Tax Case 2
Tax Case 2
China Banking Corporation vs. City Treasurer of Manila, 761 SCRA 238 ,
July 01, 2015
Case Title : CHINA BANKING CORPORATION, petitioner, vs. CITY
TREASURER OF MANILA, respondent.Case Nature : PETITION for review on
certiorari of the decision and resolution of the Court of Tax Appeals En Banc.
Syllabi Class : Taxation ; Tax Refunds ;
Syllabi:
1. Taxation; Tax Refunds; Claims for refunds are the exception, rather
than the rule, and that each claim for refund, in order to be granted, must
be proceeded in accordance with the manner set forth by law. +
2. Taxation; To constitute a valid protest, it is sufficient if what has been
filed contains the spontaneous declaration made to acquire or keep some
right or to prevent an impending damage.+
3. Appeals; Jurisdiction; The failure to perfect an appeal as required by
the rules has the effect of defeating the right to appeal of a party and
precluding the appellate court from acquiring jurisdiction over the case. +
4. Same; Same; Taxation; Local Taxation; With the passage of Republic
Act (RA) No. 9282, the authority to exercise either original or appellate
jurisdiction over local tax cases depended on the amount of the claim. +
Counsel: Lim, Vigilia, Alcala, Dumlao, Alameda & Casiding Law Office for
petitioner.
Ponente: MENDOZA
Dispositive Portion:
WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED.
* SECOND DIVISION.
239
240
SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
China Banking Corporation vs. City Treasurer of Manila
Municipal, and Municipal Circuit Trial Courts. Verily, unlike in the case of the CA,
B.P. 129 does not confer appellate jurisdiction on the RTC over rulings made by
nonjudicial entities. The RTC exercises appellate jurisdiction only from cases decided
by the Metropolitan, Municipal, and Municipal Circuit Trial Courts in the proper
cases. The nature of the jurisdiction exercised by these courts is original,
considering it will be the first time that a court will take judicial cognizance of a case
instituted for judicial action.
Taxation; Tax Refunds; Claims for refunds are the exception, rather than the rule,
and that each claim for refund, in order to be granted, must be proceeded in
accordance with the manner set forth by law.Lest it be misunderstood, this Court
is not reversing its pronouncements in Coca-Cola Bottlers Philippines, Inc. v. City of
Manila, 493 SCRA 279 (2006), The City of Manila v. Coca-Cola Bottlers, Inc., 595
SCRA 299 (2009) and City of Manila v. Coca-Cola Bottlers, Inc. that Ordinance Nos.
7988 and 8011 are invalid. This Court is simply pointing out the rule that claims for
refunds are the exception, rather than the rule, and that each claim for refund, in
order to be granted, must be proceeded in accordance with the manner set forth by
law. After all, in every claim for refund of taxes paid, the burden is on the taxpayer
to show that he has strictly complied with the conditions for the grant of the tax
refund or credit.
PETITION for review on certiorari of the decision and resolution of the Court of Tax
Appeals En Banc.
The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court.
Lim, Vigilia, Alcala, Dumlao, Alameda & Casiding Law Office for petitioner.
MENDOZA,J.:
Before this Court is a petition for review on certiorari1 under Rule 45 of the Rules of
Court filed by petitioner China Banking Corporation (CBC), assailing the April 17,
2012 Decision2 and the October 18, 2012 Resolution3 of the Court of
_______________