Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • Colgate-Palmolive Phils., Inc. v. Gimenez, G.R. No. L-14787, (January 28, 1961), 110 PHIL 874-878

    Uploaded by

    Danielle Therese Templado
    12 views1 page
    Colgate-Palmolive Philippines filed a claim for a 17% refund on special excise taxes paid for imported materials. The claim was denied by auditors who argued that tax exemptions for "stabilizers and flavors" under the law only applied to those used in food preparation. The Supreme Court ruled that since some items listed after "stabilizers and flavors" were not food-related, the terms should be interpreted broadly, not limited to food use. The petition was granted, overturning the auditors' denial of Colgate-Palmolive's tax refund claim.

    Original Description:

    Original Title

    Colgate-Palmolive Phils., Inc. v. Gimenez, G.R. No. L-14787, [January 28, 1961], 110 PHIL 874-878

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    Colgate-Palmolive Philippines filed a claim for a 17% refund on special excise taxes paid for imported materials. The claim was denied by auditors who argued that tax exemptions for "stabilizers and flavors" under the law only applied to those used in food preparation. The Supreme Court ruled that since some items listed after "stabilizers and flavors" were not food-related, the terms should be interpreted broadly, not limited to food use. The petition was granted, overturning the auditors' denial of Colgate-Palmolive's tax refund claim.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    12 views1 page

    Colgate-Palmolive Phils., Inc. v. Gimenez, G.R. No. L-14787, (January 28, 1961), 110 PHIL 874-878

    Uploaded by

    Danielle Therese Templado
    Colgate-Palmolive Philippines filed a claim for a 17% refund on special excise taxes paid for imported materials. The claim was denied by auditors who argued that tax exemptions for "stabilizers and flavors" under the law only applied to those used in food preparation. The Supreme Court ruled that since some items listed after "stabilizers and flavors" were not food-related, the terms should be interpreted broadly, not limited to food use. The petition was granted, overturning the auditors' denial of Colgate-Palmolive's tax refund claim.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    of 1

    COLGATE-PALMOLIVE PHILIPPINES, INC.

    , petitioner,
    vs.
    HON. PEDRO M. GIMENEZ as AUDITOR GENERAL and ISMAEL
    MATHAY as AUDITOR OF THE CENTRAL BANK OF THE PHILIPPINES,
    respondents.

    Ross, Selph & Carrascoso for petitioner.


    Solicitor General for respondents.

    FACTS:

    The petitioner Colgate-Palmolive Philippines, Inc., is a corporation duly organized and existing
    under Philippine laws engaged in the manufacture of toilet preparations and household
    remedies. Colgate-Palmolive Philippines, Inc. filed a 17% refund for the special excise tax it
    paid for importation of its materials. It was denied by the Auditor and Auditor General
    maintaining that the term "stabilizer and flavors" mentioned in section 2 of the Exchange Tax
    Law refers only to those used in the preparation or manufacture of food or food products.

    ISSUE:

    Whether or not the Auditor of the Central Bank was correct in refusing to pass the claims on the
    grounds that the stabilizers and flavors listed in the exemption of Sec. 2 of the Tax Exchange
    Law are limited to those used in food preparation only.

    RULING:

    Petition is granted. The ruling of the Auditor General that the term "stabilizer and flavors" as
    used in the law refers only to those materials actually used in the preparation or manufacture of
    food and food products is based, apparently, on the principle of statutory construction that
    "general terms may be restricted by specific words, with the result that the general language will
    be limited by the specific language which indicates the statute's object and purpose."

    The Supreme Court upheld that it is applicable only to cases where, except for one general
    term, all the items in an enumeration belong to or fall under one specific class. In the case at
    bar, it is true that the term "stabilizer and flavors" is preceded by a number of articles that may
    be classified as food or food products, but it is likewise true that the other items immediately
    following it do not belong to the same classification. Since the law does not distinguish between
    the use of these products, court is not authorized to distinguish and must use these terms in
    their general sense.

    You might also like