Philex Mining Corporation v CIR GR No 125704, August 28, 1998

FACTS:
BIR sent a letter to Philex asking it to settle its tax liabilities amounting to P124 million. Philex protested the
demand for payment stating that it has pending claims for VAT input credit/refund amounting to P120 million.
Therefore, these claims for tax credit/refund should be applied against the tax liabilities.
In reply the BIR found no merit in Philex’s position. On appeal, the CTA reduced the tax liability of Philex.

ISSUES:

1. Whether legal compensation can properly take place between the VAT input credit/refund and the
excise tax liabilities of
Philex Mining Corp;
2. Whether the BIR has violated the NIRC which requires the refund of input taxes within 60 days
3. Whether the violation by BIR is sufficient to justify non-payment by Philex

RULING:

1. No, legal compensation cannot take place. The government and the taxpayer are not creditors and
debtors of each other.
2. Yes, the BIR has violated the NIRC. It took five years for the BIR to grant its claim for VAT input credit.
Obviously, had the
BIR been more diligent and judicious with their duty, it could have granted the refund
3. No, despite the lethargic manner by which the BIR handled Philex’s tax claim, it is a settled rule that in
the performance of
government function, the State is not bound by the neglect of its agents and officers. It must be
stressed that the same is not a valid reason for the non-payment of its tax liabilities. 
G.R. No. 125704. August 28, 1998.*

PHILEX MINING CORPORATION, petitioner, vs. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, COURT OF

_________________

* THIRD DIVISION.

SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Philex Mining Corporation vs. Commissioner of Internal Revenue

several instances prior to the instant case, we have already made the pronouncement that taxes cannot be
subject to compensation for the simple reason that the government and the taxpayer are not creditors and
debtors of each other. There is a material distinction between a tax and debt. Debts are due to the Government
in its corporate capacity, while taxes are due to the Government in its sovereign capacity. We find no cogent
reason to deviate from the aforementioned distinction. Prescinding from this premise, in Francia v.
Intermediate Appellate Court, we categorically held that taxes cannot be subject to set-off or compensation,
thus: “We have consistently ruled that there can be no off-setting of taxes against the claims that the taxpayer
may have against the government. A person cannot refuse to pay a tax on the ground that the government
owes him an amount equal to or greater than the tax being collected. The collection of a tax cannot await the
results of a lawsuit against the government.”

Same; Same; Same; The holding in Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Itogon-Suyoc Mines, Inc., 28 SCRA
867 (1969), that a pending refund may be set off against an existing tax liability even though the refund has not
yet been approved by the Commissioner, has no longer any support in statutory law.—Further, Philex’s
reliance on our holding in Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. ItogonSuyoc Mines, Inc., wherein we ruled that
a pending refund may be set off against an existing tax liability even though the refund has not yet been
approved by the Commissioner, is no longer without any support in statutory law. It is important to note that the
premise of our ruling in the aforementioned case was anchored on Section 51(d) of the National Revenue
Code of 1939. However, when the National Internal Revenue Code of 1977 was enacted, the same provision
upon which the Itogon-Suyoc pronouncement was based was omitted. Accordingly, the doctrine enunciated in
Itogon-Suyoc cannot be invoked by Philex.

Same; Taxes are the lifeblood of the government and so should be collected without unnecessary hindrance.—
Despite the foregoing rulings clearly adverse to Philex’s position, it asserts that the imposition of surcharge and
interest for the non-payment of the excise taxes within the time prescribed was unjustified. Philex posits the
theory that it had no obligation to pay the excise tax liabilities within the prescribed period since, after all, it still
has pending claims for VAT input credit/refund with BIR. We fail to see the logic

VOL. 294, AUGUST 28, 1998

Philex Mining Corporation vs. Commissioner of Internal Revenue

of Philex’s claim for this is an outright disregard of the basic principle in tax law that taxes are the lifeblood of
the government and so should be collected without unnecessary hindrance. Evidently, to countenance Philex’s
whimsical reason would render ineffective our tax collection system. Too simplistic, it finds no support in law or
in jurisprudence.
Same; A distinguishing feature of a tax is that it is compulsory rather than a matter of bargain.—To be sure, we
cannot allow Philex to refuse the payment of its tax liabilities on the ground that it has a pending tax claim for
refund or credit against the government which has not yet been granted. It must be noted that a distinguishing
feature of a tax is that it is compulsory rather than a matter of bargain. Hence, a tax does not depend upon the
consent of the taxpayer. If any taxpayer can defer the payment of taxes by raising the defense that it still has a
pending claim for refund or credit, this would adversely affect the government revenue system. A taxpayer
cannot refuse to pay his taxes when they fall due simply because he has a claim against the government or
that the collection of the tax is contingent on the result of the lawsuit it filed against the government. Moreover,
Philex’s theory that would automatically apply its VAT input credit/refund against its tax liabilities can easily
give rise to confusion and abuse, depriving the government of authority over the manner by which taxpayers
credit and offset their tax liabilities.

Same; Surcharges; The payment of the surcharge is mandatory and the Bureau of Internal Revenue is not
vested with any authority to waive the collection thereof.—Corollarily, the fact that Philex has pending claims
for VAT input claim/refund with the government is immaterial for the imposition of charges and penalties
prescribed under Sections 248 and 249 of the Tax Code of 1977. The payment of the surcharge is mandatory
and the BIR is not vested with any authority to waive the collection thereof. The same cannot be condoned for
flimsy reasons, similar to the one advanced by Philex in justifying its non-payment of its tax liabilities.

Same; Tax Refunds and Credit; Speedy Disposition of Cases; Once the claimant has submitted all the required
documents, it is the function of the Bureau of Internal Revenue to assess these documents with purposeful
dispatch—since taxpayers owe honesty to government, it is but just that government render fair service to the
taxpayers; Fair dealing and nothing less, is expected by the taxpayer from

SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Philex Mining Corporation vs. Commissioner of Internal Revenue

the Bureau of Internal Revenue in the latter’s discharge of its function.—Philex asserts that the BIR violated
Section 106(e) of the National Internal Revenue Code of 1977, which requires the refund of input taxes within
60 days, when it took five years for the latter to grant its tax claim for VAT input credit/refund. In this regard, we
agree with Philex. While there is no dispute that a claimant has the burden of proof to establish the factual
basis of his or her claim for tax credit or refund, however, once the claimant has submitted all the required
documents, it is the function of the BIR to assess these documents with purposeful dispatch. After all, since
taxpayers owe honesty to government it is but just that government render fair service to the taxpayers. In the
instant case, the VAT input taxes were paid between 1989 to 1991 but the refund of these erroneously paid
taxes was only granted in 1996. Obviously, had the BIR been more diligent and judicious with their duty, it
could have granted the refund earlier. We need not remind the BIR that simple justice requires the speedy
refund of wrongly-held taxes. Fair dealing and nothing less, is expected by the taxpayer from the BIR in the
latter’s discharge of its function.

Same; Same; Same; Estoppel; It is a settled rule that in the performance of governmental function, the State is
not bound by the neglect of its agents and officers, and nowhere is this more true than in the field of taxation.—
Despite our concern with the lethargic manner by which the BIR handled Philex’s tax claim, it is a settled rule
that in the performance of governmental function, the State is not bound by the neglect of its agents and
officers. Nowhere is this more true than in the field of taxation. Again, while we understand Philex’s
predicament, it must be stressed that the same is not a valid reason for the non-payment of its tax liabilities.

Same; Same; Same; Public Officers; The taxpayer is not devoid of remedy against public servants or
employees, especially BIR examiners who, in investigating tax claims are seen to drag their feet needlessly.—
To be sure, this is not to state that the taxpayer is devoid of remedy against public servants or employees,
especially BIR examiners who, in investigating tax claims are seen to drag their feet needlessly. First, if the
BIR takes time in acting upon the taxpayer’s claim for refund, the latter can seek judicial remedy before the
Court of Tax Appeals in the manner prescribed by law. Second, if the inaction can be characterized as willful
neglect of duty, then recourse under the Civil Code and the Tax Code can also be availed of.
VOL. 294, AUGUST 28, 1998

Philex Mining Corporation vs. Commissioner of Internal Revenue

Same; Same; Same; Same; Judicial Notice; Insolence and delay have no place in government service; The
Court takes judicial notice of the taxpayer’s generally negative perception towards the Bureau of Internal
Revenue.—Simply put, both provisions abhor official inaction, willful neglect and unreasonable delay in the
performance of official duties. In no uncertain terms must we stress that every public employee or servant must
strive to render service to the people with utmost diligence and efficiency. Insolence and delay have no place
in government service. The BIR, being the government collecting arm, must and should do no less. It simply
cannot be apathetic and laggard in rendering service to the taxpayer if it wishes to remain true to its mission of
hastening the country’s development. We take judicial notice of the taxpayer’s generally negative perception
towards the BIR; hence, it is up to the latter to prove its detractors wrong.

PETITION for review on certiorari of a decision of the Court of Appeals.

The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court.

     Roco, Bunag, Kapunan & Migallos for petitioner.

     The Solicitor General for respondents.

ROMERO, J.:

Petitioner Philex Mining Corp. assails the decision of the Court of Appeals promulgated on April 8, 1996 in CA-
G.R. SP No. 36975 1 affirming the Court of Tax Appeals decision in CTA Case No. 4872 dated March 16,
19952 ordering it to pay the amount of P110,677,668.52 as excise tax liability for the period from the 2nd
quarter of 1991 to the 2nd quarter of 1992 plus 20% annual interest from August 6, 1994 until fully

____________________

1 Penned by Justice Artemon D. Luna, concurred in by Justices Ramon A. Barcelona and Portia Alino-
Hormachuelos.

2 Penned by Associate Judge Manuel K. Gruba, concurred in by Presiding Judge Ernesto D. Acosta and
Associate Judge Ramon O. De Veyra.

SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Philex Mining Corporation vs. Commissioner of Internal Revenue

paid pursuant to Sections 248 and 249 of the Tax Code of 1977.

The facts show that on August 5, 1992, the BIR sent a letter to Philex asking it to settle its tax liabilities for the
2nd, 3rd and 4th quarter of 1991 as well as the 1st and 2nd quarter of 1992 in the total amount of
P123,821,982.52 computed as follows:
In a letter dated August 20, 1992,4 Philex protested the demand for payment of the tax liabilities stating that it
has pending claims for VAT input credit/refund for the taxes it paid for the years 1989 to 1991 in the amount of
P119,977,037.02 plus interest. Therefore, these claims for tax credit/refund should be applied against the tax
liabilities, citing our ruling in Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Itogon-Suyoc Mines, Inc.5

In reply, the BIR, in a letter dated September 7, 1992,6 found no merit in Philex’s position. Since these pending
claims have not yet been established or determined with certainty, it follows that no legal compensation can
take place. Hence, the BIR reiterated its demand that Philex settle the

____________________________

3 CTA Records, pp. 34-35.

4 Rollo, pp. 172-174.

5 28 SCRA 867 (1969).

6 Id., pp. 175-176.

693

VOL. 294, AUGUST 28, 1998

693

Philex Mining Corporation vs. Commissioner of Internal Revenue

amount plus interest within 30 days from the receipt of the letter.

In view of the BIR’s denial of the offsetting of Philex’s claim for VAT input credit/refund against its excise tax
obligation, Philex raised the issue to the Court of Tax Appeals on November 6, 1992.7 In the course of the
proceedings, the BIR issued Tax Credit Certificate SN 001795 in the amount of P13,144,313.88 which, applied
to the total tax liabilities of Philex of P123,821,982.52; effectively lowered the latter’s tax obligation to
P110,677,688.52.

Despite the reduction of its tax liabilities, the CTA still ordered Philex to pay the remaining balance of
P110,677,688.52 plus interest, elucidating its reason, to wit:

“Thus, for legal compensation to take place, both obligations must be liquidated and demandable. ‘Liquidated’
debts are those where the exact amount has already been determined (PARAS, Civil Code of the Philippines,
Annotated, Vol. IV, Ninth Edition, p. 259). In the instant case, the claims of the Petitioner for VAT refund is still
pending litigation, and still has to be determined by this Court (C.T.A. Case No. 4707). A fortiori, the liquidated
debt of the Petitioner to the government cannot, therefore, be set-off against the unliquidated claim which
Petitioner conceived to exist in its favor (see Compañia General de Tabacos vs. French and Unson, No.
14027, November 8, 1918, 39 Phil. 34).”8

Moreover, the Court of Tax Appeals ruled that “taxes cannot be subject to set-off on compensation since claim
for taxes is not a debt or contract.”9 The dispositive portion of the CTA decision10 provides:

“In all the foregoing, this Petition for Review is hereby DENIED for lack of merit and Petitioner is hereby
ORDERED to PAY the Respondent the amount of P110,677,668.52 representing excise

____________________

7 Docketed as Case No. 4872. Rollo, pp. 177-187.

8 Rollo, p. 55.

9 CTA Decision, Rollo, p. 59.

10 Rollo, pp. 59-60.

694

694

SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Philex Mining Corporation vs. Commissioner of Internal Revenue

tax liability for the period from the 2nd quarter of 1991 to the 2nd quarter of 1992 plus 20% annual interest from
August 6, 1994 until fully paid pursuant to Sections 248 and 249 of the Tax Code, as amended.”

Aggrieved with the decision, Philex appealed the case before the Court of Appeals docketed as CA-G.R. CV
No. 36975.11 Nonetheless, on April 8, 1996, the Court of Appeals affirmed the Court of Tax Appeals
observation. The pertinent portion of which reads:12

“WHEREFORE, the appeal by way of petition for review is hereby DISMISSED and the decision dated March
16, 1995 is AFFIRMED.”

Philex filed a motion for reconsideration which was, nevertheless, denied in a Resolution dated July 11,
1996.13

However, a few days after the denial of its motion for reconsideration, Philex was able to obtain its VAT input
credit/refund not only for the taxable year 1989 to 1991 but also for 1992 and 1994, computed as follows:14
In view of the grant of its VAT input credit/refund, Philex now contends that the same should, ipso jure, off-set
its excise

__________________

11 Rollo, pp. 87-101.

12 Rollo, p. 45.

13 Rollo, p. 48.

14 Rollo, pp. 112-116.

695

VOL. 294, AUGUST 28, 1998

695

Philex Mining Corporation vs. Commissioner of Internal Revenue

tax liabilities15 since both had already become “due and demandable, as well as fully liquidated”;16 hence,
legal compensation can properly take place.

We see no merit in this contention.

In several instances prior to the instant case, we have already made the pronouncement that taxes cannot be
subject to compensation for the simple reason that the government and the taxpayer are not creditors and
debtors of each other.17 There is a material distinction between a tax and debt. Debts are due to the
Government in its corporate capacity, while taxes are due to the Government in its sovereign capacity.18 We
find no cogent reason to deviate from the aforementioned distinction.

Prescinding from this premise, in Francia v. Intermediate Appellate Court,19 we categorically held that taxes
cannot be subject to set-off or compensation, thus:
“We have consistently ruled that there can be no off-setting of taxes against the claims that the taxpayer may
have against the government. A person cannot refuse to pay a tax on the ground that the government owes
him an amount equal to or greater than the tax being collected. The collection of a tax cannot await the results
of a lawsuit against the government.”

The ruling in Francia has been applied to the subsequent case of Caltex Philippines, Inc. v. Commission on
Audit,20 which reiterated that:

“x x x a taxpayer may not offset taxes due from the claims that he may have against the government. Taxes
cannot be the subject of

_____________________

15 Memorandum, Rollo, pp. 307-308.

16 Ibid.

17 Cordero v. Gonda, 18 SCRA 331 (1966).

18 Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Palanca, 18 SCRA 496 (1966).

19 162 SCRA 753 (1988).

20 208 SCRA 726 (1992).

696

696

SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Philex Mining Corporation vs. Commissioner of Internal Revenue

compensation because the government and taxpayer are not mutually creditors and debtors of each other and
a claim for taxes is not such a debt, demand, contract or judgment as is allowed to be setoff.”

Further, Philex’s reliance on our holding in Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Itogon-Suyoc Mines, Inc.,
wherein we ruled that a pending refund may be set off against an existing tax liability even though the refund
has not yet been approved by the Commissioner,21 is no longer without any support in statutory law.

It is important to note that the premise of our ruling in the aforementioned case was anchored on Section 51(d)
of the National Revenue Code of 1939. However, when the National Internal Revenue Code of 1977 was
enacted, the same provision upon which the Itogon-Suyoc pronouncement was based was omitted.22
Accordingly, the doctrine enunciated in ItogonSuyoc cannot be invoked by Philex.

Despite the foregoing rulings clearly adverse to Philex’s position, it asserts that the imposition of surcharge and
interest for the non-payment of the excise taxes within the time prescribed was unjustified. Philex posits the
theory that it had no obligation to pay the excise tax liabilities within the prescribed period since, after all, it still
has pending claims for VAT input credit/refund with BIR.23

We fail to see the logic of Philex’s claim for this is an outright disregard of the basic principle in tax law that
taxes are the lifeblood of the government and so should be collected without unnecessary hindrance.24
Evidently, to countenance Philex’s whimsical reason would render ineffective our tax collection system. Too
simplistic, it finds no support in law or in jurisprudence.

___________________
21 Rollo, p. 33.

22 Aban, Law on Basic Taxation, 1994, p. 19.

23 Memorandum, Rollo, p. 389.

24 Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Algue, Inc., 158 SCRA 9 (1988).

697

VOL. 294, AUGUST 28, 1998

697

Philex Mining Corporation vs. Commissioner of Internal Revenue

To be sure, we cannot allow Philex to refuse the payment of its tax liabilities on the ground that it has a
pending tax claim for refund or credit against the government which has not yet been granted. It must be noted
that a distinguishing feature of a tax is that it is compulsory rather than a matter of bargain.25 Hence, a tax
does not depend upon the consent of the taxpayer.26 If any taxpayer can defer the payment of taxes by raising
the defense that it still has a pending claim for refund or credit, this would adversely affect the government
revenue system. A taxpayer cannot refuse to pay his taxes when they fall due simply because he has a claim
against the government or that the collection of the tax is contingent on the result of the lawsuit it filed against
the government.27 Moreover, Philex’s theory that would automatically apply its VAT input credit/refund against
its tax liabilities can easily give rise to confusion and abuse, depriving the government of authority over the
manner by which taxpayers credit and offset their tax liabilities.

Corollarily, the fact that Philex has pending claims for VAT input claim/refund with the government is immaterial
for the imposition of charges and penalties prescribed under Sections 248 and 249 of the Tax Code of 1977.
The payment of the surcharge is mandatory and the BIR is not vested with any authority to waive the collection
thereof.28 The same cannot be condoned for flimsy reasons,29 similar to the one advanced by Philex in
justifying its non-payment of its tax liabilities. Finally, Philex asserts that the BIR violated Section 106(e)30 of
the National Internal Revenue Code of 1977, which

___________________

25 I Cooley, Taxation, §22.

26 Ibid.

27 Supra, note 19.

28 Republic v. Philippine Bank of Commerce, 34 SCRA 361 (1970).

29 Jamora v. Meer, 74 Phil. 22 (1942).

30 (e) Period within which refund of input taxes may be made by the Commissioner.—The Commissioner shall
refund input taxes within 60 days from the date the application for refund was filed

698

698

SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

requires the refund of input taxes within 60 days,31 when it took five years for the latter to grant its tax claim for
VAT input credit/refund.32

In this regard, we agree with Philex. While there is no dispute that a claimant has the burden of proof to
establish the factual basis of his or her claim for tax credit or refund,33 however, once the claimant has
submitted all the required documents, it is the function of the BIR to assess these documents with purposeful
dispatch. After all, since taxpayers owe honesty to government it is but just that government render fair service
to the taxpayers.34

In the instant case, the VAT input taxes were paid between 1989 to 1991 but the refund of these erroneously
paid taxes was only granted in 1996. Obviously, had the BIR been more

____________________

with him or his duly authorized representative. No refund of input taxes shall be allowed unless the VAT-
registered person files an application for refund within the period prescribed in paragraphs (a), (b) and (c) as
the case may be.

31 Rollo, pp. 32-33.

32 This provision has been amended by Section 112(D) of Republic Act 8424 entitled the “National Internal
Revenue Act of 1997.”

“(D) Period within which Refund or Tax Credit of Input Taxes shall be Made.—In proper cases, the
Commissioner shall grant a refund or issue the tax credit certificate for creditable input taxes within one
hundred twenty (120) days from the date of submission of complete documents in support of the application
filed in accordance with Subsections (A) and (B) hereof.

In case of full or partial denial of the claim for tax refund or tax credit, or the failure on the part of the
Commissioner to act on the application within the period prescribed above, the taxpayer affected may, within
thirty (30) days from the receipt of the decision denying the claim or after the expiration of the one hundred
twenty day-period, appeal the decision or the unacted claim with the Court of Tax Appeals.”

33 Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Tokyo Shipping Co. Ltd., 244 SCRA 332 (1995).

34 Ibid.

699

VOL. 294, AUGUST 28, 1998

699

Philex Mining Corporation vs. Commissioner of Internal Revenue

diligent and judicious with their duty, it could have granted the refund earlier. We need not remind the BIR that
simple justice requires the speedy refund of wrongly-held taxes.35 Fair dealing and nothing less, is expected
by the taxpayer from the BIR in the latter’s discharge of its function. As aptly held in Roxas v. Court of Tax
Appeals:36

“The power of taxation is sometimes called also the power to destroy. Therefore it should be exercised with
caution to minimize injury to the proprietary rights of a taxpayer. It must be exercised fairly, equally and
uniformly, lest the tax collector kill the ‘hen that lays the golden egg.’ And, in order to maintain the general
public’s trust and confidence in the Government this power must be used justly and not treacherously.”
Despite our concern with the lethargic manner by which the BIR handled Philex’s tax claim, it is a settled rule
that in the performance of governmental function, the State is not bound by the neglect of its agents and
officers. Nowhere is this more true than in the field of taxation.37 Again, while we understand Philex’s
predicament, it must be stressed that the same is not a valid reason for the non-payment of its tax liabilities.

To be sure, this is not to state that the taxpayer is devoid of remedy against public servants or employees,
especially BIR examiners who, in investigating tax claims are seen to drag their feet needlessly. First, if the
BIR takes time in acting upon the taxpayer’s claim for refund, the latter can seek judicial remedy before the
Court of Tax Appeals in the manner prescribed by law.38 Second, if the inaction can be character-

_____________________

35 Citibank of N.A. v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 107434, October 10, 1997.

36 23 SCRA 276 (1968).

37 Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Procter and Gamble PMC, 160 SCRA 560 (1988).

38 Insular Lumber Co. v. Court of Appeals, 104 SCRA 721 (1981); Commissioner of Internal Revenue v.
Victoria Milling Co., Inc., 22 SCRA 12 (1968).

700

700

SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Philex Mining Corporation vs. Commissioner of Internal Revenue

ized as willful neglect of duty, then recourse under the Civil Code and the Tax Code can also be availed of.

Article 27 of the Civil Code provides:

“Art. 27. Any person suffering material or moral loss because a public servant or employee refuses or neglects,
without just cause, to perform his official duty may file an action for damages and other relief against the latter,
without prejudice to any disciplinary action that may be taken.”

More importantly, Section 269 (c) of the National Internal Revenue Act of 1997 states:

“x x x      x x x      x x x

(c) wilfully neglecting to give receipts, as by law required for any sum collected in the performance of duty or
wilfully neglecting to perform, any other duties enjoined by law.”

Simply put, both provisions abhor official inaction, willful neglect and unreasonable delay in the performance of
official duties.39 In no uncertain terms must we stress that every public employee or servant must strive to
render service to the people with utmost diligence and efficiency. Insolence and delay have no place in
government service. The BIR, being the government collecting arm, must and should do no less. It simply
cannot be apathetic and laggard in rendering service to the taxpayer if it wishes to remain true to its mission of
hastening the country’s development. We take judicial notice of the taxpayer’s generally negative perception
towards the BIR; hence, it is up to the latter to prove its detractors wrong.

In sum, while we can never condone the BIR’s apparent callousness in performing its duties, still, the same
cannot justify Philex’s non-payment of its tax liabilities. The adage “no one should take the law into his own
hands” should have guided Philex’s action.
____________________

39 Tolentino, Civil Code of the Philippines, Vol. 1, 1983, p. 117.

701

VOL. 294, AUGUST 28, 1998

701

People vs. Mostrales

WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, the instant petition is hereby DISMISSED. The assailed decision of the
Court of Appeals dated April 8, 1996 is hereby AFFIRMED.

SO ORDERED.

     Narvasa (C.J., Chairman), Kapunan and Purisima, JJ., concur.

Petition dismissed, judgment affirmed.

Notes.—Uniformity of taxation merely requires that all subjects or objects of taxation, similarly situated, are to
be treated alike both in privileges and liabilities. (Tan vs. Del Rosario, Jr., 237 SCRA 324 [1994])

The two-year prescriptive period to claim refunds commences to run only from the time the refund is
ascertained, which can only be determined after a final adjustment return is accomplished. (Commissioner of
Internal Revenue vs. Philippine American Life Insurance Co., 244 SCRA 446 [1995])

——o0o——
Philex Mining Corporation vs. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, 294 SCRA 687, G.R. No. 125704 August 28,
1998