CALTEX PHILIPPINES, INC., vs. THE HONORABLE COMMISSION ON AUDIT, HONORABLE COMMISSIONER BARTOLOME C. FERNANDEZ and HONORABLE COMMISSIONER ALBERTO P. CRUZ.
- G.R. Number: G.R. No. 92585
- Promulgated: 1992-05-08
- Ponente: Davide, Jr., J.
Doctrine
Decisions, orders or rulings of Constitutional Commissions are reviewable by certiorari under Rule 65 and may be entertained even if the remedy was misdesignated when the petition raises proper grounds and important issues.
Tax-like imposts (such as OPSF contributions) are not subject to compensation by the taxpayer because the government and taxpayer are not mutual creditors and debtors; claims against the government cannot be set off against taxes absent legal basis.
An executive issuance (e.g., LOI) has no binding force and effect unless published in the Official Gazette when publication is required for effectivity.
Facts
Petitioner (Caltex) sought review of COA's disallowance of its claims for reimbursement from the Oil Price Stabilization Fund (OPSF), including recovery of financing charges and underrecovery on sales to NPC, ATLAS and Marcopper, and relief to offset remittances against reimbursements.
Petition was erroneously filed under Rule 44 but the Court held that certiorari under Rule 65 is the proper remedy for decisions of Constitutional Commissions and the petition could be treated as such.
Petitioner invoked Letter of Instruction (LOI) No. 1416 (17 July 1984) which suspended payments by distressed copper companies; Caltex relied on LOI 1416 to claim reimbursement for sales to ATLAS and Marcopper.
COA disallowed recovery of financing charges and disallowed offsets of OPSF contributions against claims; the Court examined past practice, statutory provisions, and publication requirements for issuances (LOI 1416).
Issues
Whether the proper remedy to assail COA decisions is certiorari under Rule 65 notwithstanding misdesignation under Rule 44.
Whether petitioner may recover financing charges from the OPSF that COA disallowed.
Whether LOI 1416 suspending payments by distressed copper companies authorizes petitioner to claim reimbursement for sales to ATLAS and MARCOPPER.
Whether petitioner may offset its contributions to the OPSF against its claims for reimbursement from the fund.
Ruling
The Court treated the misdesignated Rule 44 petition as certiorari under Rule 65 appropriate for review of Constitutional Commission decisions and entertained the petition given the issues' importance.
The Court affirmed COA's disallowance of petitioner's claim for financing charges; petitioner failed to prove it incurred a loss and COA's finding that petitioner gained was not sufficiently rebutted.
LOI 1416 has no binding effect to support petitioner's reimbursement claims for sales to ATLAS and MARCOPPER because it was never published in the Official Gazette and thus lacks force.
The Court held petitioner may not offset OPSF contributions against its claims: compensation against taxes or public imposts is not allowed; past practice of offsets has no legal basis; R.A. No. 6952 does not authorize such offsets.
Final disposition: the Court AFFIRMED COA's decision except it allowed petitioner's claim for reimbursement of underrecovery arising from sales to the National Power Corporation; costs against petitioner.
Keywords
G.R. No. 92585, Rule 44 of the Rules of Court, Commission on Audit (COA), Oil Price Stabilization Fund (OPSF), reimbursement from the OPSF, Rule 65 of the Rules of Court, grave abuse of discretion, Presidential Decree (P.D.) No. 1956, Executive Order (E.O.) No. 137, cost under-recovery, remittance, offsetting, COA Circular No. 89-299, National Power Corporation, Atlas Consolidated Mining and Development Corporation (ATLAS), Marcopper Mining Corporation (MAR-COPPER), Office of Energy Affairs (OEA), Department of Finance (DOF), claims, reimbursement