Location via proxy:   [ UP ]  
[Report a bug]   [Manage cookies]                
Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 229 views

    Arcega V CA - Digest

    Uploaded by

    karen
    The petitioner sued the Central Bank of the Philippines and Philippine National Bank (PNB) for the refund of taxes paid on foreign exchange purchases. The trial court dismissed the case, finding it constituted a suit against the government without consent. The Court of Appeals affirmed. However, the Supreme Court ruled that [1] based on prior cases, the Central Bank can be sued as its charter allows it to sue and be sued, and [2] the tax refund law directed the Central Bank to issue refunds. Therefore, this was not equivalent to a suit against the state without consent. The case was remanded for further proceedings after joining additional parties.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Arcega V CA - Digest

    Uploaded by

    karen
    229 views2 pages
    The petitioner sued the Central Bank of the Philippines and Philippine National Bank (PNB) for the refund of taxes paid on foreign exchange purchases. The trial court dismissed the case, finding it constituted a suit against the government without consent. The Court of Appeals affirmed. However, the Supreme Court ruled that [1] based on prior cases, the Central Bank can be sued as its charter allows it to sue and be sued, and [2] the tax refund law directed the Central Bank to issue refunds. Therefore, this was not equivalent to a suit against the state without consent. The case was remanded for further proceedings after joining additional parties.

    Original Description:

    Political law digest

    Original Title

    Arcega v CA_Digest

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The petitioner sued the Central Bank of the Philippines and Philippine National Bank (PNB) for the refund of taxes paid on foreign exchange purchases. The trial court dismissed the case, finding it constituted a suit against the government without consent. The Court of Appeals affirmed. However, the Supreme Court ruled that [1] based on prior cases, the Central Bank can be sued as its charter allows it to sue and be sued, and [2] the tax refund law directed the Central Bank to issue refunds. Therefore, this was not equivalent to a suit against the state without consent. The case was remanded for further proceedings after joining additional parties.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    229 views2 pages

    Arcega V CA - Digest

    Uploaded by

    karen
    The petitioner sued the Central Bank of the Philippines and Philippine National Bank (PNB) for the refund of taxes paid on foreign exchange purchases. The trial court dismissed the case, finding it constituted a suit against the government without consent. The Court of Appeals affirmed. However, the Supreme Court ruled that [1] based on prior cases, the Central Bank can be sued as its charter allows it to sue and be sued, and [2] the tax refund law directed the Central Bank to issue refunds. Therefore, this was not equivalent to a suit against the state without consent. The case was remanded for further proceedings after joining additional parties.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 2

    TOPIC - SUITS AGAINST GOVERNMENT AGENCIES (CHARTERED AGENCIES)

    Alicia O. Arcega v. CA

    G.R. No. L-20869. August 28, 1975

    Facts

     On August 17, 1956 the petitioner Alicia O. Arcega, doing business under the firm name "Fairmont
    Ice Cream Company," filed a complaint with the Court of First Instance of Manila, against the
    respondents Central Bank of the Philippines and Philippine National Bank (PNB), for the refund of
    P18,030.13 paid by her in the concept of the 17% special excise tax on foreign exchange levied
    under Section 1 of Republic Act 601, as amended.
     It involved purchases of foreign exchange made from the PNB to cover the cost of transportation
    and other charges incident to the importation into the Philippines of ingredients used as flavors,
    paper containers and wooden spoons, machineries, equipment, and spare parts used in the
    manufacture and distribution of ice cream.
     PNB’s argument - The complaint does not state a sufficient cause of action because, although the
    PNB is being sued as an agent of the Central Bank, there is no allegation in the complaint that it
    had contracted in its own name or exceeded its authority as such agent, hence, even assuming
    that the averments of the complaint could be established, it cannot be held liable for the amount
    of the special excise tax it had collected from the petitioner.
     Central Bank’s argument - moved to dismiss the complaint for lack of jurisdiction over the subject
    matter of the action because the judgment sought would constitute a financial charge against the
    government which cannot be done without its consent; lack of cause of action, and failure to
    implead the National Treasurer and the Secretary of Finance as party defendants who are
    indispensable parties.
     Upon the grounds of the Central bank, the trial court dismissed the complaint.
     Arcega filed a motion for reconsideration of the resolution, to which an opposition was 􀀫led by
    the Central Bank. The court denied said motion.
     CA affirmed the dismissal of the complaint.
     The petitioner interposed the present appeal by certiorari.

    Issues

     Whether a suit against the Central Bank for refund of the 17% foreign exchange tax collected by
    it under Republic Act 601, as amended, is actually a suit against the State without its consent

    Ruling

     No. The Court cited the case of Central Azucarera Don Pedro vs. Central Bank and Olizon vs.
    Central Bank where it held that Central Bank can be sued because the consent of the State had
    already been granted under its Charter authorizing it to sue and be sued. Sec. 5 of Republic Act
    No. 601 (as amended) directs that refund of taxes be made by the Central Bank."
     The Court set aside the judgment under review, dismissed the complaint as to the second and
    third causes of the action, and remanded the case for further proceedings as to the first and fourth
    causes of action after impleading the Treasurer of the Philippines and the Secretary of Finance, as
    parties.

    You might also like