ChanRobles™ Virtual Law Library | chanrobles.com™  
Main Index Law Library Philippine Laws, Statutes & Codes Latest Legal Updates Philippine Legal Resources Significant Philippine Legal Resources Worldwide Legal Resources Philippine Supreme Court Decisions United States Jurisprudence
 

 
Chan Robles Virtual Law Library
 
 

 
UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE
 

 
PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE
 

   
March-2012 Jurisprudence                 

  • [G.R. No. 152272 : March 05, 2012] JUANA COMPLEX I HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION, INC., ANDRES C. BAUTISTA, BRIGIDO DIMACULANGAN, DOLORES P. PRADO, IMELDA DE LA CRUZ, EDITHA C. DY, FLORENCIA M. MERCADO, LEOVINO C. DATARIO, AIDA A. ABAYON, NAPOLEON M. DIMAANO, ROSITA G. ESTIGOY AND NELSON A. LOYOLA, PETITIONERS, VS. FIL-ESTATE LAND, INC., FIL ESTATE ECOCENTRUM CORPORATION, LA PAZ HOUSING AND DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, WARBIRD SECURITY AGENCY, ENRIQUE RIVILLA, MICHAEL E. JETHMAL AND MICHAEL ALUNAN, RESPONDENTS. [G. R. NO. 152397] FIL-ESTATE LAND, INC., FIL ESTATE ECOCENTRUM CORPORATION, LA PAZ HOUSING AND DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, WARBIRD SECURITY AGENCY, ENRIQUE RIVILLA, MICHAEL E. JETHMAL AND MICHAEL ALUNAN, PETITIONERS, VS. JUANA COMPLEX I HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION, INC., ANDRES C. BAUTISTA, BRIGIDO DIMACULANGAN, DOLORES P. PRADO, IMELDA DE LA CRUZ, EDITHA C. DY, FLORENCIA M. MERCADO, LEOVINO C. DATARIO, AIDA A. ABAYON, NAPOLEON M. DIMAANO, ROSITA G. ESTIGOY AND NELSON A. LOYOLA, RESPONDENTS. D E C I S I O N

  • [G.R. No. 171251 : March 05, 2012] LASCONA LAND CO., INC., PETITIONER, VS. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, RESPONDENT.

  • [G.R. No. 194645 : March 06, 2012] CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION, PETITIONER, VS. AURORA M. CLAVE, RESPONDENT. [G.R. NO. 194665] GOVERNMENT SERVICE INSURANCE SYSTEM (GSIS), PETITIONER, VS. AURORA M. CLAVE, RESPONDENT.

  • [G.R. No. 179652 : March 06, 2012] PEOPLE’S BROADCASTING SERVICE (BOMBO RADYO PHILS., INC.), PETITIONER, VS. THE SECRETARY OF THE DEPARTMENT OF LABOR AND EMPLOYMENT, THE REGIONAL DIRECTOR, DOLE REGION VII, AND JANDELEON JUEZAN, RESPONDENTS.

  • [A.M. No. 12-2-6-SC : March 06, 2012] RE: PETITION FOR JUDICIAL CLEMENCY OF JUDGE IRMA ZITA V. MASAMAYOR,

  • [G.R. Nos. 162335 & 162605 : March 06, 2012] SEVERINO M. MANOTOK IV, FROILAN M. MANOTOK, FERNANDO M. MANOTOK III, MA. MAMERTA M. MANOTOK, PATRICIA L. TIONGSON, PACITA L. GO, ROBERTO LAPERAL III, MICHAEL MARSHALL V. MANOTOK, MARYANN MANOTOK, FELISA MYLENE V. MANOTOK, IGNACIO V. MANOTOK, JR., MILAGROS V. MANOTOK, SEVERINO MANOTOK III, ROSA R. MANOTOK, MIGUEL A.B. SISON, GEORGE M. BOCANEGRA, MA. CRISTINA E. SISON, PHILIPP L. MANOTOK, JOSE CLEMENTE L. MANOTOK, RAMON SEVERINO L. MANOTOK, THELMA R. MANOTOK, JOSE MARIA MANOTOK, JESUS JUDE MANOTOK, JR. AND MA. THERESA L. MANOTOK, REPRESENTED BY THEIR ATTORNEY- IN-FACT, ROSA R. MANOTOK, PETITIONERS, VS. HEIRS OF HOMER L. BARQUE, REPRESENTED BY TERESITA BARQUE HERNANDEZ, RESPONDENTS.

  • [G.R. No. 160882 : March 07, 2012] FELICIDAD STA. MARIA VILLARAN, WILFREDO STA. MARIA VILLARAN, DEOGRACIAS STA. MARIA AND ROLANDO STA. MARIA, PETITIONERS, VS. DEPARTMENT OF AGARIAN REFORM ADJUDICATION BOARD AND LORENZO MARIANO, RESPONDENTS.

  • [G.R. No. 195239 : March 07, 2012] PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. BEN RUBIO Y ACOSTA, ACCUSED-APPELLANT.

  • [G.R. No. 188103 : March 07, 2012] PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. JEROME PALER, ACCUSED-APPELLANT.

  • [G.R. No. 182522 : March 07, 2012] PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. NOEL T. ADALLOM, ACCUSED-APPELLANT.

  • [G.R. No. 170964 : March 07, 2012] ELSA MACANDOG MAGTIRA, PETITIONER, VS. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, RESPONDENT.

  • [G.R. No. 184885 : March 07, 2012] ERNESTO G. YMBONG, PETITIONER, VS. ABS-CBN BROADCASTING CORPORATION, VENERANDA SY AND DANTE LUZON, RESPONDENTS.

  • [G.R. No. 174792 : March 07, 2012] WILFREDO ARO, RONILO TIROL, JOSE PACALDO, PRIMITIVO CASQUEJO AND MARCIAL ABGO, PETITIONERS, VS. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, FOURTH DIVISION AND BENTHEL DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, RESPONDENTS.

  • [G.R. No. 174173 : March 07, 2012] MA. MELISSA A. GALANG, PETITIONER, VS. JULIA MALASUGUI, RESPONDENT.

  • [G.R. No. 188670 : March 07, 2012] DEPARTMENT OF AGRARIAN REFORM, REPRESENTED BY OIC-SECRETARY JOSE MARI B. PONCE, NOW BY SECRETARY NASSER C. PANGANDAMAN, PETITIONER, VS. HEIRS OF ANGEL T. DOMINGO, RESPONDENTS.

  • [G.R. No. 165132 : March 07, 2012] OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN, PETITIONER, VS. NELLIE R. APOLONIO, RESPONDENT.

  • [G.R. No. 190559 : March 07, 2012] BLUE SKY TRADING COMPANY, INC. AND/OR JOSE TANTIANSU AND LINDA TANTIANSU, PETITIONERS, VS. ARLENE P. BLAS AND JOSEPH D. SILVANO, RESPONDENTS.

  • [G.R. No. 183449 : March 12, 2012] ALFREDO JACA MONTAJES, PETITIONER, VS. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, RESPONDENT.

  • [A.M. No. 11-10-1-SC : March 13, 2012] IN RE: LETTERS OF ATTY. ESTELITO P. MENDOZA RE: G.R. NO. 178083 – FLIGHT ATTENDANTS AND STEWARDS ASSOCIATION OF THE PHILIPPINES (FASAP) V. PHILIPPINE AIRLINES, INC. (PAL), ET AL.

  • [A.m. No. 12-2-03-0 : March 13, 2012] RE: IN THE MATTER OF CLARIFICATION OF EXEMPTION FROM PAYMENT OF ALL COURT AND SHERIFF’S FEES OF COOPERATIVES DULY REGISTERED IN ACCORDANCE WITH REPUBLIC ACT NO. 9520 OTHERWISE KNOWN AS THE PHILIPPINE COOPERATIVE CODE OF 2008, PERPETUAL HELP COMMUNITY COOPERATIVE (PHCCI), PETITIONER,

  • [G. R. No. 162322 : March 14, 2012] REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, PETITIONER, VS. BANTIGUE POINT DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, RESPONDENT.

  • [G.R. No. 169628 : March 14, 2012] MANUEL A. LUMAYOG, PETITIONER, VS. SPOUSES LEONARD PITCOCK AND CORAZON PITCOCK, RESPONDENTS.

  • [G. R. No. 183367 : March 14, 2012] SECOND DIVISION AUSTRALIAN PROFESSIONAL REALTY, INC., JESUS GARCIA, AND LYDIA MARCIANO, PETITIONERS, VS. MUNICIPALITY OF PADRE GARCIA BATANGAS PROVINCE, RESPONDENT.

  • [G.R. No. 184406 : March 14, 2012] LAND BANK OF THE PHILIPPINES, PETITIONER, VS. PERFECTO OBIAS, ET. AL., RESPONDENTS.

  • [G.R. No. 175263 : March 14, 2012] MANUEL H. NIETO, JR., PETITIONER, VS. SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION (SEC), ATTY. VERNETTE G. UMALI-PACO IN HER CAPACITY AS GENERAL COUNSEL OF THE SEC AND IN HER PERSONAL CAPACITY, AND JOHN/JANE DOES, RESPONDENTS.

  • [G.R. No. 193861 : March 14, 2012] PAULITA “EDITH” SERRA,1 PETITIONER, VS. NELFA T. MUMAR, RESPONDENT.

  • [G.R. No. 195546 : March 14, 2012] GOODLAND COMPANY, INC., PETITIONER, VS. ASIA UNITED BANK, CHRISTINE T. CHAN, FLORANTE DEL MUNDO, ENGRACIO M. ESCASINAS, JR., IN HIS OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS CLERK OF COURT & EX-OFFICIO SHERIFF IN THE REGIONAL TRIAL COURT OF MAKATI CITY, NORBERTO B. MAGSAJO, IN HIS OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS SHERIFF IV OF THE REGIONAL TRIAL COURT OF MAKATI CITY, AND RONALD A. ORTILE, IN HIS OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS THE REGISTER OF DEEDS FOR MAKATI CITY, RESPONDENTS. [G.R. NO. 195561] GOODLAND COMPANY, INC., PETITIONER, VS. ASIA UNITED BANK, ABRAHAM CO, ATTY. JOEL T. PELICANO AND THE REGISTER OF DEEDS OF MAKATI CITY, RESPONDENTS.

  • [G.R. No. 175924 : March 14, 2012] PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. ERLAND SABADLAB Y BAYQUEL, ACCUSED-APPELLANT.

  • [G.R. No. 193279 : March 14, 2012] ELEANOR DE LEON LLENADO, PETITIONER, VS. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES AND EDITHA VILLAFLORES, RESPONDENTS.

  • [G.R. No. 155109 : March 14, 2012] C. ALCANTARA & SONS, INC., PETITIONER, VS. COURT OF APPEALS, LABOR ARBITER ANTONIO M. VILLANUEVA, LABOR ARBITER ARTURO L. GAMOLO, SHERIFF OF NLRC RAB-XI-DAVAO CITY, NAGKAHIUSANG MAMUMUO SA ALSONS-SPFL (NAMAAL-SPFL), FELIXBERTO IRAG, JOSHUA BARREDO, ERNESTO CUARIO, EDGAR MONDAY, EDILBERTO DEMETRIA, HERMINIO ROBILLO, ROMULO LUNGAY, MATROIL DELOS SANTOS, BONERME MATURAN, RAUL CANTIGA, EDUARDO CAMPUSO, RUDY ANADON, GILBERTO GABRONINO, BONIFACIO SALVADOR, CIRILO MINO, ROBERTO ABONADO, WARLITO MONTE, PEDRO ESQUIERDO, ALFREDO TROPICO, DANILO MEJOS, HECTOR ESTUITA, BARTOLOME CASTILLANES, EDUARDO CAPUYAN, SATURNINO CAGAS, ALEJANDRO HARDER, EDUARDO LARENA, JAIME MONTEDERAMOS, ERMELANDO BASADRE, REYNALDO LIMPAJAN, ELPIDIO LIBRANZA, TEDDY SUELO, JOSE AMOYLIN, TRANQUILINO ORALLO, CARLOS BALDOS, MANOLITO SABELLANO, CARMELITO TOBIAS, PRIMITIVO GARCIA, JUANITO ALDEPOLLA, LUDIVICO ABAD, WENCISLAO INGHUG, RICARDO ALTO, EPIFANIO JARABAY, FELICIANO AMPER, ALEXANDER JUDILLA, ROBERTO ANDRADE, ALFREDO LESULA, JULIO ANINO, BENITO MAGPUSAO, PEDRO AQUINO, EDDIE MANSANADES, ROMEO ARANETA, ARGUILLAO MANTICA, CONSTANCIO ARNAIZ, ERNESTO HOTOY, JUSTINO ASCANO, RICARDO MATURAN, EDILBERTO YAMBAO, ANTONIO MELARGO, JESUS BERITAN, ARSENIO MELICOR, DIOSDADO BONGABONG, LAURO MONTENEGRO, CARLITO BURILLO, LEO MORA, PABLO BUTIL, ARMANDO GUCILA, JEREMIAH CAGARA, MARIO NAMOC, CARLITO CAL, GERWINO NATIVIDAD, ROLANDO CAPUYAN, EDGARDO ORDIZ, LEONARDO CASURRA, PATROCINIO ORTEGA, FILEMON CESAR, MARIO PATAN, ROMEO COMPRADO, JESUS PATOC, RAMON CONSTANTINO, ALBERTO PIELAGO, SAMUEL DELA LLANA, NICASIO PLAZA, ROSALDO DAGONDON, TITO GUADES, BONIFACIO DINAGUDOS, PROCOPIO RAMOS, JOSE EBORAN, ROSENDO SAJOL, FRANCISCO EMPUERTO, PATRICIO SALOMON, NESTOR ENDAYA, MARIO SALVALEON, ERNESTO ESTILO, BONIFACIO SIGUE, VICENTE FABROA, JAIME SUCUAHI, CELSO HUISO, ALEX TAUTO-AN, SATURNINO YAGON, CLAUDIO TIROL, SULPECIO GAGNI, JOSE TOLERO, FERVIE GALVEZ, ALFREDO TORALBA AND EDUARDO GENELSA, RESPONDENTS. [G.R. NO. 155135] NAGKAHIUSANG MAMUMUO SA ALSONS-SPFL (NAMAAL-SPFL), FELIXBERTO IRAG, JOSHUA BARREDO, ERNESTO CUARIO, EDGAR MONDAY, EDILBERTO DEMETRIA, HERMINIO ROBILLO, ROMULO LUNGAY, MATROIL DELOS SANTOS, BONERME MATURAN, RAUL CANTIGA, EDUARDO CAMPUSO, RUDY ANADON, GILBERTO GABRONINO, BONIFACIO SALVADOR, CIRILO MINO, ROBERTO ABONADO, WARLITO MONTE, PEDRO ESQUIERDO, ALFREDO TROPICO, DANILO MEJOS, HECTOR ESTUITA, BARTOLOME CASTILLANES, EDUARDO CAPUYAN, SATURNINO CAGAS, ALEJANDRO HARDER, EDUARDO LARENA, JAIME MONTEDERAMOS, ERMELANDO BASADRE, REYNALDO LIMPAJAN, ELPIDIO LIBRANZA, TEDDY SUELO, JOSE AMOYLIN, TRANQUILINO ORALLO, CARLOS BALDOS, MANOLITO SABELLANO, CARMELITO TOBIAS, PRIMITIVO GARCIA, JUANITO ALDEPOLLA, LUDIVICO ABAD, WENCISLAO INGHUG, RICARDO ALTO, EPIFANIO JARABAY, FELICIANO AMPER, ALEXANDER JUDILLA, ROBERTO ANDRADE, ALFREDO LESULA, JULIO ANINO, BENITO MAGPUSAO, PEDRO AQUINO, EDDIE MANSANADES, ROMEO ARANETA, ARGUILLAO MANTICA, CONSTANCIO ARNAIZ, ERNESTO HOTOY, JUSTINO ASCANO, RICARDO MATURAN, EDILBERTO YAMBAO, ANTONIO MELARGO, JESUS BERITAN, ARSENIO MELICOR, DIOSDADO BONGABONG, LAURO MONTENEGRO, CARLITO BURILLO, LEO MORA, PABLO BUTIL, ARMANDO GUCILA, JEREMIAH CAGARA, MARIO NAMOC, CARLITO CAL, GERWINO NATIVIDAD, ROLANDO CAPUYAN, JUANITO NISNISAN, AURELIO CARIN, PRIMO OPLIMO, ANGELITO CASTANEDA, EDGARDO ORDIZ, LEONARDO CASURRA, PATROCINIO ORTEGA, FILEMON CESAR, MARIO PATAN, ROMEO COMPRADO, JESUS PATOC, RAMON CONSTANTINO, MANUEL PIAPE, ROY CONSTANTINO, ALBERTO PIELAGO, SAMUEL DELA LLANA, NICASIO PLAZA, ROSALDO DAGONDON, TITO GUADES, BONIFACIO DINAGUDOS, PROCOPIO RAMOS, JOSE EBORAN, ROSENDO SAJOL, FRANCISCO EMPUERTO, PATRICIO SALOMON, NESTOR ENDAYA, MARIO SALVALEON, ERNESTO ESTILO, BONIFACIO SIGUE, VICENTE FABROA, JAIME SUCUAHI, CELSO HUISO, ALEX TAUTO-AN, SATURNINO YAGON, CLAUDIO TIROL, SULPECIO GAGNI, JOSE TOLERO, FERVIE GALVEZ, ALFREDO TORALBA AND EDUARDO GENELSA, PETITIONERS, VS. C. ALCANTARA & SONS, INC., EDITHA I. ALCANTARA, ATTY. NELIA A. CLAUDIO, CORNELIO E. CAGUIAT, JESUS S. DELA CRUZ, ROLANDO Z. ANDRES AND JOSE MA. MANUEL YRASUEGUI, RESPONDENTS. [G.R. NO. 179220] NAGKAHIUSANG MAMUMUO SA ALSONS-SPFL (NAMAAL-SPFL), AND ITS MEMBERS WHOSE NAMES ARE LISTED BELOW, PETITIONERS, VS. C. ALCANTARA & SONS, INC., RESPONDENT.

  • [G.R. No. 151898 : March 14, 2012] RICARDO RIZAL, POTENCIANA RIZAL, SATURNINA RIZAL, ELENA RIZAL, AND BENJAMIN RIZAL, PETITIONERS, VS. LEONCIA NAREDO, ANASTACIO LIRIO, EDILBERTO CANTAVIEJA, GLORIA CANTAVIEJA, CELSO CANTAVIEJA, AND THE HEIRS OF MELANIE CANTAVIEJA, RESPONDENTS. D E C I S I O N

  • [G.R. No. 166216 : March 14, 2012] ROGELIO ABERCA, RODOLFO BENOSA, NESTOR BODINO, NOEL ETABAG, DANILO DELA FUENTE, BELEN DIAZ-FLORES, MANUEL MARIO GUZMAN, ALAN JASMINEZ, EDWIN LOPEZ, ALFREDO MANSOS, ALEX MARCELINO, ELIZABETH PROTACIO-MARCELINO, JOSEPH OLAYER, CARLOS PALMA, MARCO PALO, ROLANDO SALUTIN BENJAMIN SEGUNDO, ARTURO TABARA, EDWIN TULALIAN, AND REBECCA TULALIAN, PETITIONERS, VS. MAJ. GEN. FABIAN VER, COL. FIDEL SINGSON, COL. GERARDO B. LANTORIA, COL. ROLANDO ABADILLA, COL. GALILEO KINTANAR, LT. COL. PANFILO M. LACSON, MAJ. RODOLFO AGUINALDO, CAPT. DANILO PIZARRO, 1LT. PEDRO TANGO, 1LT. ROMEO RICARDO, 1LT. RAUL BACALSO, M/SGT. BIENVENIDO BALABA AND “JOHN DOES,” RESPONDENTS.

  • [G.R. No. 187521 : March 14, 2012] F.F. CRUZ & CO., INC., PETITIONER, VS. HR CONSTRUCTION CORP., RESPONDENT.

  • [G.R. No. 187073 : March 14, 2012] PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, APPELLEE, VS. EDUARDO CASTRO Y PERALTA AND RENERIO DELOS REYES Y BONUS, APPELLANTS.

  • [G.R. No. 193983 : March 14, 2012] VICTORY M. FERNANDEZ, PETITIONER, VS. OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN, FORMER GOVERNOR OF THE PROVINCE OF AKLAN FLORENCIO T. MIRAFLORES, INCUMBENT GOVERNOR CARLITO MARQUEZ, AND SECRETARY OF THE DEPARTMENT OF INTERIOR AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT RONALDO V. PUNO, RESPONDENTS.

  • [G.R. No. 197124 : March 19, 2012] ALPA-PCM, INC., PETITIONER, VS. VINCENT BULASAO, JULIET BULASAO AND SUSANA BULASAO, HONORABLE JUDGE DANILO F. CAMACHO, AND THE DEPUTY SHERIFF OF THE REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, LA TRINIDAD, BENGUET, RESPONDENTS.

  • [G.R. No. 176628 : March 19, 2012] PHILIPPINE TOURISM AUTHORITY, PETITIONER, VS. PHILIPPINE GOLF DEVELOPMENT & EQUIPMENT, INC., RESPONDENT.

  • [G.R. No. 178367 : March 19, 2012] PHILIPPINE NATIONAL BANK, PETITIONER, VS. CASTALLOY TECHNOLOGY CORPORATION, ALLIED INDUSTRIAL CORPORATION, ALINSU STEEL FOUNDRY CORPORATION, GLORIA C. NGO AND TOMAS C. NGO, JR., RESPONDENTS.

  • [G.R. No. 197987 : March 19, 2012] MARITER MENDOZA, PETITIONER, VS. ADRIANO CASUMPANG, JENNIFER ADRIANE AND JOHN ANDRE, ALL SURNAMED CASUMPANG, RESPONDENTS.

  • [A.M. No. P-11-3019 : March 20, 2012] SHERYLL C. DELA CRUZ, COMPLAINANT, VS. PAMELA P. MALUNAO, CLERK III, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, BRANCH 28, BAYOMBONG, NUEVA VIZCAYA, RESPONDENT.

  • [A.M. No. 10-1-13-SC : March 20, 2012] RE: SUBPOENA DUCES TECUM DATED JANUARY 11, 2010 OF ACTING DIRECTOR ALEU A. AMANTE, PIAB-C, OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN. [A.M. NO. 10-9-9-SC] RE: ORDER OF THE OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN REFERRING THE COMPLAINT OF ATTYS. OLIVER O. LOZANO AND EVANGELINE J. LOZANO-ENDRIANO AGAINST CHIEF JUSTICE REYNATO S. PUNO [RET.].

  • [G.R. No. 175781 : March 20, 2012] PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. FRANCISCA TALARO,* GREGORIO TALARO,** NORBERTO (JUN) ADVIENTO, RENATO RAMOS, RODOLFO DUZON,*** RAYMUNDO ZAMORA** AND LOLITO AQUINO, ACCUSED. NORBERTO (JUN) ADVIENTO, RENATO RAMOS AND LOLITO AQUINO, ACCUSED-APPELLANTS.

  • [G.R. No. 190293 : March 20, 2012] PHILIP SIGFRID A. FORTUN AND ALBERT LEE G. ANGELES, PETITIONERS, VS. GLORIA MACAPAGAL-ARROYO, AS COMMANDER-IN-CHIEF AND PRESIDENT OF THE REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, EDUARDO ERMITA, EXECUTIVE SECRETARY, ARMED FORCES OF THE PHILIPPINES (AFP), OR ANY OF THEIR UNITS, PHILIPPINE NATIONAL POLICE (PNP), OR ANY OF THEIR UNITS, JOHN DOES AND JANE DOES ACTING UNDER THEIR DIRECTION AND CONTROL, RESPONDENTS. [G.R. NO. 190294] DIDAGEN P. DILANGALEN, PETITIONER, VS. EDUARDO R. ERMITA IN HIS CAPACITY AS EXECUTIVE SECRETARY, NORBERTO GONZALES IN HIS CAPACITY AS SECRETARY OF NATIONAL DEFENSE, RONALDO PUNO IN HIS CAPACITY AS SECRETARY OF INTERIOR AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT, RESPONDENTS. [G.R. NO. 190301] NATIONAL UNION OF PEOPLES’ LAWYERS (NUPL) SECRETARY GENERAL NERI JAVIER COLMENARES, BAYAN MUNA REPRESENTATIVE SATUR C. OCAMPO, GABRIELA WOMEN’S PARTY REPRESENTATIVE LIZA L. MAZA, ATTY. JULIUS GARCIA MATIBAG, ATTY. EPHRAIM B. CORTEZ, ATTY. JOBERT ILARDE PAHILGA, ATTY. VOLTAIRE B. AFRICA, BAGONG ALYANSANG MAKABAYAN (BAYAN) SECRETARY GENERAL RENATO M. REYES, JR. AND ANTHONY IAN CRUZ, PETITIONERS, VS. PRESIDENT GLORIA MACAPAGAL-ARROYO, EXECUTIVE SECRETARY EDUARDO R. ERMITA, ARMED FORCES OF THE PHILIPPINES CHIEF OF STAFF GENERAL VICTOR S. IBRADO, PHILIPPINE NATIONAL POLICE DIRECTOR GENERAL JESUS A. VERZOSA, DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE SECRETARY AGNES VST DEVANADERA, ARMED FORCES OF THE PHILIPPINES EASTERN MINDANAO COMMAND CHIEF LIEUTENANT GENERAL RAYMUNDO B. FERRER, RESPONDENTS. [G.R. NO. 190302] JOSEPH NELSON Q. LOYOLA, PETITIONER, VS. HER EXCELLENCY PRESIDENT GLORIA MACAPAGAL-ARROYO, ARMED FORCES CHIEF OF STAFF GENERAL VICTOR IBRADO, PHILIPPINE NATIONAL POLICE (PNP), DIRECTOR GENERAL JESUS VERZOSA, EXECUTIVE SECRETARY EDUARDO ERMITA, RESPONDENTS. [ G.R. NO. 190307] JOVITO R. SALONGA, RAUL C. PANGALANGAN, H. HARRY L. ROQUE, JR., JOEL R. BUTUYAN, EMILIO CAPULONG, FLORIN T. HILBAY, ROMEL R. BAGARES, DEXTER DONNE B. DIZON, ALLAN JONES F. LARDIZABAL AND GILBERT T. ANDRES, SUING AS TAXPAYERS AND AS CONCERNED FILIPINO CITIZENS, PETITIONERS, VS. GLORIA MACAPAGAL-ARROYO, IN HIS (SIC) CAPACITY AS PRESIDENT OF THE REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, HON. EDUARDO ERMITA, JR., IN HIS CAPACITY AS EXECUTIVE SECRETARY, AND HON. ROLANDO ANDAYA IN HIS CAPACITY AS SECRETARY OF THE DEPARTMENT OF BUDGET AND MANAGEMENT, GENERAL VICTOR IBRADO, IN HIS CAPACITY AS ARMED FORCES OF THE PHILIPPINES CHIEF OF STAFF, DIRECTOR JESUS VERZOSA, IN HIS CAPACITY AS CHIEF OF THE PHILIPPINE NATIONAL POLICE, RESPONDENTS. [G.R. NO. 190356] BAILENG S. MANTAWIL, DENGCO SABAN, ENGR. OCTOBER CHIO, AKBAYAN PARTY LIST REPRESENTATIVES WALDEN F. BELLO AND ANA THERESIA HONTIVEROS-BARAQUEL, LORETTA ANN P. ROSALES, MARVIC M.V.F. LEONEN, THEODORE O. TE AND IBARRA M. GUTIERREZ III, PETITIONERS, VS. THE EXECUTIVE SECRETARY, THE SECRETARY OF NATIONAL DEFENSE, THE SECRETARY OF JUSTICE, THE SECRETARY OF INTERIOR AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT, THE SECRETARY OF BUDGET AND MANAGEMENT, AND THE CHIEF OF STAFF OF THE ARMED FORCES OF THE PHILIPPINES, THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF THE PHILIPPINE NATIONAL POLICE, RESPONDENTS. [G.R. NO. 190380] CHRISTIAN MONSOD AND CARLOS P. MEDINA, JR., PETITIONERS, VS. EDUARDO R. ERMITA, IN HIS CAPACITY AS EXECUTIVE SECRETARY, RESPONDENT.

  • [A.M. No. P-09-2686 (Formerly OCA I.P.I No. 06-2441-P) : March 21, 2012] PRISCILLA L. HERNANDO, COMPLAINANT, VS. JULIANA Y. BENGSON, LEGAL RESEARCHER, RTC, BRANCH 104, QUEZON CITY, RESPONDENT.

  • [G.R. No. 191913 : March 21, 2012] SPO2 LOLITO T. NACNAC, PETITIONER, VS. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, RESPONDENT.

  • [G.R. No. 184478 : March 21, 2012] JAIME S. PEREZ, BOTH IN HIS PERSONAL AND OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS CHIEF, MARIKINA DEMOLITION OFFICE, PETITIONER, VS. SPOUSES FORTUNITO L. MADRONA AND YOLANDA B. PANTE, RESPONDENTS.

  • [G.R. Nos. 189161 & 189173 : March 21, 2012] JUDGE ADORACION G. ANGELES, PETITIONER, VS. HON. MA. MERCEDITAS N. GUTIERREZ, OMBUDSMAN; HON. ORLANDO C. CASIMIRO, OVERALL DEPUTY OMBUDSMAN; HON. SYLVIA A. SEVERO, GRAFT INVESTIGATOR AND PROSECUTION OFFICER I; HON. MARILOU B. ANCHETA-MEJICA, ACTING DIRECTOR, PIAB-D; HON. JOSE T. DE JESUS, JR., ASSISTANT OMBUDSMAN, PAMO; ALL OF THE OMBUDSMAN; AND SSP EMMANUEL Y. VELASCO, RESPONDENTS.

  • [G.R. No. 171765, March 21, 2012] THE INCORPORATORS OF MINDANAO INSTITUTE INC. AND THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF MINDANAO INSTITUTE INC., REPRESENTED BY ENGR. VICTORIOSO D. UDARBE, PETITIONERS, VS. THE UNITED CHURCH OF CHRIST IN THE PHILIPPINES, ACTING THROUGH AGUSAN DISTRICT CONFERENCE UNITED CHURCH OF CHRIST IN THE PHILIPPINES, REPRESENTED BY REV. RODOLFO BASLOT, RESPONDENT.

  • [G.R. No. 186030 : March 21, 2012] NORMA DELOS REYES VDA. DEL PRADO, EULOGIA R. DEL PRADO, NORMITA R. DEL PRADO AND RODELIA R. DEL PRADO, PETITIONERS, VS. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, RESPONDENT.

  • [G.R. No. 192180 : March 21, 2012] PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, APPELLEE, VS. ALIAS KINO LASCANO (AT LARGE) AND ALFREDO DELABAJAN ALIAS TABOYBOY, ACCUSED. ALFREDO DELABAJAN, APPELLANT.

  • [G.R. No. 196358 : March 21, 2012] JANDY J. AGOY, PETITIONER, VS. ARANETA CENTER, INC., RESPONDENTS.

  • [G.R. No. 185568 : March 21, 2012] COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, PETITIONER, VS. PETRON CORPORATION, RESPONDENT.

  • [G.R. No. 190342 : March 21, 2012] PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. CIPRIANO CARDENAS Y GOFRERICA, ACCUSED-APPELLANT.

  • [G.R. No. 184719 : March 21, 2012] LAND BANK OF THE PHILIPPINES, PETITIONER, VS. HEIRS OF JESUS S. YUJUICO, MARIETTA V. YUJUICO AND DR. NICOLAS VALISNO, SR., RESPONDENTS. [G.R. NO. 184720] DEPARTMENT OF AGRARIAN REFORM, REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY NASSER PANGANDAMAN, PETITIONER, VS. HEIRS OF JESUS YUJUICO, MARIETTA YUJUICO AND NICOLAS VALISNO, SR., RESPONDENTS.

  • [G.R. No. 172712 : March 21, 2012] STRADCOM CORPORATION, PETITIONER, VS. HONORABLE HILARIO L. LAQUI AS ACTING PRESIDING JUDGE OF THE REGIONAL TRIAL COURT OF QUEZON CITY, BRANCH 97 AND DTECH MANAGEMENT, INC., RESPONDENTS.

  • [G.R. No. 173155 : March 21, 2012] R.S. TOMAS, INC., PETITIONER, VS. RIZAL CEMENT COMPANY, INC., RESPONDENT.

  • [G.R. No. 173857 : March 21, 2012] LEONCIA MANUEL & MARINA S. MUDLONG, PETITIONERS, VS. LEONOR SARMIENTO, RESPONDENT.

  • [G.R. No. 194445 : March 12, 2012] PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF, VS. ROGER POSADAY URBANO AND EMILY POSADAY SARMIENTO, ACCUSED.

  • [G.R. No. 191703 : March 12, 2012] CRESENCIO BAÑO AND HEIRS OF THE DECEASED AMANCIO ASUMBRADO, NAMELY: ROSALINDA ASUMBRADO, VICENTE ASUMBRADO, ROEL ASUMBRADO, ANNALYN ASUMBRADO, ARNIEL ASUMBRADO, ALFIE ASUMBRADO AND RUBELYN ASUMBRADO, PETITIONERS, VS. BACHELOR EXPRESS, INC./ CERES LINER, INC. AND WENIFREDO SALVANA, RESPONDENTS.

  • [G.R. No. 173586 : March 14, 2012] MCA-MBF COUNTDOWN CARDS PHILIPPINES INC., AMABLE R. AGUILUZ V, AMABLE C. AGUILUZ IX, CIELO C. AGUILUZ, ALBERTO L. BUENVIAJE, VICENTE ACSAY AND MCA HOLDINGS AND MANAGEMENT CORPORATION, PETITIONERS, VS. MBF CARD INTERNATIONAL LIMITED AND MBF DISCOUNT CARD LIMITED, RESPONDENTS.

  • [G.R. No. 193279 : March 14, 2012] ELEANOR DE LEON LLENADO, PETITIONER, VS. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES AND EDITHA VILLAFLORES, RESPONDENTS.

  • [A.C.No. 9154 (Formerly CBD No. 07-1965) : March 19, 2012] AURORA D. CERDAN, PETITIONER, VS. ATTY. CARLO GOMEZ, RESPONDENT.

  • [G. R. No. 195191 : March 20, 2012] CONGRESSWOMAN LUCY MARIE TORRES-GOMEZ PETITIONER, VS. EUFROCINO C. CODILLA, JR. AND HON. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES ELECTORAL TRIBUNAL RESPONDENTS.

  • [A.M. No. CA-12-25-P : March 20, 2012] RE: COMPLAINT FILED BY (RET.) MCTC JUDGE RODOLFO B. GARCIA AGAINST 18TH DIVISION CLERK OF COURT ATTY. MAY FAITH L. TRUMATA-REBOTIACO, COURT OF APPEALS, CEBU CITY.

  • [A.C. No. 7591 : March 20, 2012] CORAZON T. NEVADA, COMPLAINANT, VS. ATTY. RODOLFO D. CASUGA, RESPONDENT.

  • [G.R. No. 146754 : March 21, 2012] SPOUSES JESSE CACHOPERO AND BEMA CACHOPERO, PETITIONERS, VS. RACHEL CELESTIAL, RESPONDENT.

  • [G.R. No. 186499 : March 21, 2012] PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. MELECIO DE LOS SANTOS, JR., ACCUSED-APPELLANT.

  • [G.R. No. 185255 : March 14, 2012] NORKIS DISTRIBUTORS, INC. AND ALEX D. BUAT, PETITIONERS, VS. DELFIN S. DESCALLAR, RESPONDENT.

  •  




     
     

    chanrobles.com - PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS - ON-LINE

    [G.R. No. 171251 : March 05, 2012]   LASCONA LAND CO., INC., PETITIONER, VS. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, RESPONDENT.

     

    THIRD DIVISION

    [G.R. No. 171251 : March 05, 2012]

    LASCONA LAND CO., INC., PETITIONER, VS. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, RESPONDENT.

    D E C I S I O N


    PERALTA, J.:

    Before this Court is a Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court seeking the reversal of the Decision[1] dated October 25, 2005 and Resolution[2] dated January 20, 2006 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. SP No. 58061 which set aside the Decision[3] dated January 4, 2000 and Resolution[4] dated March 3, 2000 of the Court of Tax Appeals (CTA) in C.T.A. Case No. 5777 and declared Assessment Notice No. 0000047-93-407 dated March 27, 1998 to be final, executory and demandable.cralaw

    The facts, as culled from the records, are as follows:

    On March 27, 1998, the Commissioner of Internal Revenue (CIR) issued Assessment Notice No. 0000047-93-407[5] against Lascona Land Co., Inc. (Lascona) informing the latter of its alleged deficiency income tax for the year 1993 in the amount of P753,266.56.

    Consequently, on April 20, 1998, Lascona filed a letter protest, but was denied by Norberto R. Odulio, Officer-in-Charge (OIC), Regional Director, Bureau of Internal Revenue, Revenue Region No. 8, Makati City, in his Letter[6] dated March 3, 1999, which reads, thus:

    x x x x

    Subject: LASCONA LAND CO., INC.
    1993 Deficiency Income Tax

    Madam,

    Anent the 1993 tax case of subject taxpayer, please be informed that while we agree with the arguments advanced in your letter protest, we regret, however, that we cannot give due course to your request to cancel or set aside the assessment notice issued to your client for the reason that the case was not elevated to the Court of Tax Appeals as mandated by the provisions of the last paragraph of Section 228 of the Tax Code. By virtue thereof, the said assessment notice has become final, executory and demandable.

    In view of the foregoing, please advise your client to pay its 1993 deficiency income tax liability in the amount of P753,266.56.

    x x x x (Emphasis ours)

    On April 12, 1999, Lascona appealed the decision before the CTA and was docketed as C.T.A. Case No. 5777. Lascona alleged that the Regional Director erred in ruling that the failure to appeal to the CTA within thirty (30) days from the lapse of the 180-day period rendered the assessment final and executory.

    The CIR, however, maintained that Lascona's failure to timely file an appeal with the CTA after the lapse of the 180-day reglementary period provided under Section 228 of the National Internal Revenue Code (NIRC) resulted to the finality of the assessment.

    On January 4, 2000, the CTA, in its Decision,[7] nullified the subject assessment. It held that in cases of inaction by the CIR on the protested assessment, Section 228 of the NIRC provided two options for the taxpayer: (1) appeal to the CTA within thirty (30) days from the lapse of the one hundred eighty (180)-day period, or (2) wait until the Commissioner decides on his protest before he elevates the case.

    The CIR moved for reconsideration.  It argued that in declaring the subject assessment as final, executory and demandable, it did so pursuant to Section 3 (3.1.5) of Revenue Regulations No. 12-99 dated September 6, 1999 which reads, thus:

    If the Commissioner or his duly authorized representative fails to act on the taxpayer's protest within one hundred eighty (180) days from date of submission, by the taxpayer, of the required documents in support of his protest, the taxpayer may appeal to the Court of Tax Appeals within thirty (30) days from the lapse of the said 180-day period; otherwise, the assessment shall become final, executory and demandable.

    On March 3, 2000, the CTA denied the CIR's motion for reconsideration for lack of merit.[8]  The CTA held that Revenue Regulations No. 12-99 must conform to Section 228 of the NIRC.  It pointed out that the former spoke of an assessment becoming final, executory and demandable by reason of the inaction by the Commissioner, while the latter referred to decisions becoming final, executory and demandable should the taxpayer adversely affected by the decision fail to appeal before the CTA within the prescribed period.  Finally, it emphasized that in cases of discrepancy, Section 228 of the NIRC must prevail over the revenue regulations.

    Dissatisfied, the CIR filed an appeal before the CA.[9]

    In the disputed Decision dated October 25, 2005, the Court of Appeals granted the CIR's petition and set aside the Decision dated January 4, 2000 of the CTA and its Resolution dated March 3, 2000.  It further declared that the subject Assessment Notice No. 0000047-93-407 dated March 27, 1998 as final, executory and demandable.

    Lascona moved for reconsideration, but was denied for lack of merit.

    Thus, the instant petition, raising the following issues:

    I

    THE HONORABLE COURT HAS, IN THE REVISED RULES OF COURT OF TAX APPEALS WHICH IT RECENTLY PROMULGATED, RULED THAT AN APPEAL FROM THE INACTION OF RESPONDENT COMMISSIONER IS NOT MANDATORY.

    II

    THE COURT OF APPEALS SERIOUSLY ERRED WHEN IT HELD THAT THE ASSESSMENT HAS BECOME FINAL AND DEMANDABLE BECAUSE, ALLEGEDLY, THE WORD “DECISION” IN THE LAST PARAGRAPH OF SECTION 228 CANNOT BE STRICTLY CONSTRUED AS REFERRING ONLY TO THE DECISION PER SE OF THE COMMISSIONER, BUT SHOULD ALSO BE CONSIDERED SYNONYMOUS WITH AN ASSESSMENT WHICH HAS BEEN PROTESTED, BUT THE PROTEST ON WHICH HAS NOT BEEN ACTED UPON BY THE COMMISSIONER.[10]

    In a nutshell, the core issue to be resolved is: Whether the subject assessment has become final, executory and demandable due to the failure of petitioner to file an appeal before the CTA within thirty (30) days from the lapse of the One Hundred Eighty (180)-day period pursuant to Section 228 of the NIRC.

    Petitioner Lascona, invoking Section 3,[11] Rule 4 of the Revised Rules of the Court of Tax Appeals, maintains that in case of inaction by the CIR on the protested assessment, it has the option to either: (1) appeal to the CTA within 30 days from the lapse of the 180-day period; or (2) await the final decision of the Commissioner on the disputed assessment even beyond the 180-day period - in which case, the taxpayer may appeal such final decision within 30 days from the receipt of the said decision. Corollarily, petitioner posits that when the Commissioner failed to act on its protest within the 180-day period, it had the option to await for the final decision of the Commissioner on the protest, which it did.

    The petition is meritorious.

    Section 228 of the NIRC is instructional as to the remedies of a taxpayer in case of the inaction of the Commissioner on the protested assessment, to wit:

    SEC. 228. Protesting of Assessment. -  x x x

    x x x x

    Within a period to be prescribed by implementing rules and regulations, the taxpayer shall be required to respond to said notice. If the taxpayer fails to respond, the Commissioner or his duly authorized representative shall issue an assessment based on his findings.

    Such assessment may be protested administratively by filing a request for reconsideration or reinvestigation within thirty (30) days from receipt of the assessment in such form and manner as may be prescribed by implementing rules and regulations.

    Within sixty (60) days from filing of the protest, all relevant supporting documents shall have been submitted; otherwise, the assessment shall become final.

    If the protest is denied in whole or in part, or is not acted upon within one hundred eighty (180) days from submission of documents, the taxpayer adversely affected by the decision or inaction may appeal to the Court of Tax Appeals within (30) days from receipt of the said decision, or from the lapse of the one hundred eighty (180)-day period; otherwise the decision shall become final, executory and demandable.  (Emphasis supplied).

    Respondent, however, insists that in case of the inaction by the Commissioner on the protested assessment within the 180-day reglementary period, petitioner should have appealed the inaction to the CTA.  Respondent maintains that due to Lascona's failure to file an appeal with the CTA after the lapse of the 180-day period, the assessment became final and executory.

    We do not agree.

    In RCBC v. CIR,[12] the Court has held that in case the Commissioner failed to act on the disputed assessment within the 180-day period from date of submission of documents, a taxpayer can either: (1) file a petition for review with the Court of Tax Appeals within 30 days after the expiration of the 180-day period; or (2) await the final decision of the Commissioner on the disputed assessments and appeal such final decision to the Court of Tax Appeals within 30 days after receipt of a copy of such decision.[13]

    This is consistent with Section 3 A (2), Rule 4 of the Revised Rules of the Court of Tax Appeals,[14] to wit:

    SEC. 3. Cases within the jurisdiction of the Court in Divisions. – The Court in Divisions shall exercise:

    (a) Exclusive original or appellate jurisdiction to review by appeal the following:


    (1) Decisions of the Commissioner of Internal Revenue in cases involving disputed assessments, refunds of internal revenue taxes, fees or other charges, penalties in relation thereto, or other matters arising under the National Internal Revenue Code or other laws administered by the Bureau of Internal Revenue;

    (2) Inaction by the Commissioner of Internal Revenue in cases involving disputed assessments, refunds of internal revenue taxes, fees or other charges, penalties in relation thereto, or other matters arising under the National Internal Revenue Code or other laws administered by the Bureau of Internal Revenue, where the National Internal Revenue Code or other applicable law provides a specific period for action: Provided, that in case of disputed assessments, the inaction of the Commissioner of Internal Revenue within the one hundred eighty day-period under Section 228 of the National Internal revenue Code shall be deemed a denial for purposes of allowing the taxpayer to appeal his case to the Court and does not necessarily constitute a formal decision of the Commissioner of Internal Revenue on the tax case; Provided, further, that should the taxpayer opt to await the final decision of the Commissioner of Internal Revenue on the disputed assessments beyond the one hundred eighty day-period abovementioned, the taxpayer may appeal such final decision to the Court under Section 3(a), Rule 8 of these Rules; and Provided, still further, that in the case of claims for refund of taxes erroneously or illegally collected, the taxpayer must file a petition for review with the Court prior to the expiration of the two-year period under Section 229 of the National Internal Revenue Code;

    (Emphasis ours)

    In arguing that the assessment became final and executory by the sole reason that petitioner failed to appeal the inaction of the Commissioner within 30 days after the 180-day reglementary period, respondent, in effect, limited the remedy of Lascona, as a taxpayer, under Section 228 of the NIRC to just one, that is - to appeal the inaction of the Commissioner on its protested assessment after the lapse of the 180-day period. This is incorrect.

    As early as the case of CIR v. Villa,[15] it was already established that the word "decisions" in paragraph 1, Section 7 of Republic Act No. 1125, quoted above, has been interpreted to mean the decisions of the Commissioner of Internal Revenue on the protest of the taxpayer against the assessments.  Definitely, said word does not signify the assessment itself. We quote what this Court said aptly in a previous case:

    In the first place, we believe the respondent court erred in holding that the assessment in question is the respondent Collector's decision or ruling appealable to it, and that consequently, the period of thirty days prescribed by section 11 of Republic Act No. 1125 within which petitioner should have appealed to the respondent court must be counted from its receipt of said assessment. Where a taxpayer questions an assessment and asks the Collector to reconsider or cancel the same because he (the taxpayer) believes he is not liable therefor, the assessment becomes a "disputed assessment" that the Collector must decide, and the taxpayer can appeal to the Court of Tax Appeals only upon receipt of the decision of the Collector on the disputed assessment, . . . [16]

    Therefore, as in Section 228, when the law provided for the remedy to appeal the inaction of the CIR, it did not intend to limit it to a single remedy of filing of an appeal after the lapse of the 180-day prescribed period. Precisely, when a taxpayer protested an assessment, he naturally expects the CIR to decide either positively or negatively. A taxpayer cannot be prejudiced if he chooses to wait for the final decision of the CIR on the protested assessment. More so, because the law and jurisprudence have always contemplated a scenario where the CIR will decide on the protested assessment.

    It must be emphasized, however, that in case of the inaction of the CIR on the protested assessment, while we reiterate - the taxpayer has two options, either: (1) file a petition for review with the CTA within 30 days after the expiration of the 180-day period; or (2) await the final decision of the Commissioner on the disputed assessment and appeal such final decision to the CTA within 30 days after the receipt of a copy of such decision, these options are mutually exclusive and resort to one bars the application of the other.

    Accordingly, considering that Lascona opted to await the final decision of the Commissioner on the protested assessment, it then has the right to appeal such final decision to the Court by filing a petition for review within thirty days after receipt of a copy of such decision or ruling, even after the expiration of the 180-day period fixed by law for the Commissioner of Internal Revenue to act on the disputed assessments.[17] Thus, Lascona, when it filed an appeal on April 12, 1999 before the CTA, after its receipt of the Letter[18] dated March 3, 1999 on March 12, 1999, the appeal was timely made as it was filed within 30 days after receipt of the copy of the decision.

    Finally, the CIR should be reminded that taxpayers cannot be left in quandary by its inaction on the protested assessment.  It is imperative that the taxpayers are informed of its action in order that the taxpayer should then at least be able to take recourse to the tax court at the opportune time. As correctly pointed out by the tax court:

    x x x to adopt the interpretation of the respondent will not only sanction inefficiency, but will likewise condone the Bureau's inaction. This is especially true in the instant case when despite the fact that respondent found petitioner's arguments to be in order, the assessment will become final, executory and demandable for petitioner's failure to appeal before us within the thirty (30) day period.[19]

    Taxes are the lifeblood of the government and so should be collected without unnecessary hindrance. On the other hand, such collection should be made in accordance with law as any arbitrariness will negate the very reason for government itself. It is therefore necessary to reconcile the apparently conflicting interests of the authorities and the taxpayers so that the real purpose of taxation, which is the promotion of the common good, may be achieved.[20] Thus, even as we concede the inevitability and indispensability of taxation, it is a requirement in all democratic regimes that it be exercised reasonably and in accordance with the prescribed procedure.[21]cralaw

    WHEREFORE, the petition is GRANTED. The Decision dated October 25, 2005 and the Resolution dated January 20, 2006 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 58061 are REVERSED and SET ASIDE. Accordingly, the Decision dated January 4, 2000 of the Court of Tax Appeals in C.T.A. Case No. 5777 and its Resolution dated March 3, 2000 are REINSTATED.

    SO ORDERED.

    Velasco, Jr., (Chairperson), Abad, Villarama, Jr.,
    * and Mendoza, JJ., concur.

    Endnotes:


    * Designated as an additional member in lieu of Associate Justice Estela M. Perlas-Bernabe, per Raffle dated February 29, 2012.

    [1] Penned by Associate Justice Estela M. Perlas-Bernabe (now a member of this Court), with Associate Justices Remedios Salazar-Fernando and Hakim S. Abdulwahid, concurring, rollo, pp. 13-20.

    [2] Id. at 21.

    [3] Rollo, pp. 111-118.

    [4] Id. at 119-120.

    [5] Id. at 102.

    [6] Id. at 103.

    [7] Id. at 111-118.

    [8] Id. at 119-120.

    [9] Id. at 121-134.

    [10] Id. at 30.

    [11] SEC. 3. Cases within the jurisdiction of the Court in Divisions. – The Court in Divisions shall exercise:

    (a) Exclusive original or appellate jurisdiction to review by appeal the following:

    x x x

    (2) Inaction by the Commissioner of Internal Revenue in cases involving disputed assessments, refunds of internal revenue taxes, fees or other charges, penalties in relation thereto, or other matters arising under the National Internal Revenue Code or other laws administered by the Bureau of Internal Revenue, where the National Internal Revenue Code or other applicable law provides a specific period for action: Provided, that in case of disputed assessments, the inaction of the Commissioner of Internal Revenue within the one hundred eighty day-period under Section 228 of the National Internal revenue Code shall be deemed a denial for purposes of allowing the taxpayer to appeal his case to the Court and does not necessarily constitute a formal decision of the Commissioner of Internal Revenue on the tax case; Provided, further, that should the taxpayer opt to await the final decision of the Commissioner of Internal Revenue on the disputed assessments beyond the one hundred eighty day-period abovementioned, the taxpayer may appeal such final decision to the Court under Section 3(a), Rule 8 of these Rules; and Provided, still further, that in the case of claims for refund of taxes erroneously or illegally collected, the taxpayer must file a petition for review with the Court prior to the expiration of the two-year period under Section 229 of the National Internal Revenue Code; (December 15, 2005)


    [12] G.R. No. 168498, April 24, 2007, 522 SCRA 144.

    [13] Id.  at 153.

    [14] A.M. No. 05-11-07-CTA, November 22, 2005.

    [15] 130 Phil. 3 (1968).

    [16] Id. at 6. (Emphasis supplied.)

    [17] Rule 8, Sec. 3 (a).

    [18] Rollo, p. 103.

    [19] Id. at 117.

    [20] Commissioner v. Algue, Inc., 241 Phil. 829, 830 (1988).

    [21] Id. at 836.

    [G.R. No. 171251 : March 05, 2012]   LASCONA LAND CO., INC., PETITIONER, VS. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, RESPONDENT.






    Back to Home | Back to Main

     

    QUICK SEARCH

    cralaw

               

    cralaw



     
      Copyright © ChanRobles Publishing Company Disclaimer | E-mail Restrictions
    ChanRobles™ Virtual Law Library | chanrobles.com™
     
    RED