Nestle Philippines, Inc. vs. Court of Appeals

Nestle Philippines, Inc. vs. Court of Appeals

G.R. No. 134114. July 6, 2001.

Facts:

Petitioner Nestle Philippines, Inc. transacted sixteen separate importations of milk and milk products from different countries between the period of July and November 1984. It paid the corresponding customs duties and advance sales taxes to the Collector of Customs of Manila for each transaction based on the published Home Consumption Value (HCV) as indicated in the Bureau of Customs Revision Orders, but it seasonably filed the corresponding protests before the said Collector of Customs. In the said protests, petitioner claimed for the refund of the alleged overpaid import duties and advance sales taxes. With regards to the advance sales taxes, the Court of Tax Appeals eventually ruled in favor of the petitioner. However, the Collector of Customs failed to render a decision on the sixteen protest cases for almost six years for the alleged overpaid customs duties. In order to prevent the claims from becoming stale on the ground of prescription, petitioner immediately filed a petition for review with the Court of Tax Appeals (CTA). The CTA dismissed the said petition for want of jurisdiction. The issue was raised to the Court of Appeals by way of petition for review, but it was also dismissed for failure to exhaust administrative remedies.

Issue:
            Whether or not the petitioner’s claims are governed by the rule on quasi-contracts or solutio indebiti which prescribes in six (6) years under Article 1145 of the New Civil Code.

Held:

No. The Supreme Court ruled that the rule on quasi-contracts or solution indebiti is not applicable in this case. In order for the rule on solution indebiti to apply, it is an essential condition that petitioner must first show that its payment of the customs duties was in excess of what was required by the law at the time when the subject sixteen importations of milk and milk products were made. Unless shown otherwise, the disputable presumption of regularity of performance of duty lies in favor of the Collector of Customs.

In the present case, there is no factual showing that the collection of the alleged overpaid customs duties was more than what is required of the petitioner when it made the aforesaid separate importations. There is no factual finding yet by the government agency concerned that petitioner is indeed entitled to its claim of overpayment and, if true, for how much it is entitled. It bears stress that in determining whether or not petitioner is entitled to refund of alleged overpayment of customs duties, it is necessary to determine exactly how much the Government is entitled to collect as customs duties on the importations. Thus, it would only be just and fair that the petitioner-taxpayer and the Government alike be given equal opportunities to avail of the remedies under the law to contest or defeat each other's claim and to determine all matters of dispute between them in one single case. If the State expects its taxpayers to observe fairness and honesty in paying their taxes, so must it apply the same standard against itself in refunding excess payments, if truly proven, of such taxes. Indeed, the State must lead by its own example of honor, dignity and uprightness.

Thus, the remand of this case to the CTA is warranted for the proper verification and determination of the factual basis and merits of the petition and in order that the ends of substantial justice and fair play may be subserved. In the light of Sections 2308 and 2309 of the Tariff and Customs Code, it appeared that in all cases subject to protest, the claim for refund of customs duties may be foreclosed only when the interested party claiming refund fails to file a written protest before the Collector of Customs. Accordingly, once a written protest is seasonably filed with the Collector of Customs the failure or inaction of the latter to promptly perform his mandated duty under the Tariff and Customs Code should not be allowed to prejudice the right of the party adversely affected thereby. Technicalities and legalisms, however exalted, should not be misused by the government to keep money not belonging to it, if any is proven, and thereby enrich itself at the expense of the taxpayers.