Republic of the Philippines
SUPREME COURT
Manila
EN BANC
G.R. No. L-23395 October 31, 1967
AUYONG HIAN, petitioner,
vs.
THE COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, respondent.
Gamboa and Gamboa and Antonio T. Rodriguez for petitioner.
Office of the Solicitor General for respondent.
SANCHEZ, J.:
On motion of the Solicitor General urging the dismissal of the appeal. Ground: The issues raised have become moot and academic.
Following are the background facts:
On September 1, 1958, the Republic stated suit1 against Auyong Hian in the Court of First Instance of Manila to enforce collection of defendant's deficiency income taxes, itemized as follows:
|
Assessment No. |
For the Year |
A m o u n t |
|
A-1692 |
1946 |
P 185.43 |
|
A-1947 |
1947 |
6,148.83 |
|
A-24753 |
1948 |
1,782.39 |
|
A-29572 |
1949 |
569.98 |
|
A-17052 |
1950 |
4,027.50 |
|
A-23121 |
1951 |
147,519.00 |
|
T o t a l |
P160,233.13 |
On October 20, 1961, judgment was rendered in favor of the plaintiff. This judgment was, however, set aside and the hearing reopened by order of February 1, 1962.
After rehearing, the trial court, on July 12, 1963, adjudged:
IN VIEW OF ALL THE FOREGOING, the Court renders judgment in favor of the plaintiff and against the defendant, Auyong Hian, and orders said defendant Auyong Hian to pay to the plaintiff the amounts of P185.43, P6,148.83, P1,782.39, P569.98, P4,027.50 and P147,519.00, plus surcharges for delinquency equivalent to five percent (5%) of the above amounts and one percent (1%) monthly interest from February 21, 1957, until fully paid. With costs against the defendant.
Two motions for reconsideration and/or new trial — the first dated July 24, 1963, and the other, October 30, 1963 — were rejected by orders of October 19, 1963 and December 2, 1963.
Auyong Hian appealed to the Court of Appeals.
On September 20, 1966, the Court of Appeals affirmed, thus: "WHEREFORE, finding no reversible error in the judgment appealed from, the same is hereby affirmed in toto with costs against the defendant-appellant."
Auyong Hian sought to have the appellate court's judgment reviewed on certiorari by this Court.2 By resolution of this Court dated December 14, 1966, we dismissed his petition for lack of merit. This dismissal became final and executory on March 31, 1967. In the meantime, in the Court of Tax Appeals, Auyong Hian, on September 9, 1963, filed a "Petition for Review,"3 questioning the correctness of the very same assessments for deficiency income taxes made by respondent Commissioner of Internal Revenue, and subject of the litigation concluded as just stated. These assessments again are:
|
Assessment No. |
For the Year |
A m o u n t |
|
A-1692 |
1946 |
P 185.43 |
|
A-1947 |
1947 |
6,148.83 |
|
A-24753 |
1948 |
1,782.39 |
|
A-29572 |
1949 |
569.98 |
|
A-17052 |
1950 |
4,027.50 |
|
A-23121 |
1951 |
147,519.00 |
|
T o t a l |
P160,233.13 |
On December 2, 1963, respondent Commissioner moved to dismiss the petition, because: (1) the Court of Tax Appeals had no jurisdiction to take cognizance of the case as the 30-day period within which to bring an appeal to said court had already lapsed; and (2) there is another action pending between the same parties for the same cause of action.
On March 3, 1964, the Court of Tax Appeals dismissed the case, as prayed for.
Reconsideration sought was, on August 3, 1964, rejected.
The case at bar is a direct appeal from the dismissal order of the Court of Tax Appeals.
Required by this Court to comment on respondent's motion to dismiss the present appeal, planted upon the ground, as heretofore stated, that the issues raised have become moot and academic, petitioner Auyong Hian puts forth the argument that the prior decision definitely concluded in L-26790 does not constitute res judicata to the present case. This posture does not deserve consideration. And, the appeal must be dismissed. For, as rightly suggested by the Solicitor General, it has, indeed, become moot and academic.4
Identity of subject matter between Civil Case 37371 and CTA Case 1449 is beyond debate. Both involve assessments for deficiency income taxes for the years 1946, 1947, 1948, 1949, 1950 and 1951 in the aggregate sum of P160,223.13. The trial court's judgment in Civil Case 37371 finding for the plaintiff, was appealed to the Court of Appeals. It was affirmed in toto by said court. Not contented, appellant (petitioner herein) came to this Court on appeal by certiorari. His petition was denied. Implicit in that denial is this Court's unqualified approbation of the Court of Appeals' decision. With the finality of this Court's resolution dismissing the petition for certiorari, the question as to the amount of the deficiency income taxes of Auyong Hian for the years 1946-1951 inclusive, became settled matter. The correctness of these assessments may not now be inquired into. Because "[p]ublic policy and sound practice demand that at the risk of occasional errors, judgments of courts should become final at some definite date fixed by law", and "[t]he very object for which courts were instituted was to put an end to controversies."5
For the reasons given, the appeal herein is hereby dismissed. Costs against petitioner. So ordered.
Concepcion, C.J., Reyes, J.B.L., Dizon, Makalintal, Bengzon, J.P., Zaldivar, Castro, Angeles and Fernando, JJ., concur.
Footnotes
1 Civil Case No. 37371 entitled "Republic of the Philippines, plaintiff, vs. Auyong Hian, defendant."
2 Auyong Hian vs. The Court of Appeals, et al., L-26790.
3 CTA Case No. 1449, Auyong Hian, petitioner, vs. The Commissioner of Internal Revenue, respondent."
4 In pari causa: General Offset Press Inc., Co. vs. Anatalio, L-20467 and L-20468, July 26, 1966. In this case, GOP filed a complaint for ejectment against defendants in the Municipal Court of Quezon City. Judgment was rendered in its favor. To thwart immediate execution, defendants filed a petition for certiorari in the Court of First Instance of Rizal. Thereafter, he appealed the municipal court's decision in the ejectment case also to the Court of First Instance of Rizal. Again, GOP won on appeal. Defendants then interposed an appeal to this Court.
While the ejectment case was on appeal with the Court of First Instance of Rizal, defendants lodged in the same court an action to quiet title over the same parcel of land, subject of the ejectment suit. It was dismissed. Appeal from this dismissal to the Court of Appeals was also dismissed, appellants' brief having been filed out of time. A petition for certiorari (L-25598) filed with this Court suffered the same fate for having been registered out of time. Dismissal of the action to quiet title thus became final.
GOP then moved to dismiss the appeal of the ejectment case to this Court. Ground: It has become moot and academic upon the finality of the order in the action for quieting of title. We granted this motion and, on reconsideration, affirmed. We there said:
"We find no reason for reconsidering our resolution of April 20, 1966. With the dismissal by this Court of G.R. No. L-25598, the title and ownership of GOP over the disputed property, as against a similar claim thereto by the herein appellants, became an established, settled and incontestable fact. Thus, the one and sole issue raised by the same appellants in the appeal at bar is indeed now moot and academic. To be sure, no fair or useful purpose can be realized by either of the parties hereto if the present appeal were still to be maintained. For, if this Court were to allow appeal to take its regular course and decide the same on the merits in favor of the appellants, then it would have caused the promulgation of two utterly conflicting decisions, namely: its resolution dismissing G.R. No. L-25598 and its decision on the merits finding the appellants the real owners of the land in dispute. On the other hand, if this Court were to decide this appeal on the merits in favor of the appellees, then exactly the same result would have been realized as were this case to be dismissed, as we do dismiss it now."
5 Dy Cay vs. Crossfield & O'Brien, 38 Phil. 521, 526.
The Lawphil Project - Arellano Law Foundation
