Feliciano, Patrizia Anne T.
, 2020-0072
G.R. No. L-17447, April 30, 1963
GONZALO PUYAT & SONS, INC. vs.
CITY OF MANILA AND MARCELO SARMIENTO, as City Treasurer of Manila
PAREDES, J.:
Facts:
Plaintiff Gonzalo Puyat & Sons, Inc., a corporation engaged in manufacturing
furniture, filed action for refund of its Retail Dealers Taxes, charged against the
City Treasurer of Manila. From the first quarter of 1950 up until the third quarter
of 1956 amounting to P33,785.00. Being a manufacturer of various kinds of
furniture, plaintiff is claiming to be exempt from the payment of taxes imposed
under the provisions of Sec. 1, Group II, of Ordinance No. 3364, which took
effect on September 24, 1956, on the sale of the various kinds of furniture
manufactured by it pursuant to the provisions of Sec. 18(n) of Republic Act No.
409 (Revised Charter of Manila), as restated in Section 1 of Ordinance No. 3816,
however it is liable for the payment of taxes prescribed in Section 1, Group II or
Ordinance No. 3364 as amended by Sec. 1, Group II of Ordinance No. 3816,
which took effect on September 24, 1956, on the sales of imported billiard balls,
bowling balls and other accessories at its display room. Plaintiff formally
requested for a refund at the office of the Treasurer of Manila on October 30,
1956 but was denied on July 24, 1958. Hence the complaint. Defendants claim
that taxes cannot be refunded for payments were not made in protest and thus
were voluntary. Appellants aver that the payments were made voluntarily and in
good faith--but were a mistake.
Issue/s: Whether or not the amounts are refundandable; whether or not taxes
paid from 1950 to 1952 have prescribed.
Ruling: Yes. The Court held that no protest is needed in order for the refund to
be made. In the case of Newport v. Ringo, it was held that:
"It is too well settled in this state to need the citation of authority that if money be
paid through a clear mistake of law or fact, essentially affecting the rights of the
parties, and which in law or conscience was not payable, and should not be
retained by the party receiving it, it may be recovered. Both law and sound
morality dictate. Especially should this be the rule as to illegal taxation. The
taxpayer has no voice in the imposition of the burden. He has the right to
presume that the taxing power has been lawfully exercised. He should not be
required to know more than those in authority over him, nor should he suffer loss
by complying with what he bona fide believe to be his duty as a good citizen.
Upon the contrary, he should be promoted to its ready performance by refunding
to him any legal exaction paid by him in ignorance of its illegality; and, certainly,
in such a case, if be subject to a penalty for nonpayment, his compliance under
belief of its legality, and without awaitinga resort to judicial proceedings should
not be regarded in law as so far voluntary as to affect his right of recovery.".
Moreover, it is provided in the Civil Code that:
"Every person who through an act or performance by another, or any other
means, acquires or comes into possession of something at the expense of the
Feliciano, Patrizia Anne T., 2020-0072
latter without just or legal grounds, shall return the same to him"(Art. 22, Civil
Code).
“Even if the provisions of Act No. 190 should apply to those payments made
before the effectivity of the new Civil Code, because "prescription already running
before the effectivity of this Code shall be governed by laws previously in force
xxx " (Art. 1116, NCC), Still payments made before August 30, 1950 are no
longer recoverable in view of the second paragraph of said article (1116), which
provides:"but if since the time this Code took effect the entire period herein
required for prescription should elapse the present Code shall be applicable even
though by the former laws a longer period might be required".
MODIFIED in the sense that only payments made on or after October 30, 1950
should be refunded, the decision appealed from is affirmed, in all other respects.
No costs. .
Bengzon, C.J., Bautista Angelo, Labrador, Concepcion,Dizon, Regala and
Makalintal, JJ., concur.
Padilla, Reyes, J.B.L., and Barrera, JJ., too no part.
Decision affirmed.
