GR 224764; (April, 2017) (Digest)
G.R. No. 224764 . April 24, 2017.
BUREAU OF INTERNAL REVENUE, ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER ALFREDO V. MISAJON, GROUP SUPERVISOR ROLANDO M. BALBIDO, and EXAMINER REYNANTE DP. MARTIREZ, Petitioners, vs. LEPANTO CERAMICS, INC., Respondent.
FACTS
Respondent Lepanto Ceramics, Inc. (LCI) filed a petition for corporate rehabilitation under the Financial Rehabilitation and Insolvency Act (FRIA). The Rehabilitation Court issued a Commencement Order on January 13, 2012, which declared LCI under rehabilitation, suspended all actions for the enforcement of claims against it, and prohibited LCI from paying pre-commencement liabilities. The order was served on creditors, including the BIR.
Despite the Commencement Order, petitioners Misajon, Balbido, and Martirez, acting as BIR officials, sent LCI a Notice of Informal Conference dated May 27, 2013, and later a Formal Letter of Demand dated May 9, 2014, for alleged deficiency taxes. LCI, through its receiver, reminded the BIR of the rehabilitation proceedings. LCI subsequently filed a petition for indirect contempt against the petitioners before the RTC, Branch 35, arguing their actions constituted a clear defiance of the court’s order.
ISSUE
Whether or not the RTC correctly found petitioners guilty of indirect contempt for issuing a Notice of Informal Conference and a Formal Letter of Demand to LCI despite the Commencement Order issued in the corporate rehabilitation proceedings.
RULING
Yes, the Supreme Court affirmed the RTC’s ruling. The legal logic is anchored on the mandatory and automatic nature of the suspension of claims upon the issuance of a Commencement Order under FRIA. Section 16 of FRIA explicitly suspends all actions or proceedings for the enforcement of claims against the debtor. The Court held that the acts of sending a Notice of Informal Conference and a Formal Letter of Demand are preliminary steps in the tax assessment and collection process. These acts constitute an “action or proceeding” aimed at enforcing a claim, which is precisely what the Commencement Order suspends.
The petitioners’ defense that their acts were merely to toll the prescriptive period for tax collection was rejected. The Court ruled that the proper remedy to preserve such a claim was to file it in the rehabilitation proceedings themselves, as directed by the Commencement Order. By choosing to pursue the claim directly against LCI, petitioners willfully disobeyed the court order. The termination of the rehabilitation proceedings later did not moot the contempt charge, as the defiant acts were consummated while the order was in full force. The Court also upheld the RTC’s jurisdiction to hear the separate contempt petition and the personal liability of the individual officers who executed the contumacious acts.