[ G.R. No. L-23395. October 31, 1967 ] 128 Phil. 782
[ G.R. No. L-23395. October 31, 1967 ]
AUYONG HIAN, PETITIONER, VS. THE COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, RESPONDENT. D E C I S I O N
SANCHEZ, J.:
On motion of the Solicitor General urging the dismissal of the appeal Ground: The issues raised have become moot and academic.
Following are the background facts:
On September 1, 1958, the Republic started suit[1] against Auyong Hian in the Court of First Instance of Manila to enforce collection of defendant’s deficiency income taxes, itemized as follows:
Assessment No.
For the Year
Amount
A-1692
1946
P 185.43
A-1947
1947
6,148.83
A-24753
1948
1,782.39
A-29572
1949
569.98
A-17052
1950
4,027.50
A-23121
1951
147,519.00
Total
—P160, 233.13
On October 20, 1961, judgment was rendered in favor of the plaintiff. This judgment was, however, set aside and the hearing reopened by order of February 1, 1962.
After rehearing, the trial court, on July 12, 1963, adjudged:
“IN VIEW OF ALL THE FOREGOING, the Court renders judgment in favor of the plaintiff and again at the defendant, Auyong Hian, and orders said defendant Auyong Hian to pay to the plaintiff the amounts of P185,43, P6,148.83, P1,787.39, P569.98, P4,027.50 and P147,519.00, plus surcharges for delinquency equivalent to five percent (5%) of the above amounts and one percent (1%) monthly interest from February 21, 1957, until fully paid. With costs against the defendant.”
Two motions for reconsideration and/or new trial - the first dated July 24, 1963, and the other, October 30, 1963 - were rejected by orders of October 19, 1963 and December 2, 1963.
Auyong Hian appealed to the Court of Appeals.
On September 20, 1966, the Court of Appeals affirmed, thus: “WHEREFORE, finding no reversible error in the judgment appealed from, the same is hereby affirmed in toto with costs against the defendant-appellant.”
Auyong Hian sought to have the appellate court’s judgment reviewed on certiorari by this Court.[2] By resolution of this Court dated December 14, 1966, we dismissed his petition for lack of merit. This dismissal became final and executory on March 31, 1967.
In the meantime, in the Court of Tax Appeals, Auyong Hian, on September 9, 1963, filed a “Petition for Review,"[3] questioning the correctness of the very same assessments for deficiency income taxes made by respondent Commissioner of Internal Revenue, and subject of the litigation concluded as just stated. These assessments again are:
Assessment No.
For the Year
Amount
A-1692
1946
P 185.43
A-1947
1947
6,148.33
A-24753
1948
1,782.39
A-29572
1949
569.98
A-17052
1950
4,027.50
A-23121
1951
147,519.00
Total
— P160,233.13
On December 2, 1963, respondent Commissioner moved to dismiss the petition, because: (1) the Court of Tax Appeals had no jurisdiction to take cognizance of the case as the 30-day period within which to bring an appeal to said court had already lapsed; and (2) there is another action pending between the same parties for the same cause of action.
On March 3, 1964, the Court of Tax Appeals dismissed the case, as prayed for.
Reconsideration sought was, on August 3, 1964, rejected.
The case at bar is a direct appeal from the dismissal order of the Court of Tax Appeals.
Required by this Court to comment on respondent’s motion to dismiss the present appeal, planted upon the ground, as heretofore stated, that the issues raised have become moot and academic, petitioner Auyong Hian puts forth the argument that the prior decision definitely concluded in L-26790 does not constitute res judicata to the present case. This posture does not deserve consideration. And, the appeal must be dismissed. For, as rightly suggested by the Solicitor General, it has, indeed, become moot and academic.[4]
Identity of subject matter between Civil Case 37371 and CTA Case 1449 is beyond debate. Both involve assessments for deficiency income taxes for the years 1946, 1947, 1948, 1949, 1950 and 1951 in the aggregate sum of P160,233.13. The trial court’s judgment in Civil Case 37371 finding for the plaintiff, was appealed to the Court of Appeals. It was affirmed in toto by said court. Not contented, appellant (petitioner herein) came to this Court on appeal by certiorari. His petition was denied. Implicit in that denial is this Court’s unqualified approbation of the Court of Appeals’ decision. With the finality of this Court’s resolution dismissing the petition for certiorari, the question as to the amount of the deficiency income taxes of Auyong Hian for the years 1946-1951 inclusive, became settled matter. The correctness of these assessments may not now be inquired into. Because “[p]ublic policy and sound practice demand that, at the risk of occasional errors, judgments of courts should become final at some definite date fixed by law”, and [t]he very object for which courts were instituted was to put an end to controversies."[5]
FOR THE REASONS GIVEN, the appeal herein is hereby dismissed. Costs against petitioner.
SO ORDERED.
Concepcion, C.J., Reyes, J.B.L., Dizon, Makalintal, Bengzon, J.P., Zaldivar, Castro, Angeles, and Fernando, JJ., concur.