CTA Case No. 271 (Resolution)

REPUBLIC: OF COURT Or TAX APPEALS MAniLA THE PHILIPPINES

SOTERG ESCARILLA - veu-- Petitioner, O.271 C.T.A.

RAVEICE, THE COLIECTOR GF INTSRNAL X Respondent. y A ICe

RESOLTIIO

Respondent has filed a motion to aismios the

petition Tor review on the groiodat (a that there

is another caaw pnnling between the sae parties

for the see cense ecton I a7e Aule of Court and (b that the filing ef the petition

for reviev in the above-entitled eese anounts to

splitting a ingio canse of aetion wnieh ezpressly

prohibited in Section 3, Anle 2, les cf Court.

The facts af the case are clearly an oorrectly

stated by the respondent in his gtatenent of he

Case and Facta as folloys

under Invoiae o. 8236, deted Jane GuiuanSsr, consiating cf 3,095 oils and that the speciric aad compen- 55,535.02 and,upon crediting the was a balance still ue Iron the peti- druns, ore or less, of varieus oils After an invemtigation condueted by agents of the respomdent, it wes as- certalned thet the Feutioner actually aforesaid ngmant of l,325.00, thore fron the Supplus Property Cormission 194, the contenta of one fuel duap in of pnrchasod sone ,97 4ruma of various sating taxes due thereon auounted to tionerin the sum of.5,210.02. corresponding end was ade won the ptitioner for the payaent of thefore- said stm of 54,2l0.02 and efter sone- time 60 Whicn the pettioner peid the sum W1,325.00 as conpenaating tax the same was paia in two Jnstall *The herein petitioner pnrchssed The 29

2 38

under Official necelpt Ne.lcol206 aants. 53,5i0.02.The aforesaid m of 3510.02was paia on y 11, 1954 to vity 17C0.00

anmsed omly 3,055 drums of various oils. saia C..A.Caseo.i5isstsi between l, entitiedVsotero Encarilla va. Dending consideration before this lonor- able Court. alleged The said alaim fcr rennd was denied by the respondent. petitioner instituted an action in this Court for the refund of the aforesaid Colieetor Internal Revemue'. the 1,902 dru,r various oi1s bd D 98e the thecry that he aetsaliy pur- the f9556.03.in C..A.CaseMo. "Later, petitionsr wrotn lottor respondentclaiming refund of apeciric tax on the aifferenee of 29,556.03, ropresenting tho ,957 drua and 3,055rne Apri121,1955 Tne O

R

and conpensating texes paid on the er from the Burplus Property Coraission wnder Invoice Ke. 8236, dated June 29, action for the refumd of the aforesaia with the reapondent a elaim or reghest various oils purchased by the petition- filed with this Honorable Court an sa cf 53,10,02,which is the subjeet P53,5l0.02, representing the specific 1948 natter of tor the refnd of the aforesnld ona of y81956 On ay101950 thia motion to diaiss petitiocer filed the petitioner

ections 3 and 4 Pnle 2, of the Pules of

Court, provides-

or more parts so as to be made the subicct of different coplaints action. lorbiaden.-Aingie causa of sctian can not be split um into twc see -8ol11n.cse.of

If aeparate couplaintsare broaght for pieaded in ahatenent of the others, and a judgsunt upon the aerits in either difrerent pnrts of a single cause of is available as a bsr in the others. action, gec.4. mffect of splltting. the filing of the firat may be

Zectiom l ale of the alen ef Conrt arsoprovib.

2 3 9

the aetion on any of the follcving grounds: tione.--Defendant mayvithin he tine tor plealing, file G motion to aismiss ssoetion l. Frelisinarr mes.

R

pending between the sane parties for the sane eanse." (a Thnt there is another action

The records ef C.T.A.Case No.115 and

thin ase shou (a) that the parties in both

cases are the snnej (b) that the cauge cf acticn

in both enses are the saae, namely, petiticneri

olaim for refund of the tmeunt alleged to have

baon illegally and erroneously eollected by the

resrondent from the petitioner, the enly dirfer-

wnee being that in this case the claim is ter

53,510.02, Nhile in the other case petitionez

aseks to recover cnly a pertion of said anoumt

29556.03 nd c that the a1d s0 of

action, arosa out of ene and the same transsct-

ion, that is, the prchase hy petitoner of

various oiis in drwaa frcn the Hurplus Froperty Comisaion nder Invoice o.8236 dated Jume 29 1948,in Oufuemar

Whem the Detition for reviev in C.T. A.

Cane Ko.115 wasfi1ed n Apri1 2l 1955,he

netitioner could have very vell then demndod

for the refud of the hole amont of 53,556.02

subjeot matter of the prosent case, beceuse

said amotnt was already paid. Por reasonn knowm

only to hisself, petitioner aought the recovery

of only a porticn of the amount by praying that

2 4 0

reapondent Collector be ordered to refund to

to horein etitioner the sun ef 29,556.0

representing overpaid texes. Certainly, the

enas for the refmd of F29,556.3 C.T.A

Caae No,115 nd that of 53,556.02 refer to cnly cne single canee cf action betueen the

snne partiee which, ursuant to the provisions

of our Rules of Court, mst be proseented and

terninated in one preceeding to avoia mmlti-

plieity of suits, and therely gave the grties

froa the trouble and czpense of court litigation.

We cannot accept the viev ef petitloner

when he aaid that -

setion is for recovery of taxea illegally collected from petitioner, In the other and quantity of oil gold to petitioner. case penatng hefere thin Hionorable Court to recover tazee overcolleeted fre ity of the tax, correctness of the aisesament. ebatenent of the other. atipuiation of the partiea to the kind petitioner fore, filins of ions of la Maile Case No ll5 involves C.7.A,CaneNo.115).theaction s caces the instent case invclvea purely ques- surely "In the instant petiticn the the causo cf action in the tvo BTG questiens of fect limited by either may mct be pleaded in aistinet and sesarate and the The Tirst iavclves legal- The aecond involves Purthernore There-

here is no denying the fact that the parties

the isaues, and the ceuse of aetion in both

caaes are the sgne as te fall acuarely vithin

the prohibition contained in Sectians 3 and 4

nle 2,and Seetion I d, le 8 of the Rulcs

Ot Court.

action lies tn the simgleness of the corresponding delict or yrong The singleness of a canse of

2 4 1

violated omiy once, even where it con- lend,on Code Pleading,143. eanse of action Tay be either eral, a contract eshracos only cne ureach or contract or tort. In gen cause of action because it my bo taina several stipulations.s (euther-

are not stated in our Cede of Civil severai Pegaraiess ot tho maber of rights that to aections (Secs.3 le2 Procedire, dut is rocognized by hoth Anerican and Philippine Jurisprudence. It importa that when a cause cr aetion cr vrone atatod Bnere there LS C plainti single, it cen not be divided into several corplaints. toot have The peinciple contained in theae there is only one dcllet or Nrong, cnuse of action is the deliot parts so as to bo the suhjeet ali snch righta by which the rights cf the mt a singie causo of actico been violated. are violated hy the erendant. shonhe As elsewaere 0 h TUie

0S0T SwOe Ciaiaf ocher

a06t tase e Trenaorenronded subioct oi suaeuont

Koir36i.,350 piied. torias Couat. Ca 6m4 5+7hi1. Cl Wcran, Coanents on the hules 1P+ oersrreore 18-19 788. citing Nentos v. Lavarro V. Lahi- underseoring aup

Assing, armende, that the failure to deaand the refund of +he mm cf 53,5l0.02,in

teatof29556.03in...CaeNo.115

was due to inadvertence, istake, or ecnaable

neglect on the part of the petitioner, the proper

renady ia not the filing of the present atition

for reviev,(but the filing of an anemded or sup-

nleneatal mleadings as my be warrented wmder the

Ruies of Court.

raeE thi cage ia hereby diseissed

with costs againnt petitioner.

SO ORDRED

2 4 2

Monila, June 28, 1956.

paMM C Associate Judge

I CONCUR

Fresidng Judro

Judge AUQ0sTO M. LICIA aid not tnke art.

243