237-Republic v. Enriquez G.R. No. 78391 October 21, 1988

Please download to get full document.

View again

of 3
All materials on our website are shared by users. If you have any questions about copyright issues, please report us to resolve them. We are always happy to assist you.
Information Report



Views: 2 | Pages: 3

Extension: PDF | Download: 0

Related documents
University of Nueva Caceres College of Law Taxation I SY 2016-2017 2nd Semester
   Republic v. EnriquezG.R. No. 78391 1 of 3 Republic of the Philippines SUPREME COURT ManilaSECOND DIVISION G.R. No. 78391 October 21, 1988REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES,  petitioner, vs. RMON G. ENRI!UE , #e$%t& S'er()) o) M*+(*, respondent. The Solicitor General for petitioner. Sison, Ortiz & Associates for petitioner. P#ILL,  J.: ppeal b! a! of certiorari fro# the decision - of the Court of ppeals in C$%.R. SP. No. &'()*, dated +& pril')-, dis#issin the petition for prohibition ith preli#inar! in/unction, filed b! petitioner Republic of thePhilippines aainst respondent Ra#on %. Enri0ue1, Deput! Sheriff of Manila. On *) 2anuar! ')(, the petitioner, throuh the Co##issioner of Internal Revenue, served a 3arrant of Distraintof Personal Propert! on the Mariti#e Co#pan! of the. Philippines to satisf! various deficienc! ta4es of saidco#pan! in the total a#ount of P-,*)5,))*.5(, pursuant to unappealed and final ta4 assess#ents. On 6 pril')(, a Receipt for %oods, and 7hins Sei1ed 8nder uthorit! of the National Internal Revenue Code ase4ecuted, herein 9ead0uarters, :irst Coast %uard District, :arola Co#pound, ;inondo, Manila, ac<no lededreceipt fro# the Co##issioner of Internal Revenue of several bares, vehicles and t o =*> bodeas of spare parts belonin to the ta4pa!er =Mariti#e Co#pan! of the Philippines>. On 5 October ')(, the correspondin Notice of Sei1ure of Personal Propert!, a cop! of hich as received b! a respresentative of the Mariti#e Co#pan! of thePhilippines, as issued b! the Co##issioner of Internal Revenue. #on the properties sei1ed ere si4 =6> bares, ;are MCP$ to ;are MCP$6. On  2une ')6, respondent sheriff levied on t o =*> bares of the Mariti#e Co#pan! of the Philippines, pursuant to a rit of e4ecution issued on ' :ebruar! ')6 b! the Reional 7rial Court of Manila, ;ranch +, inCivil Case No. )($+&+5, entitled ? Genstar Container Corporation vs. Maritime Company of the Philippines ?, infavor of the plaintiff therein. Respondent sheriff scheduled a public auction sale, of the levied bares on *+ 2une')6. 7he bares, particularl! ;are MCP$ and ;are MCP$5, ere a#on the afore#entioned propertiesdistrained and sei1ed b! petitioner, throuh the Co##issioner of Internal Revenue. On ) 2une ')6, the Co##issioner of Internal Revenue rote respondent sheriff infor#in the latter that ;areMCP$ and ;are MCP$5 ere no loner o ned b! the Mariti#e Co#pan! of the Philippines as said bares had been distrained and sei1ed b! the ;ureau of Internal Revenue in satisfaction of various deficienc! ta4es of Mariti#e Co#pan! of the Philippines, thereb! reisterin its adverse clai# over said bares. 7he letter, toether  ith the affidavit of adverse clai# and other supportin papers, as filed on ' 2une ')6 at the office of respondent deput! sheriff and as received b! one @enri0ue1, 6$'$)6, Staff II.?On *+ 2une ')6, respondent deput! sheriff sold at public auction the t o =*> bares, MCP$ and MCP$5, andissued the correspondin sheriffs certificate of sale on the sa#e date to the hihest bidder hich as the lev!increditor. On *5 2ul! ')6, petitioner filed before the Court of ppeals the afore#entioned petition for prohibition ith preli#inar! in/unction, allein that respondent sheriff, Ra#on %. Enri0ue1, acted in e4cess of his authorit!   Republic v. EnriquezG.R. No. 78391  of 3 or ith rave abuse of discretion hen he levied on e4ecution and subse0uentl! auctioned the abovesaid t o =*> bares hich ere the sub/ect of a arrant of distraint and notice of sei1ure b! the Co##issioner of InternalRevenue. Petitioner pra!ed that respondent be ordered to desist and refrain fro# further proceedins in connection ith the e4ecution and that respondentAs notice of lev! be declared null and void. In its decision, dated +& pril ')-, the Court of ppeals dis#issed the petition after findin that ?=9>e appears tohave acted in accordance ith la and in <eepin ith his duties. 7here is no perceived abuse of authorit! or raveabuse of discretion.? 9ence, this appeal. 7he onl! issue to be resolved in this appeal is the validit! and effectiveness of the ;IR arrant of distraint andnotice of sei1ure of personal propert! as aainst the rit of e4ecution issued b! the Reional 7rial Court and thelev! on e4ecution and auction sale of the bares in 0uestion. It is settled that the clai# of the overn#ent predicated on a ta4 lien is superior to the clai# of a private litiant predicated on a /ud#ent. 7he ta4 lien attaches not onl! fro# the service of the arrant of distraint of personal propert! but fro# the ti#e the ta4 beca#e due and pa!able. ;esides, the distraint on the sub/ect properties of Mariti#e Co#pan! of the Philippines as ell as the notice of their sei1ure ere #ade b! petitioner, throuh theCo##issioner of Internal Revenue, lon before the rit of e4ecution as issued b! the Reional 7rial Court of Manila, ;ranch +. 7here is no 0uestion then that at the ti#e the rit of e4ecution as issued, the t o =*> bares,MCP$ and MCP$5, ere no loner properties of the Mariti#e Co#pan! of the Philippines. 7he po er of the courtin e4ecution of /ud#ents e4tends onl! to properties un0uestionabl! belonin to the /ud#ent debtor. E4ecutionsales affect the rihts of the /ud#ent debtor onl!, and the purchaser in an auction sale ac0uires onl! such riht asthe /ud#ent debtor had at the ti#e of sale. It is also ell$settled that the sheriff is not authori1ed to attach or lev!on propert! not belonin to the /ud#ent debtor.   3hile it is correct for the Court of ppeals to declare that there are other re#edies available to the overn#ent inconnection ith its ta4 clai#s, !et, the filin of a separate action, in accordance ith Section -, Rule +', of theRules of Court ould onl! dela! final satisfaction of the ta4 liabilities of the Mariti#e Co#pan! of the Philippines.7he purpose of said rule is to afford a clai#ant an opportunit! to vindicate his o nership over the propert! leviedupon b! the sheriff. In the case at bar, ho ever, there is no further need for petitioner to establish its rihts over thet o =*> bares in 0uestion as the evidence on record clearl! proves that the bares are under distraint and, in fact,sei1ed b! petitioner, throuh the Co##issioner of Internal Revenue, in satisfaction of various final deficienc!ta4es of the Mariti#e Co#pan! of the Philippines. 7he Court of ppeals ave #uch eiht to the clai# of respondent sheriff that he as una are of an! adverseclai# over the sub/ect bares. 7his clai# is belied b! receipt in the office of respondent b! one ?@enri0ue1, 6$'$)6, Staff II? of the letter dated ) 2une ')6, fro# the Co##issioner of Internal Revenue infor#in respondentthat the t o =*> bares ere under distraint and no loner o ned b! the Mariti#e Co#pan! of the Philippines. It as incu#bent upon respondent to have re#inded #e#bers of his staff to notif! hi# i##ediatel! of i#portantco##unications or papers affectin the dischare of his official duties. Proof of due receipt b! respondentAs officeof the petitionerAs adverse clai# prevails over respondentAs denial thereof. It as not necessar! that respondentAs  personal receipt of the ;IR Co##issionerAs letter be sho n on the face of the letter. It is standard operatin procedure in overn#ent offices to #aintain lo boo<s hich record the in ard and out ard flo of officialdocu#ents and papers. ;esides, respondent never denied that @enri0ue1 Staff II? as a #e#ber of his office staff on ' 2une ')6 hen the ;IR Co##issionerAs letter reisterin the petitionerAs adverse clai# to the sub/ect bares, as received in respondentAs office. HEREFORE,  the instant petition is GRNTE#,  7he appealed decision is  SET SI#E. 7he notice of lev!   Republic v. EnriquezG.R. No. 78391 3 of 3 upon as ell as e4ecution sale of ;ares MCP$ and MCP$5 are NNULLE#  and the respondent is EN/OINE# fro# further proceedin ith their sale in Civil Case No. )($+&+5 of the Reional 7rial Court of Manila, ;ranch+. In the event that the e4ecution sale, havin been consu##ated, results in non$recover! of the aforesaid bares,respondent is ordered to re#it to the ;ureau of Internal Revenue the proceeds of the e4ecution sale of said bares,to be applied in partial satisfaction of the ta4 liabilities of Mariti#e Co#pan! of the Philippines to the Philippineovern#ent. SO OR#ERE#.    Melencio! errera #Chairman$, Paras, Sarmiento, and  %eala'o, ((., concur.
We Need Your Support
Thank you for visiting our website and your interest in our free products and services. We are nonprofit website to share and download documents. To the running of this website, we need your help to support us.

Thanks to everyone for your continued support.

No, Thanks

We need your sign to support Project to invent "SMART AND CONTROLLABLE REFLECTIVE BALLOONS" to cover the Sun and Save Our Earth.

More details...

Sign Now!

We are very appreciated for your Prompt Action!