IPEKDJIAN MERCHANDISING CO., INC.

v CTA, CIR
9 SCRA 72
MAKALINTAL; Sept 30, 1963

FACTS
- Commissioner of Internal Revenue assessed from Ipekdjian P97,502.25 as
compensating tax and surcharge on gold chains imported by it, which were later
converted into gold bullion, + P200 compromise penalty.
- Ipekdjian appealed to Board of Tax Appeals. BTA affirmed Commissioners judgment.
THIS IS BTA CASE NO. 10
- Ipekdjian appealed to SC but SC dismissed. Ipekdjian sought to reinstate its appeal
with SC but it was denied.
- Ipekdjian sought to reopen case with CTA. CTA dismissed. MFR was also denied.
- Ipekdjian made partial payment, but later it filed with Commissioner a claim for refund
of the same. This was denied.
- Ipekdjian filed petition for review in CTA. THIS IS CTA CASE NO 374
- Commissioner filed his answer in the CTA case, raising the affirmative defense of res
judicata.
- Motion for execution of judgment in BTA case was granted by CTA. Hence this petition
for certiorari.

ISSUE
WON BTA case operates to bar the CTA case
(Ipekdjian argues that res judicata applies only to judgment of courts, not to decisions of
administrative agencies.)

HELD
1. YES
- Requisites, res judicata:
- final former judgment
- court has jurisdiction over subject matter and parties
- judgment on merits
- between first and second actions:
- identity of parties
- identity of subject matter
- identity of cause of action
- The more equitable attitude is to allow extension of defense to decisions of bodies
upon whom judicial powers have been conferred.
- In both cases, issue is the same: WON appellant is liable for compensating tax.

FACTS:
1. Respondent Collector of Internal Revenue assessed the sum of
P97,502.25, as compensating tax and surcharge, due from
petitioner lpekdjian Merchandising Co., Inc., on its imported
gold chains, not actually sold but which were converted into
gold bullion and later sold by petitioner as such plus the amount
of P200.00 as penalty for petitioners violation of section 190 of
the Tax Code.
2. Petitioner appealed this decision to the Board of Tax Appeals
being BTA Case No. 10. The said Board having affirmed the
decision of respondent, petitioner appealed the decision. The
Court dismissed the appeal.
3. After the resolution of this Court had become final and
executory, petitioner sought to reinstate its appeal in this Court,
but said petition for reinstatement was denied.
4. Petitioner tried to reopen its case in this Court, by having it
docketed for hearing as CTA Case No. 107. on the ground of
lack of jurisdiction for having been filed beyond 30 days from
the receipt of the assessment made by respondent.
5. Petitioner MR of said dismissal, but the motion was denied. The
petitioner made a partial payment, in the amount of P5,000.00.
6. The respondent filed the present motion for execution of
judgment before the CTA, praying that petitioner be ordered to
pay the balance of P92,505.25, as compensating tax and
surcharge, plus P200.00 as penalty.
7. A resolution was promulgated ordering the Clerk of Court to
issue the writ of execution.