Arcega v Court of Appeal’s [G.R. No. L-20869 August 28, 1975]
FACT: The petitioner Alicia O. Arcega, doing business under the firm name Fairmont Ice
Cream Company,” filed a complaint before the court against the respondents
Central Bank of the Philippines and Philippine National Bank, for the refund
from allegedly unauthorized payment made by her of the 17% special excise tax
on foreign exchange. The Central
Bank moved to dismiss
the complaint on the grounds, among others, that the trial court has no jurisdiction over
the subject-matter of the action, because the judgment sought will constitute a financial charge against the Government,
and therefore the suit is one against
the Government, which cannot
prosper without its consent, and in this case no such consent has been given.
The petitioner appealed, but the court dismissed the complaint on
the ground set forth in the Central Bank’s motion to dismiss.
The petitioner Arcega filed a motion for
reconsideration of the resolution to which an opposition was filed by the
Central Bank. This time, the Central Bank submitted a certification that the
balance of the collected special excise tax on sales of foreign exchange was
turned over to the Treasurer of the Philippines. Then the court denied the
petitioner’s motion for reconsideration as a result Arcega appealed to the
Court of Appeals. Holding that the suit is indirectly against the Republic of
the Philippines which cannot be sued without its consent, the Court of Appeals
affirmed the dismissal of the complaint.
Finally the petitioner filed an appeal before the
Supreme Court.
Issue: Whether suits against the Central Bank for
refund is a suit against the State?
Held: It is not a suit against the state. This suit is
brought against the Central Bank of the Philippines, an entity authorize by its charter to sue and be sued. The consent of the
State to be sued, therefore, has been given.
Comments
Post a Comment