republic of the philippines court of tax appeals quezon city anscor

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES
COURT OF TAX APPEALS
QUEZON CITY
ANSCOR INSURANCE BROKERS.
INC. •
Petitioner ,
C.T.A. CASE NO. 4491
- versus -
CO"MISSIONER OF INTERNAL
REVENUE.
Respondent.
X
-
-
-
-
-
D
To
appeals
-
E
from
c ommer cia l
-
X
I
C
the
the
of
years 1981 and 1982,
and P2,527,502.76,
the
for
and
counsel
Commissioner
petitioner's
assessment
tax
N
through
petitioner
denying
broker's
0
I
decision
Revenue
reiterating
-
Court,
this
Internal
-
protest
alleged
fixed
of
and
deficienc y
taxes
for
tax
in the amoun ts of P2,445,295.26
respectively.
Petitioner is a
domestic corporation
organized
and existing under and by virtue of the laws of the
Philippines
with
the
primary
purpose
to
act
as
insurance and/or reinsurance broker in such lines as
fi re,
marine,
accident,
aviation, · liability,
boiler,
elevator ,
engineeri ng,
casualty,
burglary,
plate,
rent,
life,
glass,
credit,
health,
steam
indemnity,
DECISION C.T.A. CASE NO.
4491
-
earthquake,
other
typhoon,
kind s
bonds.
and
The
2
-
automobile,
classes
of
Insurance
fidelity
insurance
Commission
and
and
has
all
surety
licensed
petitioner to act as Insurance Broker by and through
certain authorized officers of the company.
On
September
1985,
3,
deficiency
fixed
and
demand no.
NARD-81-82 -B-85 ,
petitioner
per centage
taxable years 1981 and
tax
received
assessment
dated July 26,
1985,
and
for
1982 totalling P4,972,798.02
computed as follows:
f!~e4.1.~xes
Basic Taxes
Less: Taxes Paid
Deficiency fixed tax
Surcharge - 251
Total
201 int. for• 2.01.81 to 9.01.85
201 int. fro• 2.01.82 to 9.01.85
Total
!~l
!~
P1,000.00
_!_QQ!.OO
p 900.00
~00
P1,000.00
p 900.00
-~!00
_m.oo
P1,125.00
1,031.29
P1,12S.OO
-- ----
-~.29
P1,931.29
f.tJ~~~
Pe~.!.~ T~t.~
Gross m:eipls
61 tax due thereon
less: Taxes paid
Deficiency percentage tax
Surcharge - 251
Total
201 int. for• 2.21.82 to 9.01.85
201 int. fro• 2.21.83 to 9.01.85
Total
P38t 230t 456. 00
P2, 293,'827: 30
P33t 652. 702. 00
p 2, 019,162.10
___!J~ 91~!.7.~
-
p 1,147,013.60
__1_86, 753. 40
p 1,433,767.00
677•..9.12·1ll
p 1, 342, 139. 79
_ _135, S~i· 92
p 1,677,674.71
1, 009, 371. 97
-f_k_!!3,
----138.-97
__ _M..L 896. 80
P 2.. 525. 571. Sl
GRAID TOTAL
The
deficiency
respondent's finding
assessment
that
arose
on
account
of
petitioner is allegedly a
-
DECISION C.T.A. CASE NO.
- -
--
4491
-
commercial
--
- ~
broker
and
3 -
failed
to
pay
the
necessary
privilege tax receipt and the correct percentage tax
due on gross receipts
in violation of Sections 188,
192,
of
193 <a>
and
<Exhibit "R",
p.
208
117,
C. T. A.
On September 30,
aforestated
Tax
Code,
amended
petitioner protested the
"5",
<Exhibit
assessment.
as
records.)
1985,
There
records.
C. T. A.
the
was
pp.
119 - 125,
from
reply
no
respondent.
On July
25,
1990,
respondent filed
a
complaint
with the Regional Trial Court of Quezon City for the
collection
docketed
of
aforesaid deficiency
Civil
as
Case
tax
liabilities,
Q- 90-6241
No.
entitled
"Republic of the Philippines versus Anscor Insurance
Brokers,
Inc., ".
A copy
records. >
o£
the
summons
was served
15,
1990.
This
petitioner
on
the
Court.
Sons
as
said
on
final
filed
pp.
127-129,
complaint
the
collection
the
protest
"U",
<Exhibit
was
decision
which
is
together
petitioner
suit
of
on
with
August
considered
the
by
respondent
appealable
<Petitioner citing Repub1ic vs.
C. T. A.
to
this
Li• Tian Teng
& Co •• Inc., 16 SCRA 584. >
On
instant
August
30,
petition
recorda.
petition for
1990,
for
Thereafter,
review
was
petitioner
review.
a
<PP•
motion
filed
919
by
to
filed
the
1-5,
C.T.A.
admit
amended
petitioner
on
May
DECISION C.T.A. CASE NO. 4491
- 4 4,
1991.
( pp.
41-53,
C. T. A.
no objection from respondent,
grant
said
being
the Court resolved to
("Resolution",
motion.
There
records.>
C. T. A.
73,
P·
records.
In
order
an
Regional
Trial
collection
Court
suit
jurisdiction.
dated
December
of
Quezon
against
("Order",
City
petitioner
pp.
67-68,
1990,
11,
the
dismissed
for
lack
the
of
C. T. A records. )
Respondent did not file a motion for reconsideration
nor a notice of appeal of the said order.
It was only on August 19,
filed
an
("Answer",
answer
pp.
the
petition
C.T.A.
recorda.>
to
82 - 87,
1991 that respondent
The sole issue for
review.
for
resolution of this Court is
whether or not petitioner is a commercial broker and
as such subject to
the Ta x Code,
A close
would
show
July
21 ,
ixed and percentage taxes
under
as amended.
scrutiny
that
1985
Sep~e~.!!._~!:._-~_,__.],_9~5
of
the
chr onology
the
deficiency
but
received
were
within the five year
i ssued
of
events
a ssessments
petitioner
by
by
dated
respondent
on
well
perio d of limitation to assess
pursuant to Section 318 <nov Section 203 > of the Tax
Code.
The
com plaint
file d
by
respondent
Regional Trial Court of Qu zon City on
vi th
the
Ju~~~90
to enforce collection of said deficiency assessments
DECISION G.T.A. CASE NO.
4491
-
va s
likewise
assessment
319(c)
made
of
the
5
-
within
Tax
five
as
years
provided
<now Section 223[cJ)
following
under
the
Section
of the Tax Code,
quoted
below:
"Section
319.
period of
limitation
collection of taxes. XXX
Exceptions
as
of assessment
XXX
XXX
<c)
internal
Where
the
revenue tax
to
and
~-~-~-~-~~!!!.~Q.t.
~afl_. been
of
any
made within
!. tlf:?. __.Q_E;-~_!9.Q __ g_:[_l..i.JJ.!.~-~-~-!;_:i,_QI1 above - prescribed,
~~QQ_t.~~-~-pe _~Q~~-~gt~~
by distraint or
in court, but Ollll
p_y__ .!!_R_roq~~d~.!19
levy or
i._t _.!>_~...Q.!!!l.r_
< 1 > ~j,.1_h:i.:_rr.__t_:!o_y_~~ar!L.J1!..f_ter_t.1t~
or <2 > prior to the
ex p iration of any period for collection
agreed upon in writing by the Commissioner
and the taxpayer before the expiration of
such five-year period. xxx " <Underscoring
supplied . >
!!~~gf:!l_li!m.~n_t_q~!L~ ax..._
The
thi s
petition
Court on
days fr om th e
complaint
review
A...~.Q_\l~..t_.~.Q.,_ __J.990
was
timely
:filed
with
or vi thin thirty
<30>
eceipt by petitioner of a copy o:f the
for
accordance
for
col l ectio n
with
the T x Code.
Section
on
.A~.Q.~_Ii!..t_,t;?,____,t~~9....t...
3 15 - A
<now Section
in
229 > of
It was on acco unt of this appeal that
the Regional Trial Court of Quezon City dismissed on
!J.t_.__.!.'?._9._Q the complaint for collection for
p_"'"_c;:_E;>!'!.~-§'r. .. ___
lack
of
ju risdic tion
assessment
vi thin
Court
the
of
that
is not
exclusive
Tax
based
Appeals
yet
fin a l
appellate
pur sua nt
82
as
it
and
is,
on
an
executory
and
jurisdiction
to
Section
7
of
the
o:f
the
DECISION C.T.A. CASE NO. 4491
- 6 -
Republic Act No.
the
other
deficiency
Respondent did not avail of
1125.
remedies
the
for
assessments
of
collection
because
precisely
said
of
the
judicial action pending before this Court.
It
is
therefore
not
true
that
the
right
taxes
respondent to collect the assessed deficiency
has
already
prescribed
with
the
dismissal
complaint for collection and
its failure
collection
thereof
other
five
following
years
through
assessment
the
of
the
to enforce
remedies
of
of
within
tax.
The
propriety of the assessments were disputed and still
awaiting
not
resolution
become final,
by
this
Court,
hence they
have
executory and demandable pursuant
to Section 315 - A <now Section 229> of the Tax Code.
Respondent
contends
"commercial broker"
a
"commission
petitioner
"commercial
Ironically,
that
is
a
based on the premise that i t is
merchant".
and
petitioner
claims
broker"
nor
This
that
a
it
was
denied
is
neither
•commission
by
a
merchant•.
both parties cite as authority for their
conflicting position the same definition in the Tax
Code,
as follows:
"TITLE V. TAXES ON BUSINESS
Section
defined. -
187.
Words
and
phrases
---- ---DECISION C.T.A. CASE NO.
4491
- 7 In applying the provisions o£ this
Title, words and phrases shall be taken in
the sense and extension indicated below:
XXX
XXX
XXX
<t>
"Commercial broker" includes all
persons,
other
than
importers,
manu£actures,
producers
or
bona
£ide
employees, who for compensation or pro£i t,
s~!..L....9X._ !:?..£.~..!!Q._S! b o '}. t __ g;_~.l~_f;l___Q_
;r___.J.!U L_q_!l~ s_es _q_
t_
.!!!~.!:9..h.S!!!.~ it:t~--'for other persons or bring
prop osed buyers and sel l e r s together, or
negotia te freights or other business £or
owners of vessels ,
or other means o£
tr ansportation .
The
te r m
:I:..!H;;.lJ.lde~
9..2..'!'.!'1 ,t.s~_ t..Q_r)______!!!g.r.:.9.h.~.n :t.~. .
( Und erscoring
supplied. >
XXX
XXX
XXX
nt."
!!t~ _ _ _
a ___JL~r.-~.QJl
qa .l,-~~..§.!:!...f.tu.___Jl...t__fl..K9..!t a n_g_~
of
pe~ son al
groperty
of
whatever
gJ:u.traQ....t-9.. -!...
Except
s sp cial ly provided,
the term includ e m nufacturers who sel l
articl a
of
their
ow n
production.
<Underscoring supplied)
<w >
"M ~h.
~.9.~9§'SL. J._~_ J:u~...-
XKX. "
XXX
" c o mmi e
A
respondent,
commercia l
a
is
merchant",
on
according
to
whom
the
agent
possessi on of personalty ia entrusted by or for the
owner,
to be so ld,
o£ the agent • s
to goods
for
u sua l
tr ade or
other
Novembe r
hand,
merchant"
business,
i n pursuance
vi th
title
remaining in the principal.
of Internal Revenue va.
L-18297,
compensa tion,
as
29,
Calvallader Paci£ic Co•pany,
1966 :
18
SC RA
833. )
On
the
)
petitioner
one engaged
d ef ines
in
the
a
•commission
purchase and
sale
DECISION C.T.A. CASE NO.
4491
-
for
another
purpose,
of
is
8
personal
placed
in
-
property
his
which,
possession
principal and the purchaser or vendor,
property
which
at
his
Phil.
is
the
but also with
subject
matter
of
<Pacific Co••ercia1 Co•pany vs.
transaction.
68
and
this
He maintains a relation not only with his
disposal.
the
for
Both
398 >.
defini tiona
can
be
the
Yatco,
:found
in
Moreno's Philippine Law Dictionary <Third Edition>.
The crux
of
the
controversy appears
whether or not "insurance" is a
a
rooted
in
personal property or
merchandise in the contemplation of the foregoing
provisions
of
the
law.
Respondent
personal
property
hence,
procures
it
a
for
commercial
broker.
petitioner
who
personal
property
nor
who
commission
A
claims
one
contrary
that
a
considers
it
negotiates
is
is
insurance
merchandise
and
considered
v~ew
ie
and
ita purchase or sale does not make one a
a
a
held
by
neither
a
there:fore
commercial
broker.
The term "merchandise" may be and often is used
)
as the synonym of "goods",
<Hartwe11
954).
"wares" and "commodities"
vs. Insurance Co•pany,
Webaters
<Unbridged,
Third
November
1972
aforesaid words as follows:
84
Me.
International
printing)
524, 24
Atl.
Dictionary
defines
the
DECISION C.T.A. CASE NO.
4491
-
9 -
"Merchandise" as "the commodities
goods
that
are
bought
and
sold
busin ess ; the wares of commerce".
or
in
"Goods and Chattels" as "animate or
inanimate
personal
property
that
is
vis i ble,
tangible
and
movable
and
has
intrinsic value in itself as distinguished
from real estate or freehold property or
from personal prop er ty of the class of
chases in action.
"Wares"
as
"man ufactured
articles,
products of art or craft or farm produce
offered for sale ; articles of me rchan dise;
goods; commodities."
All
these
terms
connote
so mething
tangible
as
distinguished from intangible things.
A co ntract of insurance is an agreement whereby
one
undertakes
another
from
aqainst
an
part of a
of
damaqe
or
contingent
Decree
persons
No.
612,
bearing
Commercial
Volume II,
not
consideratio n
or
to
indemnify
liability
event
as
ariFiinq
<Section
amended>.
plan to distribute the risk among a
<Agbayani,
is
a
lOf=u=r,
unknown
Presidential
group
for
Lava
£1986 Edition],
a
Accordingly,
tangible
somewhat
of
pp.
sim i lar
the
or
is
large
risks
Philippines,
Certainly,
5-6).
object
It
2,
it
merchandise.
a
one who sells or brings about sales or
purchases of insurance is not a "commercial broker".
"Insurance"
conte mplat ed
Section 187<w>
in
is
neither
the
of the
a
personal
definition
Tax Code,
n •_)
~
\.} ,-..., t}
of
property
"merchant"
as amended.
as
in
Since
DECISION C.T.A. CASE NO.
4491
-
petitioner
for
is
another
not
of
10 -
engaged
personal
"commission merchant"
in
the
purchase
property,
it
or
is
sale
not
a
which is included in the term
"commercial broker. "
This Court
had
occasion
to
rule
on
a
similar
issue in the case of Warner Barnes and Co•pany. Ltd.
vs.
CoMMissioner
No.
1825
January 4,
dated
1978).
of
Interna1
September
21,
In said ca e,
Revenue
<CTA
Case
1972/G.R.
L -357 98,
the Court
made the
following declaration:
~The
commission
r~ceived
by
pet t'oner
as
insurance
agent
of
Commonwealth
nsurance Company are not
subject to the broker's perc ntage ta x <GX
o
g r oss reeeipts) because petitioner is
neither
a
c omm rei 1
broker
nor
a
m rchan
under
the
above
comm saion
at tutory
d~ init · n".
( re:f rri ng
to
Section l94<t> of the Tax Co de .)
XXX
"The Supreme Court in th
case of
Behn.
Key r
end
CoMpany
Li ited
vs.
PhiL 274> defines
No1ting and Garcia (3
a b oker in its bro d scope as follows:
••. A broker is gener lly defined
as one :!.h 9. .....!.~.....!!tH9 ag_e.~. - :t'.P.r.........Q.:~. ti!?.X.::~ .. _ _g_
n
~- ....9C?..~.!!!..:i.....gt.... .9Jh.....- .1L.9.9..t._:J.JiltJ.Jl.g _____Q.Q.D t ~a ct.
!'.. ~- l~_tJ... Y..~ .....t ..q .._J!LQP.~X..t.Y........'!..:i...t.h.......t. tl e _...Q_~st od_y
Qf__.__~hJ....9.h . . .......hE?. . . .. . . .h a e .......- JJQ___c:;;..P.n.Q,.qJ:nJ.. the
negotiator
between
other
parties,
never acting on his own name, but in
the name of those who employed him;
he
a strictly a midd ema n and for
some
purposes
the
agent
of
both
parties.
(19 Cyc. ,
186: Henderson
vs. The Stat , 50 Ind., 234: Black's
Law Diet· on l"Y. )
A........b ~.C!.~.E?-~---··· ffil. _____ qn~
w~ o ~-~---9.C:P u_p__"t;.J.p ~-···· ·.. __ . ..t Q_ QrJ.n.9 .........P.ill~:rj:.J.,._~a.
DECISION CASE NO.
C.T.A.
4491
-
11 -
.t.9 g~_!;h~L____t;_Q__Q.~ :t.Q~ i..!\..L __qr_____!, Q.---~-ru:: g~!.rr
f. C?.L__t_l}~m..______!_n __ m.~J;_t._~r s
o :f
trade
9 QJ!!.m.~:r;:g_e o r_n.~ v !g_~_t i of!.
"From
the
foregoing
statutory
de.finition of a "commercial broker", the
Supreme Court's definition o:f a "broker",
and our
analysis of the indispensable
elements constituting
the consideration
and activity of a commercial broker, we
hold that t he compensation received by
petitioner as an insurance agen t is not
subject
to
the
commercia l
broker's
percent age tax.
In the first place, a
commercia l
b roker d eals in trans actions
involving
perso nal
p roperty
like
me rchandise and freight.
In the sec ond
place,
an
insurance
agent
deals
on
activity ot h er than th ose e numer.a ted in
Secti on 194<t) of the Revenue Code, ~U~!:~·
And
finally,
an
insurance
con tract
inv o lves indemnity while the services o:f a
broker invo l ves agency. "
XXX
XXX
XXX
"Under th
£oregoi ng d fin tion and
consideri ng the anal ysis and discussion
previously made by t h · s Court, we cannot
hold
petit oner
a
commissi on
merchant
subject
to
the
commercia l
broker's
percentage tax i mpo sed by Section 195 o:f
the Revenue Code . "
As can be
ead 'ly not ed in t he discussi on ,
the
selling of insura n ce by petitioner is not within the
purview
of
"commission
th e
term
merchant",
" commercia l
and
broker"
therefo re ,
it
is
or
not
subject to the GY. commercial broker' s tax.
Ironi ca lly,
tax
credit
o.f
this
case
started
a lleged
c ontract or 's tax for taxabl e
th e
amounts
of
erro neou s ly
a
claim
paid
:for
31.
y ears 1 98 1 and 1982 in
P1,146,913.7 2
92
as
)
and
P677,022 . 31,
DECISION C.T.A. CAS~ NO.
4491
-
respectively.
Petitioner contends that the sale o£
cannot
insurance
12 -
within
fall
natu re
the
and
classification of the 17 items listed as subject to
contractor's tax under Section 191 <later renumbered
205)
of the Tax Code,
allegedly no
Hence,
as amended.
legal basis for
the
there is
payment of the 3Y.
contractor's tax on commissions derived from sale o£
insurance.
<PP·
BIR
112-115,
respondent did not act on it,
case to
this Court
The only
3602.
whether
petitioner brought the
and docketed as C. T. A.
question
petitioner
Since
records. >
involved
insurance
in
said
broker
Case No.
case
is
is
an
inde pendent contractor within the meaning of Section
205
of
the
Tax
Code.
The
decision dated December 28 ,
Court,
in
a
majority
1987 ru led as f ollows :
"We conclude and this is all that We
need
decide
that
the
petitioner
corporation
"who
acts
as
a
middleman
between
insured
and
compan y,
and
who
solicits insurance from the publi c under
no employment from any special company and
places order of insuranc e
with company
selected by insured or in absence o£ any
selection, with company selected by such
broker <P acific Fiere Ins. Co. v . Bowers,
162 Ba 349,
175 S.E.
763,
Black's Law
Dictionary, 4th Ed. 945)," is precisely
the
kind
of
activity
whic h
the
term
"!.ng~ p-~_Qg_!?_Q1;._ .... _.Q.Q!l.tr. ~.P.-t.Q..r. "
was designed to
embrace .
And ,
We sh _ll be 1 sa than
respecting the full and compelling import
of the statut e should We grant further
exception into it.
Petitioner cannot have
the best of two worlds .
<Underscoring
supplied . >
9 r.:.. uc
<)
.J
DECISION C.T.A. CASE NO. 4491
-
13 -
hereby
WHEREFORE,
petition
is
dismissed at petitioner's cost. "
The
a:foreetated
Court
in
its
C.T.A.
Case No.
ruling
decision
3920
was
dated
rei t erated
Janua ry
15,
by
the
1988
in
· nvolving the s ame parties and
the same issue b ut covering the period April 1983 to
February 1984.
When
Appeals
appealed
:found
deviate :from
hence,
no
on
certiorari,
cogent
or
the a bo ve-quoted
the
Court
o:f
compelling
reason
to
ruli ng o:f this Court
it dis mi ssed the petitio ns in both cases and
affirmed the decisions of the Cour t
in £.T.A Case No .
3602 and C.T.A.
of Ta x
Appeals
Case No.
3920 in
1989 .
<GA-G. R.
its decision promulgated on May 15,
SP No.
15559 and 15560. )
The
Supreme
mot·on
petitioner's
:finalit y,
no
having
been
sought
(G. R.
Cou rt
:for
cogent
adduced
Nos.
r esolved
reconsideration
reason
to
deny
to
or
warrant
substantial
the
t he
with
matter
reconsideration
88370 and 88371 dated October 4,
1989.).
However,
. decisions,
endorsed
p ior
Revenue
on
investigation
there
ar e
the
Examiner
October
that
to
15,
1 984
:forego in g
Gavino
h ie
v.
deficiency
:fixed
0 'J -
J ,_ '
and
Pineda
:findings
instead of excess tax
Court
upon
payments,
percentage
taxes.
DECISION C.T.A. CASE NO.
4491
- 14 -
Petitioner is allegedly a
to
6X
tax
on
its
commerci al broker subject
quarterly
gross
receipts
only paid the 3X contractor's tax.
Accordingly,
records. >
NARD-8 1 - 82 - B- 85
assessment
Ju ly
26,
BIR
demand
no.
and
1985
was
issued
gave
rise
to
the
instant
involve
the
same
parties,
the
same
covers
the
same
subject
y ears ,
matter,
3602.
taxable
causes
that
an
rendered
this
existing
up on
collusion,
by
the
a
d oc trine
court
o:f
res
judgment
final
merits,
o:f
and
rig hts of
the
all other actions o r
competen t
parti e a
or
decree
:fraud
points and
Ju r.
is conclusive
their
privies,
in
suits in the sa me or any other
matters in iss ue in
908;
or
jurisdiction,
judicial tribunal of concurre nt jurisdiction,
Am.
Case
judicata
or
without
up on a matter within its jurisdiction,
of the
o:f
Petitioner t hereby invoked res judicata.
Briefly stated,
is
on
case
action and issues as already decided in C.T.A.
No.
it
136-137,
This
petitioner .
which
dated
<pp.
but
National
on the
the :first suit.
Bank v.
Barretto,
52
<30
Phil.
818. )
The
fundamental
pr inci ples
res
o:f
finality of judgment and estoppel by
are
interchangeable
Section
49,
Rule
39
in
meaning
of
the
states the :following:
830
judgment which
are
Rules
judicata,
o:f
embodied
Court
in
which
DECISION C.T.A. CASE NO. 4491
-
15 -
The
"Sec . 49. ~.f.:f.~_c;j:_Q.;f_ _j_\!QQ...l!'.§'_tl t §..
judgment
or
f nal
order
effect
of
a
court or
judge o£ the
rendered by a
having
jurisdiction
to
Philippines,
judgment
or
order,
may
be
as
pronounce the
follows:
XXX
XXX
XXX
( b > In other cases the judgment or
order
is ,
with respect
to the matter
directly adjudged or as to any other
matter th at could h a ve bee n raised in
relation thereto , Q..QJlQ. t,t~.i.Y.~ between the
parties and their successors in interest
by title subseq uent to the co mmencement of
the
action
or
special
proceeding,
li tigati n g for the same thing and under
the same title and in the s ame ca paci ty.
<Underscoring supplied.)
<c > In any other litigation bet ween
the same parties or their successors in
inter at , that on1y is deem d to have been
adjudged
in
a
£or mer
judgement
which
appears up n its face to have been so
adjudged ,
or
which
was
actually
and
necessar ily inc l uded therei n or necessary
thereto. "
The do c trine
The first
the
of
is the effect of a
prosecutio n
of
a
second
that
fact
or
parties
it
precludes
issues
on
<Lopez va.
a
in
act ion
different
Reyes,
76 SCRA 179 >.
G. R.
Th us ,
actio n
claim
No.
upon
bar to
the
sa me
The second aspect
reli tigation
another
two aspects.
judgement as a
claim, demand or cause of action.
is
h s
judicat a
rf£'
or
L-29498,
of
a
between
cause
particular
the
of
March 31,
same
action
1977,
a party by varying the form of
action or method of case presenta tion cannot esca pe
DECISION C.T.A. CASE NO. 4491
-
16 -
the effect of the principle of res judicata nor can
a
avoid an estoppel of a former
party
bringing
forward
action
second
a
in
judgment by
new
or
additional grounds in support of his case or defense
or new arguments to sustain it,
the facts remaining
the same at least where such additional matter could
have
been
pleaded
and
adjudicated
in
the
action. <Filinvest Credit Corporation vs.
Jovito
z.
"anaoag, G.R.
No .
66641,
prior
I.A.C.
and
March 6,1992,
207
SCRA 59>.
In
order
following
that
there
requisites
must
former judgment must be
rendered
by
a
may
court
be res
be
final~
having
between
parties,
on
the
the
first
me ri ts;
and
and
second
of subject-matter,
<a>
the
(b) it must have been
jurisdiction
(c)
(d)
of
the
it must be a
there
actions,
must
identity
be,
o:f
and o:f cause o:f action.
<Alejandrino v. Cardona, 70 Phil.
find
the
present:
subject matter and of the parties:
judgment
,iudicata,
281.)
Using the aforesaid checklist as yardstick,
We
that
in
the
doctrine
the case at bar.
(1)
c .. T.A.
The
re-s
judicata applies
Consider the following:
judgment
Case No.
of
rendered
by
the
Court
in
3602 was affirmed by the Court o:f
Appeals and the Supreme Court denied the motions for
its reconsideration with finality.
832
)
DECISION C.T.A. CASE NO. 4491
-
(2 >
The CTA,
the subject
17 -
CA and SC have jurisdiction over
matter and
parties to
t~e
the case
in
acc o rdance with law.
the
judgment
The
( 3)
and
a~gumente
was
the
based
on
the
meri t.s
adduced
evidence
by
of
the
contending part i es .
In both CTA
<4>
case,
No.
C ~ se
3602 and the instant
the taxable years
the parties were i dentical,
'
inv o lved
test ~ monial
ev i qe~ c e
wer e · adopted
aJld
. '
documentary
all
the
wer ~
•'
in
p~es e~ted
the
off
e .r :;'.1
ed
.
the
first
second
and
case
case,o,
th~
sub ~ e~ t matter a~d th~ ~~~ s ' of action were likewis~
'
~
.'
.
the sa me.
It
tha t
is a
concl usive,
no t
cor~roversy
in
also
and
issues which
t he
.
...
b et"e~n
o~ ly
parties
subject
th e
to
a~
.,
same
the
case,
q ther
upon
might
the
involving
a:tct
ions
,.·. · . , .
'
matters
all-.
~:··
h a v'e
t> e en
is
mattt:t"r
in ,the act i e n upon which it is
all
question,
in
lo nQ · rec ogn i zed in this country,
r ~ l e,
judgme n~
a
,:
base~
the
involved
in
in
b~t
same
tne
litigated and decided
pr~ a~ mption
being
that
all
such
..
is~ues
were met and d egi ded.
It is not the policy
of the law to allow a ~e w and different suit b~twe~~
the
same
partie~:J,
. cpncerning
~
mat~~ r,
wil t
·',
the
that
has
law allow
.. '.
a~r ~~~ y
been
th_r _· p ~ rties
'').
() ' )
r
v ·u ~...)
··
the
same
subject
litigated~
neither
to
t r ifle wi ttl · tta!='
DECISION C.T.A . CASE
~0. - 4~91
- l8 <Palanca v. Quiros,
pie c~me~l _ ~itigation.
courts by
~
..
.
.
10 Phil 360. )
The doctrine -of
..... · .. r~s judicata is an old axiom of
"'.
'·•
dictate~
the law,
1
~y" wisdom
. : ~ .~ . ,. .
and is founded on the
~~op~
.' ' . .
.....·
the interest
~-
end
•
,w
• •
~
) __ •
litigatipn , by
•. i
privies
':
1, •
''
long -· enough
beinQ brought
view
C.T.A. · Case
matt~ f
same
once
• •
to
~~
...
•
un~er
that
J.
,·
·-
~
~
". \ •
.•.
~
'
shoul~
<Fernandez v.
trat
the
jud gmen ~
· · .b.;oker
... insurance.
'
l
,I
•
~
liable
to
is
:; _/·
the
x't.
"Since p4Pt+.t.ip" ~ r is eng ag ed i n the
of ins ur~;tnee for: a fee and . does not
· .f4f.l. under any
~~~ -: eKceptio ns -~xpres sly
me·ntioned by the la'f· . <refers to Section
~q5 of the Tax :todfi!.·:_ t; it is thus s ubject
to the 3X contractor~~' t fee •
~a,\.e
.I
'q!
•
•'
"xxx,
an
broker
subject
qoptractor 's tax . .... ·. ·.- : . 'Cci ting BIR
dated
April 12, 19 7~i
.,
~ inde p endent
irieu.-.rance
cont~~~tor•
~
'} '1-
'
~
..
.
iQ
..
... ·.
.8
u
• ._·
I
'the
an
3Y.
•
>fl~~ --. categorically stated
'
'
,.
the f~Qdings of the Court ' of Appeals that:
contr~ctor's
be
for human life is not
...
coritr~ctor"
tax ~
l i t i gat ion
- ~-ia · qonclQsiv~- .\ rega r ding
~..
'.
f air ly
;
peti ttoner
. . ... ·.-•. '
"inq ~pendent
their
pf -:.~at ters once dispose~ of
No . .. ~~0,?
that
and
fully
agai n .
...disc~s~ipn
.
' .' . .
.
;_
and
'
thereof,", ~e · · pold
.·
parties
very object of instituting
...
. .
l(lq:~w
•
there should be an
•
and dec~d~c$· _:fi.p·~~~Y·
decided,
~n
• •
th ~
.
ju~~~_c~
of
age,
,,·;':'
In~eed~
the oourts
•
subject.
.•
by
principle -that i t is to
the
. ..
a
over
sa nc tif ied
~
.
of the publt.o that
'
~o·
and
i
is
an
to
3Y.
Ruling
in
... .
•'
'
'~'
....
.
,.
·'
DECISION -:C.T.A. CASE NO.' 4491
-".. . : '~
- 19 -
"It is clear from the foregoing that
insurance brokers who~e activity consists
in
the ' ;• ren~i tion of services for the
a~sured a~~ ~u bjec t t~ the 3X contractor's
tax imposed i n SectiQn 191 of the Tax Code
Cndw
Sectio~
205> · since
the insurance
br oker does · not fall within the definition
a
commercial
broker as defined in
Section 1~4<t> ·'alae,; "pt . the same Code xxx. •
({bid. )
. :. .
of '
;.!. ~-
W~EREFORE,
defioi ~nc y
fixed
year ;:. 1981
P4, 972, 798. 02
and are
the
'
and
disp uted
p~ J-p entage
the
~~82
hereby
No costa.
' ,.
50, -ORDERED.
, ·.
~
WE CONCUR:
ce~\Q~~
ERNESTO D ACOSTA
presiding Judg_~
~
- ~ss ociate Judg ~
M~n~la,
• f
taxes
total
pancelled
...
Quezon City Met r o
assessments
•
and
for
for
taxable
amount
set
of
aside .
,.
·.· ·.
DECISION
C . T. A.
CA!"; f
Nf? -
11•1 1
- 20 -
.
..
I
•
J..
.·,
.•
. .
CE RTIFICATION
.
I her eby certify that this decision was reac heq
•
after
due
~
I
consultation
among
t he
members
of
tp~
Court of Tax Appeals i ri accordance with Section 1 3,
A r~icle
VIII of the Con s tit u tion.
~\Q,~
ERNESTO D. ACOSTA
Presiding Judg e
Court of Tax Appeals