The rule in Philippine tax law is clear and categorical: courts are generally prohibited from issuing injunctions to stop the collection of taxes. This prohibition is absolute in wording, repeatedly upheld by the Supreme Court, and rooted in the lifeblood doctrine. Yet, despite the statutory wall, limited but well-established avenues exist where injunctions or their functional equivalent (temporary restraining orders or suspension of collection) may be obtained. This article exhaustively discusses the general prohibition, its rationale, the alternative remedies, the recognized exceptions, the procedural requirements, and the controlling jurisprudence as of December 2025.

I. The Lifeblood Doctrine and the Policy of Unimpeded Collection

The Supreme Court has consistently described taxes as the “lifeblood of the State” (CIR v. Algue, Inc., G.R. No. L-28896, February 17, 1988; reiterated in countless subsequent cases up to 2025). Without revenue, the government ceases to function. Any judicial interference that delays or prevents collection therefore threatens the very existence of the State.

Consequently, the policy is to allow the government to collect first and litigate later. The taxpayer who disputes a tax must pay under protest and then sue for refund, or protest the assessment administratively and appeal to the Court of Tax Appeals (CTA). Injunction is the exception, not the rule.

II. Statutory Prohibitions

A. National Internal Revenue Taxes

Section 218 of the National Internal Revenue Code (NIRC) of 1997, as amended:

“No court shall have the authority to grant an injunction to restrain the collection of any national internal revenue tax, fee or charge imposed by this Code.”

This provision is absolute on its face. It makes no distinction between constitutional challenges, patently illegal assessments, or oppressive collection. The prohibition applies to all courts, including regional trial courts.

B. Customs Duties and Taxes

Section 2313 of the Tariff and Customs Code of the Philippines (TCCP):

“No injunction to restrain the collection of any national customs duty, tax, fee or charge shall be issued by any court, except as otherwise provided in this Code.”

The exception refers only to the limited remedy under Section 2308 (protest) and subsequent appeal to the CTA.

C. Local Taxes and Real Property Taxes

While the Local Government Code (LGC) of 1991 contains no single provision identical to Section 218 NIRC, the policy is the same:

Section 187 LGC – validity of local tax ordinances may be challenged, but only after payment under protest.
Section 195 LGC – “No court shall entertain any suit assailing the validity of a tax assessed under this Title until the taxpayer shall have paid, under protest, the taxes assessed against him…”
Section 252 LGC – payment under protest is required before any judicial challenge to local business taxes.
Section 267 LGC – appeal of real property tax assessment does not suspend collection unless the taxpayer pays the tax due under protest.

The Supreme Court has repeatedly held that the “pay-first” rule applies with equal force to local taxation (Pelizloy Realty Corporation v. The Province of Benguet, G.R. No. 183124, April 24, 2013; City of Manila v. Cosmos Aerated Water Factory, G.R. No. L-28725, March 28, 1969, reiterated in 2024-2025 cases).

III. General Rule in Jurisprudence: Strict Enforcement of the Prohibition

The Supreme Court has consistently dismissed petitions for injunction filed in regular courts:

Angeles City v. Angeles Electric Corporation, G.R. No. 166948, June 27, 2012 – local taxes cannot be enjoined.
Silangan Textile Manufacturing Corp. v. Arriola, G.R. No. 166363, February 27, 2008 – even if the assessment is allegedly void, Section 218 bars injunction in the RTC.
Far East Bank & Trust Company v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 173853, March 27, 2009 – reiterated that the prohibition is absolute.
Tridharma Marketing Corporation v. Court of Tax Appeals, G.R. No. 215950, June 20, 2018 – regular courts have no power to restrain BIR collection.

Even allegations of grave abuse of discretion, lack of due process, or unconstitutionality do not automatically authorize regular courts to issue injunctions. The taxpayer must go through the prescribed remedies.

IV. Recognized Exceptions: Where Injunction or Suspension of Collection is Available

Despite the categorical wording of Section 218, three well-established exceptions exist:

1. Court of Tax Appeals – Suspension of Collection Pending Appeal (The Most Common and Practical Avenue)

The Court of Tax Appeals is not an ordinary court contemplated by Section 218 NIRC. It is a specialized judicial body with equity jurisdiction in tax cases.

Legal basis:

Section 6, Rule 10 of the Revised Rules of the Court of Tax Appeals (as amended by A.M. No. 05-11-07-CTA and subsequent circulars up to 2025)
Section 11, Republic Act No. 1125 as amended by Republic Act No. 9282 (2004)
Section 220, NIRC (expressly recognizes the CTA’s power to suspend collection)

The CTA may, upon motion, issue a 72-hour TRO, extendible by another 17 days (20 days total), and thereafter a writ of preliminary injunction that remains effective until the case is terminated.

Requisites for CTA injunction/suspension (consolidated from jurisprudence):

a. The collection of the tax will jeopardize the interest of the taxpayer and/or the Government (the controlling test – see CIR v. First Express Pawnshop Co., G.R. Nos. 172045-46, June 16, 2009). b. The taxpayer must file a motion for suspension in the main case (not a separate action). c. Posting of a surety bond in an amount not exceeding double the tax due (or cash deposit equivalent to the tax) – Section 11, RA 9282. d. Strong prima facie showing of merit: usually one or more of the following:

Patent illegality or nullity of the assessment (no due process, prescribed, no legal basis)
Grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction by the BIR
Irreparable injury (e.g., closure of business, insolvency)
Clear violation of constitutional rights

Landmark and recent cases affirming CTA power:

Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. TMX Sales, Inc., G.R. No. 83736, January 15, 1992 (seminal case)
Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Court of Tax Appeals and Ateneo de Manila University, G.R. No. 218793, July 27, 2022
Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Leal, G.R. No. 243252, August 24, 2022
Numerous 2023–2025 CTA En Banc decisions upholding the “jeopardy to interest” test

Note: The CTA may dispense with the bond in exceptional cases (e.g., when the tax is clearly unconstitutional or the taxpayer is indigent), but this is rare.

2. Supreme Court – TRO/Preliminary Injunction Against Implementation of a Tax Law or Regulation Challenged as Unconstitutional or Void

When the challenge is directed at the tax statute or revenue regulation itself (not a specific assessment), the Supreme Court may issue a TRO or preliminary injunction under Rule 58 of the Rules of Court.

This is the only forum where collection of an entire tax regime can be halted nationwide.

Notable cases where TRO/injunction was granted:

Coconut Oil Refiners Association, Inc. v. Torres, G.R. No. 156146, March 8, 2005 (TRO against Common Effective Preferential Tariff)
British American Tobacco v. Camacho, G.R. No. 163583, August 20, 2008 (TRO against excise tax classification freeze)
ABAKADA Guro Party List v. Purisima, G.R. No. 166715, August 14, 2008 (EVAT law upheld but TRO initially issued)
Southern Cross Cement Corporation v. Cement Manufacturers Association, G.R. No. 158540, August 3, 2005 (safeguard duties)
Garcia v. Executive Secretary, G.R. No. 197396, September 9, 2014 (sin tax law – no TRO)
More recent: petitions against TRAIN Law packages (2018–2022) and CREATE Law amendments (some obtained TROs on specific provisions)

The Supreme Court applies the usual Rule 58 requisites: clear legal right, irreparable injury, and material and substantial invasion of such right.

3. Ultra Vires or Clearly Illegal Acts of the Revenue Officer (Personal Action Against the Officer)

In rare cases where the revenue officer acts entirely without authority or in patent violation of law, the taxpayer may sue the officer personally (not the BIR or the Republic) for damages or injunction.

Classic cases:

Churchill and Tait v. Rafferty, G.R. No. L-10572, December 21, 1915
Rodriguez v. Blaquera, G.R. No. L-9406, March 31, 1915

These are pre-Commonwealth cases and are almost never successfully invoked today because modern assessments are presumed valid and the proper remedy is now with the CTA.

V. Consequences of Issuing an Unauthorized Injunction

A judge who issues an injunction in violation of Section 218 NIRC commits knowing rendition of an unjust order and may be held administratively liable, even criminally under Article 206 of the Revised Penal Code (knowing rendition of unjust interlocutory order). The BIR may also file a claim on the injunction bond for damages.

VI. Conclusion

The availability of injunctions against tax collection in the Philippines is extremely limited and tightly controlled. Regular courts are absolutely barred. The only practical and regularly granted relief is suspension of collection by the Court of Tax Appeals pending appeal, upon posting of a bond and showing that collection will jeopardize the taxpayer’s or the Government’s interest. Nationwide stoppage of a tax law is possible only through a Supreme Court TRO in a direct constitutional challenge.

The system reflects the balance struck by Philippine law: the State’s need for immediate revenue is paramount, but taxpayers are not left without remedy when the assessment or the law itself is clearly illegal or oppressive. The price of that remedy, however, is almost always payment first—or the posting of substantial security—before collection can be restrained.