TAX.7.12. Kierulf v CA (GR No.

99301)

FACTS: The Pantranco bus was travelling along EDSA to Balintawak. Its driver lost control of the bus causing it to swerve
and fly over and eventually bump the front portion of an Isuzu pickup driven by Legaspi. As a result, both vehicles were
damaged and physical injuries were inflicted on Legaspi and Lucila Kierulf (passenger). The injuries sustained by Lucila
required major surgeries like "tracheotomy, open reduction, mandibular fracture, intermaxillary repair of multiple
laceration" and prolonged treatment by specialists. Legaspi also suffered injuries. The front portion of the pickup truck,
owned by Spouses Kierulf, was smashed to pieces. Kierulfs filed civil case for damages. Pantranco asked for exoneration
by invoking an alleged fortuitous event as the cause of the accident (it contends that the proximate cause was the accidental
dropping of a used engine differential by a junk truck immediately ahead of the bus). Trial court decided in favor of the
plaintiffs and Pantranco was ordered to pay actual, moral and exemplary damages to the former. Upon appeal, CA modified
the RTC decision increasing the award for damages. Both parties were dissatisfied with the CA decision: Spouses Kierulf
and Legaspi argue that the damages awarded were inadequate while Pantranco counters that they were astronomical,
bloated and not duly proved, hence these petitions.

ISSUE: The respondent court of appeals erred in not awarding any amount for the lost income due to the petitioner Lucila
H. Kierulf

RULING: We agree with the findings of Respondent Court that Lucila's claim of loss of earning capacity has not been
duly proven. The alleged loss must be established by factual evidence for it partakes of actual damages. Moral damages
are in the category of an award designed to compensate the claimant for actual injury suffered and not to impose penalty
on the wrongdoer. Mere proof of Lucila's earnings consisting of her 1983 and 1984 income tax returns would not suffice
to prove earnings for the years 1985 and 1986. The incident happened on February 28, 1987. If indeed Lucila had been
earning P50,000.00 every month prior to the accident, as she alleged, there are evidentiary proofs for such earnings other
than income tax returns such as, but not limited to, payroll receipts, payments to the SSS, or withholding tax paid every
month. Sad to say, these other proofs have not been presented, and we cannot presume that they exist on the strength of
the word of Lucila alone.

TAX.7.13. Xavier School, Inc. v. Commissioner, CTS Case 1682 (1969)

FACTS: Petitioner is a duly organized private non-stock corporation for educational purposes. For school site purposes,
it purchased from Candelaria Guidote (herein referred to as Echague Property) several parcels of land located in Quiapo,
Manila. Realizing that the property was inadequate and inappropriately situated to meet the expanding needs of an
educational institution, petitioner sought permission from the Director of Private schools to transfer its function and
activities to another site in the suburb of Manila. Hence petitioner purchased from Ortigas and Company 3 parcels of lands
located as San Juan, Rizal. The money used by the petitioner to purchase the new school lot was borrowed from the Jesuit
Central in Hongkong with the agreement that the loan is payable as soon as the Echague Property is sold. Later, petitioner
agreed to sell the Echague Property to Continental Oil and Inc. and agreed to vacate the property. By a Supplementary
Agreement, there still remains a balance of 450,000.00 out of 1.9M selling price. Later, a deficiency tax was assessed in
the Echague property. Petitioner not contends that as a non-profit educational institution, it is exempt from income tax.

ISSUE: Whether petitioner is exempt from income

RULING: Private educational institution that engages in profitable undertaking is subject to tax. A private educational
institution which deviated from its purely educational purposes and activities hall be treated like any private domestic
corporation engaged in business for profit with respect to income derived therefrom. The protective mantle of income tax
benefit or exemption cannot be extended to a private educational institution which chooses to descend from its high
pedestal of tax preference or immunity to the level of an ordinary private corporation engaged in profitable undertaking or
business