Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Moscoso
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: The Commissioner of Internal Revenue submitted a proof of claim for estate and inheritance taxes in the sum of P40,058.55 in the intestate proceedings of the late Walter Scott Price. The court issued an order dated December 17, 1956, directing the administratrix to pay the said amount. Procedural History: A copy of the order was sent by registered mail to the attorney of the administratrix on December 18, 1956, and was received on December 26, 1956. On June 14, 1957, the Collector of Internal Revenue moved for execution of the order, noting that no appeal had been taken. The administratrix opposed and filed a motion for reconsideration. The respondent judge granted the motion in an order dated June 22, 1957, setting aside the December 17, 1956 order, citing that the proof of claim was filed without a copy being furnished to the administratrix or her attorney. Subsequent motions for revocation of this order were overruled. The Petition: The Commissioner of Internal Revenue filed a petition for certiorari, alleging that the respondent judge acted without or in excess of jurisdiction in setting aside the order of December 17, 1956, which had already become final and executory.
Issue(s)
Whether the respondent judge exceeded his jurisdiction in setting aside the order dated December 17, 1956. Whether the failure to furnish a copy of the proof of claim to the administratrix or her attorney deprived the court of jurisdiction to issue the order of payment.
Ruling
The petition is granted. The orders setting aside the December 17, 1956 order, particularly the order of June 22, 1957, are annulled. The order dated December 17, 1956, is declared final and executory. Costs against respondent Simeona K. Price.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of exceeding jurisdiction: The respondent judge exceeded his jurisdiction in issuing the questioned order of June 22, 1957, because the decree of payment dated December 17, 1956, had already become final and executory. The counsel for the administratrix received a copy of the payment order on December 26, 1956, and made no move to reconsider or appeal for six months thereafter. Relief under Rule 38 was also unavailable as more than six days had passed. On the issue of failure to furnish a copy: The failure to serve a copy of the Collector's claim to the administratrix might, at most, be considered a legal error that is corrigible on appeal. However, it did not have the effect of depriving the court of jurisdiction. This principle was upheld in a parallel situation in Pineda vs. Court of First Instance, 52 Phil., 803. Furthermore, the Pineda case held that claims for taxes due and assessed after the death of the decedent need not be presented in the regular form of claims in the testator or intestate proceeding. This implies that furnishing a copy to the administratrix was unnecessary, rendering the order revoking payment without judicial ground.
Main Doctrine
An order of payment of estate and inheritance taxes, once final and executory, cannot be set aside by the respondent judge on the ground of lack of service of a copy of the proof of claim, as such failure, at most, constitutes a legal error corrigible on appeal and does not deprive the court of jurisdiction.