Scribd
Upload
89 views1 page

Harrison Motors vs. Navarro Case Summary

This document summarizes a Supreme Court case between Harrison Motors Corporation and Rachel Navarro regarding two trucks sold by Harrison to Navarro. The Bureau of Internal Revenue, Bureau of Customs, and Land Transportation Office entered an agreement requiring proof of payment of taxes and duties before vehicle registration. Government agents seized Navarro's trucks for unpaid taxes, and Navarro paid to secure their release. The Court ruled that the agreements did not impair the sale contract between Harrison and Navarro, as they only enforced existing tax and duty payments due at importation.

Uploaded by

Cherry Sormillo
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
89 views1 page

Harrison Motors vs. Navarro Case Summary

This document summarizes a Supreme Court case between Harrison Motors Corporation and Rachel Navarro regarding two trucks sold by Harrison to Navarro. The Bureau of Internal Revenue, Bureau of Customs, and Land Transportation Office entered an agreement requiring proof of payment of taxes and duties before vehicle registration. Government agents seized Navarro's trucks for unpaid taxes, and Navarro paid to secure their release. The Court ruled that the agreements did not impair the sale contract between Harrison and Navarro, as they only enforced existing tax and duty payments due at importation.

Uploaded by

Cherry Sormillo
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd

Harrison vs.

Navarro | 243

SECOND DIVISION

HARRISON MOTORS CORPORATION, petitioner,


vs. RACHEL A. NAVARRO, respondent.

(G.R. No. 132269, April 27, 2000)

BELLOSILLO, J.:

FACTS:

Harrison Motors Corp. sold 2 Isuzu Elf trucks to private respondent Navarro,
owner of RN Freight Lines, a franchise holder operating and maintaining a fleet of cargo
trucks all over Luzon. Petitioner assembled 2 trucks using component parts. Before the
sale, all BIR taxes and customs duties for the parts used on the two trucks had been
paid for.

Subsequently, BIR, BOC, and LTO entered into a tripartite MOA that before registration
in the LTO of any locally assembled vehicle using imported parts, a Certificate of
Payment should first be obtained from BIR and BOC for proof that all taxes and custom
duties have been paid. Government agents seized and detained the two trucks of
Navarro after discovering that there were still unpaid taxes. Wanting to secure
immediate release of trucks, Navarro paid the assessed BIR taxes and customs duties
and ask for reimbursement but Claros, president of respondent, refused.

ISSUE:

Whether the 2 MOAs impair the contract of sale between petitioner and private
respondent.

RULING:

No, the MOAs did not impair the contract of sale.

The Memorandum of Agreement does not impose any additional taxes which
would unduly impair the contract of sale between petitioner and private respondent.
Instead, these administrative orders were passed to enforce payment of existing BIR
taxes and customs duties at the time of importation. Petitioner’s contention is
unmeritorious. What Sec. 10 Art. III of the Constitution prohibits is the passage of a law
which enlarges, abridges or in any manner changes the intention of the contracting
parties.

You might also like