1. SARASOLA v.

TRINIDAD

Facts:
Gregorio Sarasola filed a complaint for injunction to restrain Wenceslao Trinidad, the Collector ofInternal Revenue
from the alleged illegal collection of taxes. CIR interposed a demurrer to the complaint statingthat under Section
1578 of the Administrative Code, injunction is not available to restrain collection of tax. CIRalso alleged the
complaint did not entitle the plaintiff to the relief demanded as under Section 1579, it disallowsinterest on the
internal revenue taxes in the sum alleged to have been illegally collected. The judge of CFIManila sustained the
demurrer, basing his decision from the case of Churchill v Rafferty. Sarsola argued thatthe provisions under Sec
1578-1579 are unconstitutional.

Issue:
Whether an interest can be imposed against the State in cases of recovery of taxes illegally collected.

Ruling:
YES. It is well settled both on principle and authority that interest is not to be awarded against asovereign
government unless its consent has been manifested by an Act of its Legislature or by a lawfulcontract of its
executive officers. If there be doubt upon the subject, that doubt must be resolved in favor of theState. The state
never pays interest unless she expressly engages to do so.Our own statute not only does not authorize interest but
negatives the payment of interest. The law is valid,or that Sarasola has not proven such a case of irreparable injury
as would warrant the issuance of theextraordinary writ of execution.