Meralco Securities Corp. vs. Savellano

Meralco Securities Corp. vs.
Savellano (October 23, 1982)

G.R. No. L-36181 TEEHANKEE, J. But on August 28,1970, Maniago filed a petitioner for
mandamus in CFI Manila against CIR and Meralco Securities to
Doctrine: compel the Commissioner to impose the alleged deficiency tax
assessment on the Meralco Securities Corporation and to award to
• The office of the CIR is charged with the administration of him the corresponding informer's reward under the provisions of
revenue law which is the primary responsibility of the executive R.A. 2338. CFI granted the writ of mandamus and ordered CIR to
branch of the government, mandamus may not lie against the assess and collect from Meralco Securites the sum of
Commissioner to compel him to impose a tax assessment not PhP51,840,612.00 as deficiency corporate income tax for the period
found by him to be due or proper for that would be tantamount 1962 to 1969 plus interests and surcharges due thereon and to pay
to a usurpation of executive functions. 25% thereof to Maniago as informer's reward.
• Mandamus cannot lie to compel the CIR to impose a deficiency Contention by CIR :
tax assessment. The CIR’s power to assess is a discretionary one.
In matters of issuance and non-issuance of assessments, he
Facts: is clothed under the National Internal Revenue Code and existing
rules and regulations with discretionary power in evaluating the
On May 22, 1967, the late Juan G. Maniago (represented facts of a case and since mandamus will not lie to compel the
by his heirs) submitted to the Commissioner of Internal Revenue performance of a discretionary power, he cannot be compelled to
(CIR) denunciation against Meralco Securities Corporation for tax impose the alleged tax deficiency assessment against the Meralco
evasion. He alleged that income tax paid by the corporation was Securities Corporation. He further argued that mandamus may not
based only from the 25% of the total dividends received from lie against him for that would be tantamount to a usurpation of
Manila Electric Co. for the year 1962-1966, thereby shortchanging executive powers, since the Office of the Commissioner of Internal
the government of income tax due from the 75% of the said Revenue is undeniably under the control of the executive
dividends. department.
CIR caused the investigation and found that there was no Issue: WON the writ of mandamus would lie against CIR
deficiency on corporate income tax due from Meralco Securities
on the dividends received from Manila Electric Co., since under the Held: NO
prevailing law (Sec24(a) of NIRC), "in the case of dividends received
by a domestic or foreign resident corporation liable to (corporate
income) tax under this Chapter . . . .only twenty-five per centum It is a well-recognized rule that mandamus only lies to
thereof shall be returnable for the purposes of the tax imposed enforce the performance of a ministerial act or duty and not to
under this section." The ruling of the CIR was affirmed by the control the performance of a discretionary power. Purely
Secretary of Finance. administrative and discretionary functions may not be interfered
with by the courts. Discretion, as thus intended, means the power or Additional Notes:
right conferred upon the office by law of acting officially under
certain circumstances according to the dictates of his own judgment Respondent judge has no jurisdiction to take cognisance of
and conscience and not controlled by the judgment or conscience of the case because the subject matter clearly falls within the
others. mandamus may not be resorted to so as to interfere with jurisdiction of the Court of Tax Appeals. Under Sec. 7 of RA No.
the manner in which the discretion shall be exercised or to influence 1125, the Court of Tax Appeals exclusive appellate jurisdiction to
or coerce a particular determination. review by appeal, among others, decisions of the Commissioner of
Internal Revenue in cases involving disputed assessments, refunds
Since the office of the CIR is charged with the of internal revenue taxes, fees or other charges, penalties imposed
administration of revenue law which is the primary responsibility of in relation thereto, or other matters arising under the National
the executive branch of the government, mandamus may not lie Internal Revenue Code or other law or part of law administered by
against the Commissioner to compel him to impose a tax the Bureau of Internal Revenue. The question of whether or not to
assessment not found by him to be due or proper for that would be impose a deficiency tax assessment on Meralco Securities
tantamount to a usurpation of executive functions. Thus, after the Corporation undoubtedly comes within the purview of the words
Commissioner who is specifically charged by law with the task of "disputed assessments" or of "other matters arising under the
enforcing and implementing the tax laws and the collection of taxes National Internal Revenue Code.
had after a mature and thorough study rendered his decision or
ruling that no tax is due or collectible, and his decision is sustained
by the Secretary, now Minister of Finance (whose act is that of the
President unless reprobated), such decision or ruling is a valid
exercise of discretion in the performance of official duty and cannot
be controlled much less reversed by mandamus. A contrary view,
whereby any stranger or informer would be allowed to usurp and
control the official functions of the Commissioner of Internal
Revenue would create disorder and confusion, if not chaos and total
disruption of the operations of the government.
Considering that respondent judge may not order by

mandamus the Commissioner to issue the assessment against
Meralco Securities Corporation when no such assessment has been
found to be due, no deficiency taxes may therefore be assessed and
collected against the said corporation. Since no taxes are to be
collected, no informer's reward is due to private respondents as the
informer's heirs.

Meralco Securities Corp. vs. Savellano

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Meralco Securities Corp. vs. Savellano

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Meralco Securities Corp. vs. Savellano

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Meralco Securities Corp. vs.

Savellano (October 23, 1982)

Considering that respondent judge may not order by

You might also like