You are on page 1of 8

Republic of the Philippines SUPREME COURT Manila EN BANC G.R. No.

L-8652 March 30, 1957 SANT AGO SAM!RANO, petitioner, vs. COURT O" TA# APPEALS a$% COLLECTOR O" NTERNAL RE&ENUE, respondents. Florentino Amansec for petitioner. Office of the Solicitor General Ambrosio Padilla and Solicitor Jose P. Alejandro for respondents. "EL #, J.' This is a petitioner for certiorari filed by Santia o Sa!brano, prayin for the reversal of a resolution of the Court of Ta" Appeals dated #anuary $, %&'', denyin his petition to en(oin the Collector of )nternal Revenue fro! proceedin *ith the sale of his properties at public auction, and to declare the sale of his house and lot located at +i an, )locos Sur, null and void. This Court ave due course to the petition as an ordinary appeal and at the sa!e ti!e denied the prayer for the issuance of a *rit of preli!inary in(unction. The facts of the case !ay be su!!ari,ed as follo*s.n /ebruary 01, %&'2, Santia o Sa!brano, the o*ner and operator of a fleet of passen er and frei ht truc3s *ith lines bet*een Manila and the northern provinces of 4u,on, received fro! the Collector of )nternal Revenue a de!and for the pay!ent of his inco!e ta" liabilities. This *as follo*ed by another letter dated #anuary 5, %&'%, assessin Sa!brano6s ta" deficiencies at P%77,8$%.28 9*hich *as later reduced to P%7$,0$%.28 on April 07, %&'%:. INCOME TAX 50% Tax 1945 194 194! 10!,9 4" 7 #14"49 157"$5 471"74 P175 ,$44" 97 Surcharge Total P7,5 !"!1 P#,7!4,41 P11,#5#"$$ 54,47#"#4 1 #,4$0"01

PE%CENTA&E TAX 75% Tax 1945 194 Pe'alt( $,# 9"!$ Surcharge 1,777"#7 Total 4,147"74 #00"00 ,7!5 "!$ P1,## "# P1,000"$7 P$,##!" # )))) ))))

%ESI*ENCE TAX 1945 194 1947 194! )))) )))) )))) )))) 1!#"00 Total $5% Surcharge P4!$"00 1$0"50 0$"5 0 P# "00 1$ "00 1#7"00

Perce'tage tax o' +ale+ o, gra-el ,or 19#9. 41 1, 07 "7! P1!4 ,$41" 07 and de!andin that sa!e be paid to the ;eputy Provincial Treasurer of )locos Sur. Petitioner Sa!brano *as not assessed of his inco!e ta" for %&$8, it appearin that he had a decrease in net *orth for that period. As early as #anuary 0&, %&'%, petitioner already si nified his intention to file a surety bond to uarantee the pay!ent of his ta" liability and May 1,%&'%, e"ecuted a chattel !ort a e on 58 of his TP< buses in favor of the =overn!ent. Said !ort a e *as duly approved by the Public Service Co!!ission as re>uired by la* and re istered *ith the Re ister of ;eeds of Manila on Nove!ber 8, %&'%. Petitioner li3e*ise undertoo3 to settle his ta" obli ations in 0$ !onthly install!ents of P8,585.8% each, payable *ithin the first %2 days of the !onth, startin fro! Au ust, %&'%. )n virtue of said !ort a e, a correspondin notice of ta" lien upon the property and property ri hts of the ta"payer *as sent by the Collector of )nternal Revenue to the Re ister of ;eeds of )locos Sur on ;ece!ber 08, %&'%, for re istration. The records sho* that petitioner *as able to pay only the a!ount of P%8,&0&.$2 on different dates, and as it *as disclosed in a report of an e"a!iner of the Bureau of )nternal Revenue dated May 1%, %&'0, that of the 58 auto buses !ort a ed, only $8 units *ere in actual operation, a supple!entary chattel !ort a e coverin 02 buses !ore *as disapproved by the Public Service Co!!ission and the Collector of )nternal Revenue. As of #une 0&, %&'1, only %0 buses *ere available for inspection at +i an, )locos Sur, $ of *hich *ere even under oin repairs at the ti!e. .n account of petitioner6s failure to co!ply *ith the ter!s and conditions of the !ort a e, the respondent Collector of )nternal Revenue issued on Septe!ber 08, %&'0, *arrants of distraint and levy coverin the ta"payer6s properties in Aparri, Ca ayan? Ban ued, Abra? San /ernando, 4a <nion? and +i an )locos Sur, and on, #anuary 05, %&'1, another *arrant *as issued by respondent but *as not e"ecuted because no property belon in to petitioner could be found in Manila. As a conse>uence thereof and upon respondent6s instruction, the ;eputy Provincial Treasurer of +i an, )locos Sur, sei,ed 51 auto buses of petitioner on April %5, %&'1, but the sale

of said vehicles at public auction scheduled for March 01, %&'$, *as suspended because of Sa!brano6s proposal to !a3e substantial pay!ent not later than March 12, %&'$. )t could be presu!ed that petitioner a ain did not !a3e ood his pro!ise because by letter of April 8, %&'$, petitioner6s counsel offered, by *ay of co!pro!ise, the pay!ent of P82,222 in cash and P%2,222 payable *ithin 12 days fro! the date of pay!ent of the P82,222 for the settle!ent of his entire obli ations. This offer *as referred en consulta by the Collector of )nternal Revenue to the Secretary of finance in his %st )ndorse!ent dated May %&, %&'$, in>uirin *hether sa!e could be treated as an e"ception to the policy a ainst acceptance of co!pro!ises in vie* of the circu!stances surroundin the case. .n #uly &, %&'$, the Secretary of /inance reco!!ended acceptance of the sa!e, sub(ect to the ter!s and conditions set forth in the letter of petitioner6s counsel. By a letter dated Septe!ber &, %&'$, the Collector of )nternal Revenue infor!ed said counsel of the acceptance, but apparently una*are of the acceptance of his offer, Sa!brano6s counsel *ithdre* the sa!e on Septe!ber 0$, %&'$, on the round respondent failed to act on it not*ithstandin the lapse of !ore than $ !onths, at the sa!e ti!e *ithdra*in his appearance on the !atter. Bein appraised of this !ove, the Secretary of /inance on Septe!ber 0', %&'$, revo3ed his previous favorable reco!!endation and ordered the respondent Collector of )nternal Revenue to ta3e appropriate action to effect the collection of the entire ta" liability of said ta"payer. Pursuant thereto, respondent set the sale of petitioner6s residential house and lot in +i an, )locos Sur, for ;ece!ber 02, %&'$ 9thou h it see!s that this sale *as not consu!!ated for lac3 of bidders:? distrained all the rollin stoc3s of petitioner consistin of 78 passen er truc3s, i!pounded all of the! and advertised the! for sale on #anuary ' and %$, %&'', and on other dates. Confronted *ith this state of affairs, petitioner, assisted by a ne* counsel, pro!ptly filed a petition for certiorari before the Court of Ta" Appeals on ;ece!ber 01, %&'$, prayin that the respondent Collector of )nternal Revenue be en(oined fro! proceedin *ith the conte!plated public sale of his properties? that the sale of petitioner6s properties !ade on ;ece!ber 02,%&'$, or any sale to be !ade pendin the final deter!ination of that petition be declared null and void, and for such other re!edy that !ay be (ust and e>uitable in the pre!ises. After due hearin , the Court issued a resolution denyin the petition on the round that the interest of the =overn!ent *ould be (eopardi,ed if the public sale scheduled for #anuary ' and %$, %&'', *ould be suspended? that petitioner, in e"ecutin the chattel !ort a es in favor of the =overn!ent and in offerin a co!pro!ise had ad!itted that he *as indebted to the =overn!ent? that petitioner6s failure to pay the ta"es fro! the date the notice of assess!ent *as served on hi! sho*ed utter lac3 of ood faith on his part in settlin his ta" case. Petitioner, therefore, elevated the case to this Court and in this instance !aintained that the Collector of )nternal Revenue erred in enforcin , by distraint and levy, the collection of his deficiency inco!e ta" assess!ent *hich *as !ade after the lapse of 1 years in contravention *ith the provisions of section '%@9d: of the National )nternal Revenue Code? and that the Court of Ta" Appeals erred in denyin the prayer for the issuance of a *rit of preli!inary in(unction. There is no dispute that on April 07, %&'%, the respondent Collector of )nternal Revenue served on petitioner Santia o Sa!brano a revised assess!ent of his alle ed inco!e, percenta e and residence ta" liabilities for the ta" years %&$' to %&$7 and percenta e ta" on the sales of ravel in %&1& to %&$%, to ether *ith the surchar es and penalties thereon, a!ountin to P%7$,0$%.28? that out of that a!ount only P%8,&0&.$2 *as actually paid? that petitioner Sa!brano e"ecuted a chattel !ort a e on 58 of his TP< buses to secure the pay!ent of his ta" obli ations, and later tried to e"ecute another !ort a e to cover 02 buses !ore but sa!e *as not approved by the

Public Service Co!!ission. )t is li3e*ise ad!itted by both parties that respondent issued *arrants of distraint and levy on petitioner6s properties in the provinces on Septe!ber 08, %&'0, and conse>uently scheduled the sale of said properties at public auction for ;ece!ber 02, %&'$, #anuary ' and %$,%&'', and other dates. Aithout touchin on the accuracy or le ality of the ta" assess!ent, the >uestions left to .ur deter!ination are- 9a: *hether the Collector of )nternal Revenue could in %&'0, effect collection of inco!e, percenta e and residence ta"es for the years %&$', %&$5, %&$8 and %&$7 by the su!!ary !ethods of distraint and levy? and 9b: the effect of the !ort a es e"ecuted by petitioner and the offer to co!pro!ise !ade by hi! on his ta" obli ations ta3in into consideration petitioner6s defense of prescription. )t appears fro! the records that petitioner Sa!brano filed his inco!e ta" returns for the ta" years %&$', %&$5 and %&$7 and that '2 per cent surchar e *as i!posed on hi! because of the reat disparity bet*een the returns he filed and the assess!ent arrived at by the Bureau of )nternal Revenue throu h the use of the increase@in@net *orth or inventory !ethod. )t is apparent that this is a case *here inaccurate, false or fraudulent inco!e ta" returns *ere filed? it, therefore, co!es *ithin the scope of section '% 9d: of the National )nternal Revenue Code. Ae have len thily discussed this point on previous occasions and have already construed the provisions of the said para raph and section of the Ta" Code, *hich reads as follo*s9d: Refusal or Neglect to Ma e Return! Fraudulent Returns" etc. B )n cases of refusal or ne lect to !a3e a return and in cases of erroneous, false or fraudulent returns, the Collector of )nternal Revenue shall, upon discovery thereof, at an# time $ithin three #ears after said return is due" or has been made, !a3e a return upon infor!ation obtained as provided for in this code or by e"istin la*, or re>uire the necessary corrections to be !ade, and the assess!ent !ade by the Collector of )nternal Revenue thereon shall be paid by such person or corporation i!!ediately upon notification of the a!ount of such assess!ent. 9Section '%, National )nternal Revenue Code.: As !ay be seen, the afore>uoted provision prohibits the use of the e"tra@(udicial !ethods of distraint and levy for the collection of the income ta%es after the lapse of 1 years fro! the ti!e the return has been filed or is due. As *e have no record of the dates *hen petitioner Sa!brano actually filed his inco!e ta" returns for the ta" years in >uestion, Ae *ill consider the sa!e as havin been !ade not later than March % of the year follo*in that for *hich the return is filed. There is no >uestion that as the *arrants of distraint and levy *ere issued by respondent on Septe!ber 08, %&'0, and as co!putations *ill sho* that said *arrants *ere issued after 1 years, 5 !onths and 05 days fro! March %, %&$&, the date *hen the last inco!e ta" return for %&$7 should have been sub!itted, the Collector )nternal Revenue *as divested of the ri ht to effect collection of petitioner6s inco!e ta" liabilities by the ad!inistrative !ethods and the only recourse left to hi! for said purpose *as to institute the correspondin civil action 9Collector of )nternal Revenue &s. Avelino et al., %22 Phil., 108, '1 .ff. =a,., 5$'? Collector of )nternal Revenue &s. Aurelio P. Reyes et al.? %22 Phil., 700, and Collector of )nternal Revenue &s. Culueta et al.? %22 Phil.? 780, '1 .ff. =a,., D%&E 5'10:. Anent the other ta" liabilities of the petitioner, respondent contends in his belief that in the li ht of the provisions of section 1%5 in relation to sections 11% and P%8,&0&.$2, already paid, to petitioner6s inco!e ta" deficiencies, he *as possessed *ith authority to enforce collection of the percenta e ta", additional residence ta" and the balance of the inco!e ta" liabilities by the ad!inistrative !ethods *ithin ' years fro! the date of assess!ent. Section 1%5 provides for the civil re!edies available to the overn!ent to effect collection of delin>uent ta"es, either by

distraint and levy or by (udicial action, *here as sections 11% and 110 of the Ta" Code read as follo*sSEC. 11%. Period of limitation upon assessment and collection. B E"cept as provided in the succeedin section internal revenue ta"es shall be assessed *ithin five years after the return *as filed, and no proceedin in court *ithout assess!ent for the collection of such ta"es shall be be un after the e"piration of such period. /or the purposes of this section a return filed before the last day prescribed by la* for the fillin thereof shall be considered as filed on such last day- Provided, That this li!itation shall not apply to such cases already investi ate prior to the approval to this Code. SEC. 110. '%ceptions as to period of limitation of assessment and collection of ta%es. B 9a: )n the case of a false or fraudulent *ith intent to evade ta" or of a failure to file a return, the ta" !ay be assessed, or a proceedin in court for the collection of such ta" !ay be be un *ithout assess!ent, at any ti!e *ithin ten years after the discovery of falsity, fraud or o!ission. 9b: Ahen before the e"piration of the ti!e prescribed in the precedin section for the assess!ent for the ta", both the Collector of )nternal Revenue and the ta" payer have consented in *ritin to its assess!ent after such ti!e, the ta" !aybe assessed at any ti!e prior to the e"piration of the period a reed upon. The period so a reed upon !ay be e"tended by subse>uent a ree!ents in *ritin !ade before the e"piration of the period previously a reed upon. 9c: Ahere the assess!ent of any internal revenue ta" has been !ade *ithin the period of li!itation above prescribed such ta" !ay collected by distraint or levy or by proceedin in court, but only if be un 9%: *ithin five after the assess!ent of the ta", or 90: prior to the e"piration of any period for the collection a reed upon in *ritin by the Collector of )nternal Revenue and the ta" payer before the e"piration of such five@year period. The period so a reed upon !ay be subse>uent a ree!ents in *ritin !ade before the e"piration of the period previously a reed upon. As it is not clai!ed by respondent that petitioner has ever filed fraudulent or false returns as re ards the percenta e ta" for the sales of ravel in %&1& to %&$%, this case falls *ithin the scope of the (ust >uoted provisions of sections 11% and 110 of the Ta" Code. Petitioner, on the other hand, clai!s to have raised the >uestion of prescription of the Court of Ta" Appeals *hich *as not passed upon by said Court in its resolution sub(ect of the present action. )t is to be noted, ho*ever, that petitioner6s ta" liabilities *ere reassessed only on April 07, %&'% and the assess!ent of ta"es accrued fro! %&1&@%&$% *as clearly beyond the '@year prescriptive period provided for by said section 11% of the Ta" Code. The chattel !ort a e e"ecuted by petitioner in favor of the overn!ent on May 1, %&'%, contains the follo*in state!entsAFEREAS, the Mort a or is obli ated to the Mort a ee by *ay of inco!e, percenta e and residence ta" for the years %&$' to %&'7, inclusive, a!ountin to P%7$,0$%.28 ite!i,ed as follo*sI'co/e tax ) 1945 I'co/e tax ) 194 I'co/e tax ) 194! P11,#5#"$$ 1 #,4$0"01 471"74 P175,$44"97

Perce'tage tax0 1945 194 Pe'alt( %e+12e'ce tax Perce'tage tax a'2 +urcharge o' +ale+ o, gra-el ,or 19#9.1941 P$,##!" # 4,147"19 #00"00 ,7!5"!$ 0$"50 1, 07"7! P1!4,$41"07 AFEREAS the Mort a or shall pa# in addition to the ta% proper, the correspondin delin>uency penalties thereon? """ """ """ This !ort a e is iven as security for the pay!ent to the said Mort a ee of the ta" liabilities of the Mort a or, as outlined above, in !onthly install!ents of P8,585.8% each, and payable *ithin the first ten 9%2: days of each calendar !onth? """ """ """ By virtue of this instru!ent, petitioner in fact ac3no*led ed the e"istence of the ta" liabilities ite!i,ed in the assess!ent of April 07, %&'%, and assu!ed the obli ation to settle the sa!e. Althou h the percenta e ta"es for the years %&1&@%&$% and %&$' !ay have been e"tin uished by prescription on account of the !andate of sections 11% and 110, yet in the case at bar, petitioner6s obli ation to pay the percenta e ta"es for the years %&1&@%&$% and %&$', assessed on #anuary 5, %&'% and re@assessed on April 07, %&'% as *ell as other ta" deficiencies, *as ac3no*led e by !eans of the chattel !ort a e of May 1, %&'%, an act *hich a!ounts to a rene*al 9renovation: of the obli ation or a *aiver of the benefit ranted by la* to the petitioner *ho is stopped fro! raisin the >uestion of prescription after havin *aived such defense by the e"ecution by the said !ort a e. )n the case of Estrada &s. +illareal, $2 .ff. =a,. 9' Suppl.:, No. &, p.02%, it *as enunciated that a prescribed debt !ay be novated and Ae find no reason to alter said rulin , especially if Ae ta3e into consideration that a si!ilar provision about prescription is e!bodied in the ne* Civil Code, as follo*sART. 5. Ri hts !ay be *aived unless the *aiver is contrary to la*, public order, public policy, !orals, or ood custo!s, or pre(udicial to a third person *hose ri ht is reco ni,ed by la*. Althou h ta"es already due have not, strictly spea3in , the sa!e concept as debts, they are, ho*ever, obli ations that !ay be considered as such. The ter! GdebtG is properly used in a co!prehensive sense as e!bracin not !erely !oney due by contract, but *hatever one is bound to render to another, either for contract or the re>uire!ents of the la* 9Ca!den &s. /in3 Coule and Co3e Co., 5% A4R '7$:. Ahere statutes i!poses a personal liability for a ta", the ta" beco!es, at least in a broad sense, a debt 9(dem:.

A ta" is a debt for *hich a creditor6s bill !ay be brou ht in a proper case 9State &s. =eor ia Co., %& 4RA $7':. So!e A!erican authorities hold that, especially for re!edial purposes, /ederal ta"es are debts 9Ta" Co!!ission &s. National Malleable Castin s Co., 1' A4R %$$7:. )t !ay also be advanced that the '@year prescriptive period set by section 11% of the Ta" Code is a li!itation of action established by la* and, therefore, should be iven strict adherence. Article %%0 of the civil Code, ho*ever, provides the follo*in ART. %%0. Persons *ith capacity to alienate property ma# renounce prescription alread# obtained, but not the ri ht to prescribe in the future. Prescription is deemed to ha&e been tacitl# renounced $hen the renunciation results from acts $hich impl# the abandonment of the right ac)uired. )n the case at bar, althou h petitioner could have been benefited by the afore!entioned provision of section 11% of the Ta" Code, his subse>uent ac3no*led !ent of the obli ation a!ounted to a *aiver and prescription, in the sa!e !anner as any other ri ht is *aivable. Ae need not discuss the effect of the offer to co!pro!ise on petitioner6s obli ations because it appears that there had really been no !eetin of the !inds bet*een the parties. Even before the offer or ac>uired 3no*led e that his offer *as accepted, sa!e *as *ithdra*n, *here upon the other party revo3ed the acceptance previously issued. Althou h the respondent had no ri ht to use the su!!ary !ethods of distraint and levy in collectin inco!e ta" deficiencies for havin !ade beyond the 1@year period, and therefore the *arrants issued therein *ere null and void, yet Ae have to ta3e co ni,ance of the fact that petitioner e"ecuted a chattel !ort a e in favor of the overn!ent uarantee the settle!ent of the ta" obli ation, and the records sho* that upon petitioner6s failure to co!ply *ith its ter!, the vehicles covered by said !ort a e *ere re ularly distrained and sold at public auction. The respondent under the la* had the re!edy of foreclosin the !ort a e to reali,e collection the entire ta" liabilities then a!ountin to P%7$,0$%.28. The sale of the vehicles in so far as those covered by the !ort a e is concerned, *as practically si!ilar to the sale on foreclosure proceedin and petitioner could not clai! have suffered da!a es by the sale of the !ort a e vehicles. Fo*ever, as re ards the sale of the rest of the vehicles sei,ed and of the other properties of petitioner disposed of at the public auction by virtue of the *arrants of distraint and levy, sa!e *as not sanctioned by la*. The respondent Court of Ta" Appeals arrived at the conclusion that petitioner6s failure to pay the ta"es after the date of notice of assess!ent *as serve on hi!, sho*ed utter lac3 of ood faith on his part in settlin his ta" case, and probably because of such conclusion, the Court a )uo denied Santia o Sa!brano6s petition to en(oin the Collector of )nternal Revenue fro! proceedin *ith the sale of the for!er6s properties at public auction not*ithstandin the fact that the first *arrant of distraint and levy *as issued on Septe!ber 08, %&'0, or after 1 years 5 !onths and 05 days fro! the date the inco!e ta" return for %&$7 should have been sub!itted 9March %, %&$&:, and beyond the ' year period provided in section 11% of the Ta" Code prescribin that Gno proceedin in court *ithout assess!ent for the collection of such 9internal revenue: ta"es shall be un after the e"piration of such periodG. And it !aybe said in this connection that the records hereof fail to sho* the alle ed lac3 of ood faith on the part of the petitioner in settlin his ta" case. .n the contrary, i!!ediately upon bein re>uired to pay his deficiency ta"es, petitioner !ort a e 58 of his passen er and frei ht truc3s in favor of the overn!ent and *as *illin to e"ecute, as he did e"ecute, another !ort a e on his properties *hich unfortunately *as not approved by the Public Service Co!!ission. Certainly, petitioner cannot be bla!ed if after the

ter!s of said !ort a e *ere violated, the Collector of )nternal Revenue did not ta3e any step to foreclose the sa!e. The records also fail to sho* *hat the other un!ort a ed properties of petitioner that *ere sold at public auction by reason of the *arrants of distraint and levy issue by the respondent Collector of )nternal Revenue. Ae do not 3no* either that *hat *ere the proceeds of the sale of the sa!e, nor the a!ount of the da!a e suffered by said petitioner, if any, by reason of their undue and e"tra@(udicial sale. Aherefore, on the stren th of the fore oin and inas!uch as petitioner has ac3no*led e his afore!entioned liabilities a!ountin to P%7$,0$%.28, an obli ation *hich Ae assu!e the respondent Collector of )nternal Revenue, *ill be able to establish at the resu!ption of this case in court a )uo, Ae hereby A//)RM the resolution of the Court of Ta" Appeals dated #anuary $, %&'', in so far as it denies petitioner6s prayer to en(oin the respondent Collector of )nternal Revenue fro! proceedin *ith the sale at public auction of petitioner6s 58 TP< passen er buses covered by the !ort a e e"ecuted by hi! in favor of the =overn!ent, and RE+ERSE the sa!e in so far as it affects petitioner6s properties not covered by said !ort a e. After his decision beco!es final, the Court of Ta" Appeals shall proceed to deter!ine, after due hearin , *hat other un!ort a ed properties of petitioner had been sold by the respondent Collector of )nternal Revenue, *hat *ere the proceeds thereof and the a!ount of da!a es suffered by petitioner, if any, on account of said undue sale, and the proceeds of the sale of the properties not covered by the !ort a e plus the a!ount of da!a es suffered by the petitioner on account of the *arrant of distraint and levy issued by the Collector of )nternal Revenue in connection here*ith, if any is proven, and the su! of P%8,0&0.$2 already paid shall be added to the proceeds of the sale of the 58 !ort a ed truc3s, and any a!ount in e"cess of the ta" liabilities of P%7$,0$%.28, if there be any, shall be returned to petitioner. Aithout pronounce!ent as to costs. )t is so ordered. *eng+on" Padilla" Montema#or" Re#es" A." *autista Angelo" ,abrador and 'ndencia" JJ." concur. S()ara*( O)+$+o$, RE-ES, ..!.L., J., concurrin and dissentin ) concur in the findin s contained in the opinion of Mr. #ustice Alfonso /eli", but desire to reaffir! !y opinion 9e"pressed in the cases of Collector &s. Avelino and Court of Ta" Appeals, %22 Phil., 108 '1 .ff. =a,., No. 1 5$', and Collector &s. Reyes and Court of Ta" Appeals cannot, under section %% of Republic Act %%0', en(oin the proceedin for collection of ta"es e"cept upon the ta"payer6s !a3in the deposit or filin the bond re>uired in said section. -oncepcion" J." concurs. The 4a*phil Pro(ect @ Arellano 4a* /oundation