Scribd
Upload
153 views1 page

Sarasola v. Trinidad, 40 Phil. 252

Sarasola filed a complaint to restrain the tax collector from illegally collecting taxes. The court dismissed the complaint based on provisions that prohibit injunctions to restrain tax collection and disallow interest on recovered taxes. Sarasola argued these provisions are unconstitutional. The court ruled that prohibiting interest on recovered taxes against the state is constitutional, as the state is not required to pay interest unless expressly agreed by statute.

Uploaded by

Jo-ed Bitang Revilla
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
153 views1 page

Sarasola v. Trinidad, 40 Phil. 252

Sarasola filed a complaint to restrain the tax collector from illegally collecting taxes. The court dismissed the complaint based on provisions that prohibit injunctions to restrain tax collection and disallow interest on recovered taxes. Sarasola argued these provisions are unconstitutional. The court ruled that prohibiting interest on recovered taxes against the state is constitutional, as the state is not required to pay interest unless expressly agreed by statute.

Uploaded by

Jo-ed Bitang Revilla
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 1

SARASOLA v.

TRINIDAD

Facts:

Sarasola filed a complaint for injunction to restrain the Collector (Trinidad) of Internal Revenue from the
alleged illegal collection of taxes. CIR interposed a demurrer to the complaint on the following grounds:

a. Court had no jurisdiction of the subject matter because of the provisions of the Sec. 1578 of the
Administrative Code;
b. Facts stated in the complaint did not entitle the plaintiff to the relief demanded.

The laws in question in this case are Secs. 1578-1579 of the Administrative Code of 1917 which states:

Sec. 1578: Injunction not available to restrain collection of tax – No court shall have authority to grant
an injunction to restrain the collection of any internal revenue tax.

Sec. 1579: Recovery of tax paid under protest – When the validity of any tax is questioned, or its
amount disputed, or other question raised as to liability therefore, the person against whom or against
whose property the same is sought to be enforced shall pay the tax under instant protest, or upon
protest within 10 days, and shall request the decision of the Collector of Internal Revenue. If the
decision of the Collector of Internal Revenue is adverse, or if no decision is made by him within 6
months from the date when his decision was requested, the taxpayer may proceed, at any time within 2
years after the payment of the tax, to bring an action against the Collector of Internal Revenue for the
recovery “without interest” of the sum alleged to have been illegally collected, the process to be
served upon him, upon the provincial treasurer, or upon the officer collecting the tax.

Judge of CFI sustained the demurrer (basing his decision from Churchill case).

Sarasola argued that the provisions under Secs. 1578-1579 are unconstitutional since it prohibits the courts
from granting an injunction to restrain the collection of internal revenue taxes (Sec. 1578) and that it disallows
interest on the internal revenue taxes in the sum alleged to have been illegally collected (Sec. 1579).

Issue:
Whether an interest can be imposed against the State in cases of recovery of taxes illegally collected.
Or simply, whether or not the words “without interest” is constitutional.

Ruling:
YES. It is constitutional.

It is well settled both on principle and authority that interest is not to be awarded against a sovereign
government unless its consent has been manifested by an Act of its Legislature or by a lawful contract of its
executive officers. If there be doubt upon the subject, that doubt must be resolved in favor of the State. The
state never pays interest unless she expressly engages to do so.

Our own statute not only does not authorize interest but negatives the payment of interest. The law is valid,
or that Sarasola has not proven such a case of irreparable injury as would warrant the issuance of the
extraordinary writ of execution.

You might also like