THE Supreme Court (SC) has ruled that giant oil company Pilipinas Shell Petroleum Corp. (PSPC) cannot be cited for direct contempt in connection with its bid to stop the Bureau of Customs (BOC) from collecting P21.4 billion representing unpaid taxes.
In a 12-page decision penned by Associate Justice Mariano C. del Castillo, the Court’s Second Division junked the petition filed by the BOC seeking the reversal of the decision issued by the Court of Tax Appeals (CTA), dated June 11, 2012, which junked its motion to cite for direct contempt PSPC Vice President for Finance and Treasurer Willie J. Sarmiento and company lawyer Cipriano U. Asilo for resorting to forum shopping just to prevent the agency from collecting the amount.
The BOC sought to cite the PSPC for direct contempt after it filed with the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Fourth Judicial Region, Batangas City, Branch 3, a complaint for injunction with prayer for the ex-parte issuance of a 72-hour temporary restraining order (TRO), to enjoin the implementation of its memorandum dated February 9, 2010.
The memorandum directed the personnel of the BOC in the Port of Batangas to hold the delivery of all import shipments of respondent PSPC to settle its excise-tax liabilities.
The BOC issued the memorandum only after the CTA denied PSPC’s motion for the issuance of a suspension order against the collection of taxes.
In denying the BOC’s motion for direct contempt, the CTA said that although the parties in the CTA case, on one hand, and the Batangas injunction case, on the other, are the same, the rights asserted, and the reliefs being sought for are two different matters.
It pointed out that the CTA case assails the BOC’s letter-decisions compelling PSPC to pay its unpaid taxes.
The CTA also opined that a decision in one case would not result in res judicata (a matter already judged) in the other case.
Thus, it ruled that the filing of the Batangas injunction case does not constitute forum shopping, and since no forum shopping exists, the CTA found no reason to cite respondents in direct contempt of court.
In upholding the CTA’s decision, the Supreme Court noted that the subject matter in the CTA case is the alleged unpaid taxes of respondent PSPC on its importation of catalytic cracked gasoline and light catalytic cracked gasoline for the years 2006 to 2008, which is sought to be collected by petitioners.
On the other hand, the subject matter of the Batangas injunction case is the 13 importations/shipments of respondent PSPC for the period between January and February 2010, which respondent PSPC claims are threatened to be seized by petitioners pursuant to the memorandum dated February 9, 2010, issued by the BOC.
Also, the cause of action in the CTA case is based on the letter-decisions of the BOC, finding respondent PSPC liable for excise and value-added taxes; while the cause of action in the Batangas injunction case is the memorandum dated February 9, 2010, ordering the personnel of petitioner BOC in the Port of Batangas to hold the delivery of all import shipments of respondent PSPC.
“Since the subject matter, the cause of action, the issues raised, and the reliefs prayed for are not the same, [the] respondents are not guilty of forum shopping. Accordingly, the CTA did not err in denying the motion to cite [the] respondents in direct contempt of court,” the SC ruled.
Concurring with the ruling were Associate Justices Arturo Brion, Jose Catral Mendoza and Bienvenido Reyes.