Court of Tax Appeals
0Alfonso B. Camillo vs. The Commissioner of Internal Revenue
REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES
COURT OF TAX APPEALS
QUEZON CITY
ALFONSO B. CAMILLO,
Petitioner,
-
versus --
C.T.A. CASE NO. 4260
THE COMMISSIONER OF
INTERNAL REVENUE,
Respondent.
X -
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
X
D
E
C
I
I
0
N
This case comes on a simple issue of whether
or not terminal leave pay of retiring government
officials is exempt from the withholding tax.
It ap~ears that petitioner, a Revenue Regional
Director II of the Bureau of
~nternal Revenue, was
"forced by the respondent Commissioner of Internal
Revenue to retire on
November
-:r
._ .. !I
1987 under the
provisions of Section 12(c) of C.A. 186, as amended
by R.A. 1616 and further amended by R.A. 4968; that
as a consequence he received among other retirement
benefits the sum of P 133, 365. 59 as termina 1
1 eave
pay
and
thereupon
the
corresponding
sum
of
F'18,365.74 was deducted and withheld as income tax;
and tha'Y;he claims that the full sum of terminal
leave
pay is exempt
from
tax
of
whatever
kind
DECISION
2 pursuant to Presidential Decree No. 1146, which, in pertinent part, provides: "Sec. 3 3 E:·:emption from Ta:·:, Legal Process and Lien.
xxx Accordingly, notwithstanding any laws to the contrary the System, its assets , revenue including a c c r u a 1 s thereto and Q..~n.gLfjj;_~_P. a.,hfi_,._ . ...?Jl~.l.!.
Q.g__. __ !?.J:LE? .. m.P..:t..._._.f.r .Q_ffi_ .. _ . ..eJ_l. ____ _t..9.1.t~-~--'·--.E\_?. s J.E:? s..?JD..!?.fl t2_,_ f .!?.-~.?._,.._. ____ c;;_b.~.r:.gg.§_._. ___ .Q.L_._c;t!::~t.,t~ .. ?.._._. __ ._Q . .f_ __ _e_l._L ___ ~:;._i.n..Q..?..
:-::-::-:."
(Emphasis supplied) As thus petitioner on February 1, 1988 filed with the respondent's office a claim for the refund of the amount withheld from his terminal leave pay which however was denied by the respondent on February 18, 1988.
Hence, this petition for review. Perhaps We nee d take no time in going into all the details of this case as it may suffice to state that analogous appealed cas es have since been pending resolution by the Supreme Court. And, so recently in the c ase of Coa•i ss i oner of Internal Revenue v.
Oscar Victor i ano and the Court of Tax Appeals, G.R.
No.
83176, Augu s t 10, Supreme Court ruled, that - "In view of the fact that terminal 1 eave pay of the respondent former Presiding Justice of the Court of Appeals, Oscar Victoriano, is part of his sa 1 ary, the Court Res o 1 ved to Grant the petition and thus allows the imposition of the wi thho 1 ding ta~: thereon."
53J the
- 3 - The said decision may now be referred to as an authoritative disposition of the issue in controversy.
As was in that case, so here with the petitioner, the ruling applies with legal cer·tain ty.
It is very clear, therefore, upon the adjudged appea 1, that petitioner's action cannot be maintained and that the j Lldgmen t must be entered for the respondent Commissioner of Internal RevenL1e.
WHEREFORE, petition is hereby dismissed with no pronouncement as to costs.
SO ORDERED.
Quezon City, Metro Manila, December 29, 1989. t9&..
Associate Judge
WE CONCUR:
Judge ssociate Judge
- 4 - CERTIFICATION I hereby certify that this decision was reached after due consultation among the members of the Court of Tax Appeals in accordance with Section 13~ Article VIII of the Constitution. AMANT FILLER Presiding Judge Court of Tax Appeals 540