GR L 23395; (October, 1967) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-23395 October 31, 1967
AUYONG HIAN, petitioner, vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, respondent.
FACTS
On September 1, 1958, the Republic filed a suit (Civil Case No. 37371) against Auyong Hian in the Court of First Instance of Manila to enforce collection of deficiency income taxes for the years 1946 to 1951, totaling P160,233.13. After a judgment in favor of the Republic on October 20, 1961, a rehearing was granted. On July 12, 1963, the trial court again rendered judgment ordering Auyong Hian to pay the deficiency taxes plus surcharges and interest. His motions for reconsideration were denied. Auyong Hian appealed to the Court of Appeals, which affirmed the judgment in toto on September 20, 1966. He then sought certiorari from the Supreme Court (G.R. No. L-26790), which dismissed his petition for lack of merit on December 14, 1966; this dismissal became final and executory on March 31, 1967. Meanwhile, on September 9, 1963, Auyong Hian filed a separate “Petition for Review” (CTA Case No. 1449) in the Court of Tax Appeals, questioning the correctness of the same deficiency tax assessments. The Commissioner of Internal Revenue moved to dismiss this petition on grounds of lapse of the appeal period and the existence of another pending action for the same cause. The Court of Tax Appeals dismissed the case on March 3, 1964, and denied reconsideration on August 3, 1964. Auyong Hian appealed this dismissal directly to the Supreme Court. The Solicitor General moved to dismiss the present appeal, arguing the issues had become moot and academic.
ISSUE
Whether the appeal from the Court of Tax Appeals’ dismissal order has become moot and academic due to the finality of the prior judgment in Civil Case No. 37371 involving the same deficiency tax assessments.
RULING
Yes, the appeal is dismissed as moot and academic. The Supreme Court held that the subject matter in Civil Case No. 37371 and CTA Case No. 1449 is identical, both involving the same deficiency income tax assessments for 1946-1951. The trial court’s judgment in the civil case, affirmed by the Court of Appeals and whose review was denied with finality by the Supreme Court, settled the question of the correctness of these assessments. Public policy and sound practice demand that judgments become final at a definite date to end controversies. Therefore, the correctness of the assessments may no longer be inquired into, rendering the present appeal moot and academic. Costs were imposed against the petitioner.