Facts: On January 12, 1984, the CIR demanded payment from private respondent Maritime Company of the Philippines of deficiency common carrier’s tax, fixed tax, 6% commercial broker’s tax, documentary stamp tax, income tax and withholding tax totaling P17,284,882.45. The assessment became final and executory, and with private respondent’s failure to pay the tax liabilities, the CIR issued warrants of distraint of personal property and levy of real property which were duly served on January 23, 1985. On April 16, 1985, a “receipt of goods, articles and things” was executed covering, among others, 6 barges as proof of constructive distraint of property but the same was not signed by any representative of private respondent because of the refusal of the persons actually in possession of the barges.
It appeared that 4 of the barges constructively distrained were also levied upon by a deputy sheriff of Manila on July 20, 1985 and sold at public auction to satisfy a judgment for unpaid wages and other benefits of employees of private respondent.
Issue: Who has a preferential lien over the barges, the Government or the company’s employees?
Held: The court held that it is the government which has preferential lien over the barges under Articles 2241 and 2247 of the Civil Code. Accordingly, the preferential lien of employees for unpaid wages under Article 110 of the Labor Code applies only to bankruptcy cases where the employer is under liquidation due to bankruptcy.
The NIRC provides for the collection of delinquent taxes by any of the following remedies: a) distraint of personal property or levy of real property of the delinquent taxpayer; b) civil or criminal action.
The court upheld the validity of distraint of the barges against the levy on execution and the claim of the Government predicated on a tax lien is superior to the claim of a private litigant predicated on a judgment. The tax lien attaches not only from the service of the warrant of distraint of personal property but from the time the tax became due and payable. Besides, the distraint on the subject properties of Maritime Company of the Philippines as well as the notice of their seizure were made by petitioner, through the CIR, a long before the writ of execution was issued by RTC-Manila, Branch 31. There is no question then that at the time the writ of execution was issued, the two (2) barges, MCP-1 and MCP-4, were no longer properties of the Maritime Company of the Philippines. The power of the court in execution of judgment extends only to properties unquestionably belonging to the judgment debtor. Execution sales affect the rights of the judgment debtor only, and the purchaser in auction sale requires only such rights as the judgment debtor had tat the time of the sale. It is also well settled that the sheriff is not authorized to attach or levy on property not belonging to the judgment debtor.
0 comments:
Post a Comment