] the present amnesty tax law must be strictly construed against herein respondent which claims tax incentives granted to it by mere presidential proclamation. It is likewise settled that taxes are the lifeblood of the government and their prompt and certain availability is an imperious need.[36] | |||||
|
2006-10-16 |
CHICO-NAZARIO, J. |
||||
| As regards the third requisite of litis pendentia, again, the petitioner failed to meet the same. This Court deems it necessary to quote the very wordings of the Court of Appeals in its Decision dated 29 April 2004, as follows: Moreover, a judgment in the criminal cases, to our mind, will not be determinative of the civil case upon which the principle of res judicata will operate. A judgment in the criminal cases will only lead to either conviction or acquittal of the accused officers of the petitioner as the crime only attaches to them but will not in anyway affect the liability of the petitioner as it is a distinct and separate juridical person. Nor do we believe that a finding on the efficacy of the TCCs will change the dire situation in which the Government finds itself in as the tax and the customs duties remain unpaid. The fate of the TCCs for whatever it's worth is already fait accompli. It is not disputed by the parties concerned that the subject TCCs have already been cancelled by the [DOF] for which reason the twin suits have been brought. It is on this basis too, that petitioner filed a [C]omplaint for [E]stafa against Devmark's officers before the City Prosecutor of Mandaluyong City. Hence, it is absurd for the petitioner to anchor its complaint on the alleged worthlessness of the TCCs only to argue in the present action that the same must await final determination in the criminal cases before the Sandiganbayan.[28] Attention must be given to the fact that taxes are the lifeblood of the nation through which the government agencies continue to operate and with which the State effects its functions for the welfare of its constituents.[29] It is also settled that taxes are the lifeblood of the government and their prompt and certain availability is an imperious need.[30] So then, the determination of the validity or invalidity of the TCCs cannot be regarded as a prejudicial issue that must first be resolved with finality in the Criminal Cases filed before the Sandiganbayan. The Government should not and must not await the result of the criminal proceedings in the Sandiganbayan before it can collect the outstanding customs duties and taxes of the petitioner for such will unduly restrain the Government in doing its functions. The machineries of the Government will not be able to function well if the collection of taxes will be delayed so much so if its collection will depend on the outcome of any criminal proceedings on the guise that the issue of collection of taxes is a prejudicial issue that need to be first resolved before enforcing its collection. | |||||
|
2004-03-17 |
AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J. |
||||
| turn, defendant-appellant's status is analogous to that of a lessee whose term has expired and who should therefore surrender the leased premises to the rightful owner.[7] Lopez filed a petition for review with the Court of Appeals[8] but failed to obtain a favorable judgment.[9] As with the METC and RTC, the Court of Appeals found that the Pozons, as registered owners, had a better right of | |||||