CTA Case No. 226 (Resolution)

l'lEPQBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES COURT OF TAX APPEALS MANILA . � � 226 Pet1tion rs , � v r. s - � x.. � .. - ......... The p tition - , on Janu r:y 3 , 195:l , fil d petition to revl t e deci ion of the respond nt ass ssing t for income t x s , inclu ing sure arg and penal i _, in th su o 23 , 7 4. 22. T e respon- dent file motion to dis , ss b a ground that , t 1 an action , in en t sa parties for th e cause � The fol pea fr t e pl adings � so f r fil d by t e parti '' On arch 22 , 19~, r ond nt ssesse the pe- tition rs th ~ u of 23,7 � 22 s tnco taxe for th year 19 9 incl.uding suxcbarge (, - nex �s�, peti- tion for rev1.. ). etit1oner disput d this a ses - t and requ. � ted for reconsider tion the � of, hie � a ever denied on � rch 12, 1955. (par. 7 , p � titi n for r . i ). Aet in p n th r qu st of r s ... .pendent , the Provincial Fie al. of Occidental gros filed a co laint on arc 22 , 1955 ith the Court

c..SrO�L�UTl ... � . � Z26 .. � 2, - .. of .i."t ln$t n�( of t ile said p ~ovince , ivtl Case o. 3373. ntitl ,. C lle.cto:.r: of Inter n l l e-v&nue �s� � v � Carlos Ledes a � t al. � � h1bit Oppo ition to l"'espondent" � oti~n to �tsmi �) for the 'Collec- tion cf s id tax liability. tbe he- , in petiti oners , . d fenda. t 's. in t s d 1v1l. Caae o, 3373 after filing t heir ll't . tc th co �laint. the%'$ ft 1' inst ituted the p ent. p tit1on for r vie � � gain�t w ic �� tb. '* � ti�on t 1J1tm1&s wa' fil d by :re$J>on. dent. the contending partie agre that in both t present ca�� and said Civil Case No. 3373, there exist (1) identity of parties and (2} id�nt!ty of t-ights �� e.-ted and relief ptrayed. However� l)eti... tiontn�s dispute t at ther. � is ln fact no ��pending action bet�en the paJ:ttes� for th � reaa~m as they argue�, . that the uJ:t. of First Instan~e ae n juri ... diction to hear and determine Civil ca e .No. 3373 and rendel:' a valid j�\ldg ent therr:eont so as to consti- tute 1.11. jydi,l&l �ove:r; the subJect matter involved in tbe p~ � nt e ��� Th .!'e 1 nod ubt t at . st anding by lt�elf , th present ca& in tituted y petitioners is within the juri sdic:.tJ.on of this Court in that it is an ap� peal brought by th peHons dv-ersely affected by a decision Of the CollectotJ of ln:temal venue on a di'lptJ.ted a�����ment rev.iewabl . exclusively by the CwJ:t of Tax Ap~ea (1 e ections 7 and ll. p . Act No. 1125 ). ev�t:, thi�s Court bas no j\lrisdie-

l.UTIO - C.. T . � ! N� � 226- .. , ti.on to , nter1;a -n ~:iginal actions for be coll~ tion of t x liabiliti ' inst.ltuted by 'tb _-g-ovem.- nt a9ainst t taJtpayer. ln tbi - _pett , b - l i v that He ubli<: Act 0 � ll2a 11 t th juri dletion of ttr ourt of T 1e App�al . .o th, � "elu i app 11 te juriscU.eti n to revi by appeal� .mong <Jther$, th d ti ion of tb oll ctor of lntern.l venu on disputed aa es nt on th _ inst ce of taxp ,yers, but leaves to the oX'dinary courts w:i t gener 1 jurisdicti n t : . rig t t _azr and det ~ine tax eases 1nat1tuted by the gov :rnment. He.nte . we are of the opinion tb t the Court of Fi:rst.- ln rtanee of N gro& has juri$diction to hear and dete1ml!ne Ci. il Case lo. 3373, 1n1tiat d by tb . Collect of Internal Revenue foz the collection: of taxe$ f~� dant$ therein (tb herein petitioners}. Court of irst lnst c h:av.tng eequired juritd~-ction ov .:r th as estm nt i.n cont:x:ov rsy prior to the in$t1... tuticn of this -C&$e , we tb.eHfOre believ�e th t ~h fact ha th reby depriv��d this Court of t e right t -o ntertain t e pl"eaent pet ition to~ review cov-erlng th� e cause of t;tion . for a j .udg _ nt in $aid Civil. Ca$.e o. m. 33'73 'WQ .ld ecnstitute l~s:li%a�tl between the p X'tle$. 11A plea of th p.ndency of a prior action is not available unl tbe pJ:ior action 1s of sucb a c. aratter that. had a �udglll b -_ n .rendex d th _rein on the _rlt$. s ch a judgment coul be t<mclu- tJiv betw en the parties and could b. pleaded in bar of the second action. Th ~le 1$ a.pplic ble , between the- ame . ' ~ 275

, p .rt1es . ~nly ?then til judgment to nnde:t in t e action fiJ:St ill be .ueb that � regardl ss of hat pazrty is ' � ucce sful it. � ill. a ount to r� aaju... dic~ta ag.aJ.net the $tcond action. * � � blongkong nd angbai . � nk v. Al eco co." 3 hil. �.255 ) . 'le t refore� conclude � nd so hold., �that the motion to . �ismi$S fil d by respond nt �. on th ground that . �tne:r is an action pending b b:~ en th same pa i s for the� s e cau$e" � 1s ll ta en. � the p tition for ll' vie 1 dis � esed with cost$ ag iAet t p tit.ton rs� �