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
Prof. Joselito Guianan Chan's The Labor Code of the Philippines, Annotated Labor Standards & Social Legislation Volume I of a 3-Volume Series 2019 Edition (3rd Revised Edition)
 

 
Chan Robles Virtual Law Library
 
 

 
UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE
 

 
PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE
 

   
March-2015 Jurisprudence                 

  • A.C. No. 7158, March 09, 2015 - YOLANDA A. ANDRES, MINETTE A. MERCADO, AND ELITO P. ANDRES , Complainants, v. ATTY. SALIMATHAR V. NAMBI, Respondent.

  • A.C. No. 5816, March 10, 2015 - DR. ELMAR O. PEREZ, Complainant, v. ATTY. TRISTAN A. CATINDIG AND ATTY. KAREN E. BAYDO, Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 211497, March 18, 2015 - HOCHENG PHILIPPINES CORPORATION, Petitioner, v. ANTONIO M. FARRALES, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 190828, March 16, 2015 - ONOFRE V. MONTERO, EDGARDO N. ESTRAÑERO, RENING P. PADRE, GABRIEL A. MADERA, HERMINIO T. TACLA, NELSON C. VILORIA, DEMETRIO Q. PAJARILLO, ALFREDO R. AGANON, REYNALDO AVILA, ALBERT T. RUIZ, NESTOR Y. YAGO, HARTY M. TUPASI, AGUSTIN R. AVILA, JR. OR MARCOS R. AVILA, BONIFACIO B. GAANO, JOSELITO D. CUENTA, JONAS P. ESTILONG, DOMINADOR C. CANARIA, GENARO C. RONDARIS, HERARDO M. DULAY, FRANKLIN A. RAVINA, JR., AND RUBEN C. CABELLO, Petitioners, v. TIMES TRANSPORTATION CO., INC., AND SANTIAGO RONDARIS, MENCORP TRANSPORT SYSTEMS, INC., VIRGINIA R. MENDOZA AND REYNALDO MENDOZA, Respondents.

  • A.C. No. 7593, March 11, 2015 - ALVIN S. FELICIANO, Complainant, v. ATTY. CARMELITA BAUTISTA-LOZADA, Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 195661, March 11, 2015 - UNKNOWN OWNER OF THE VESSEL M/V CHINA JOY, SAMSUN SHIPPING LTD., AND INTER-ASIA MARINE TRANSPORT, INC., Petitioners, v. ASIAN TERMINALS, INC., Respondent.

  • A.C. No. 5914, March 11, 2015 - SPOUSES ROGELIO AMATORIO AND AIDA AMATORIO, Complainants, v. ATTY. FRANCISCO DY YAP AND ATTY. WHELMA F. SITON-YAP, Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 215630, March 09, 2015 - METROGUARDS SECURITY AGENCY CORPORATION (FORMERLY KNOWN AS BEEGUARDS CORPORATION) AND MS. MILAGROS T. CHAN, Petitioners, v. ALBERTO N. HILONGO, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 199113, March 18, 2015 - RENATO M. DAVID, Petitioner, v. EDITHA A. AGBAY AND PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 205300, March 18, 2015 - FONTERRA BRANDS PHILS., INC., Petitioner, v. LEONARDO1 LARGADO AND TEOTIMO ESTRELLADO, Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 206019, March 18, 2015 - PHILIPPINE NATIONAL BANK, Petitioner, v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 204757, March 17, 2015 - ATTY. JANET D. NACION, Petitioner, v. COMMISSION ON AUDIT, MA. GRACIA PULIDO-TAN, JUANITO ESPINO AND HEIDI MENDOZA, Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 187836, March 10, 2015 - SOCIAL JUSTICE SOCIETY (SJS) OFFICERS, NAMELY, SAMSON S. ALCANTARA, AND VLADIMIR ALARIQUE T. CABIGAO, Petitioners, v. ALFREDO S. LIM, IN HIS CAPACITY AS MAYOR OF THE CITY OF MANILA, Respondent.; G.R. No. 187916 - JOSE L. ATIENZA, JR., BIENVINIDO M. ABANTE, MA. LOURDES M. ISIP-GARCIA, RAFAEL P. BORROMEO JOCELYN DAWIS-ASUNCION, MINORS MARIAN REGINA B. TARAN, MACAILA RICCI B. TARAN, RICHARD KENNETH B. TARAN, REPRESENTED AND JOINED BY THEIR PARENTS RICHARD AND MARITES TARAN, MINORS CZARINA ALYSANDRA C. RAMOS, CEZARAH ADRIANNA C. RAMOS, AND CRISTEN AIDAN C. RAMOS REPRESENTED AND JOINED BY THEIR MOTHER DONNA C. RAMOS, MINORS JAZMIN SYLLITA T. VILA AND ANTONIO T. CRUZ IV, REPRESENTED AND JOINED BY THEIR MOTHER MAUREEN C. TOLENTINO, Petitioners, v. MAYOR ALFREDO S. LIM, VICE MAYOR FRANCISCO DOMAGOSO, COUNCILORS ARLENE W. KOA, MOISES T. LIM, JESUS FAJARDO LOUISITO N. CHUA, VICTORIANO A. MELENDEZ, JOHN MARVIN C. NIETO, ROLANDO M. VALERIANO, RAYMUNDO R. YUPANGCO, EDWARD VP MACEDA, RODERICK D. VALBUENA, JOSEFINA M. SISCAR, SALVADOR PHILLIP H. LACUNA, LUCIANO M. VELOSO, CARLO V. LOPEZ, ERNESTO F. RIVERA,1 DANILO VICTOR H. LACUNA, JR., ERNESTO G. ISIP, HONEY H. LACUNA-PANGAN, ERNESTO M. DIONISO, JR. AND ERICK IAN O. NIEVA, Respondents.; CHEVRON PHILIPPINES INC., PETRON CORPORATION AND PILIPINAS SHELL PETROLEUM CORPORATION, Intervenors.

  • G.R. No. 187606, March 09, 2015 - NORMA V. JAVATE, Petitioner, v. SPOUSES RENATO J. TIOTUICO AND LERMA C. TIOTUICO, Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 207133, March 09, 2015 - SWIRE REALTY DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, Petitioner, v. JAYNE YU, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 207747, March 11, 2015 - SPOUSES CHIN KONG WONG CHOI AND ANA O. CHUA, Petitioners, v. UNITED COCONUT PLANTERS BANK, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 209383, March 11, 2015 - SEACREST MARITIME MANAGEMENT, INC., ROLANDO B. MAGCALE, AND SEALION SHIPPING LIMITED – UNITED KINGDOM, Petitioners, v. MAURICIO G. PICAR, JR., Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 183511, March 25, 2015 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, Petitioner, v. EMETERIA G. LUALHATI, Respondent.

  • A.C. No. 10679, March 10, 2015 - PO1 JOSE B. CASPE, Complainant, v. ATTY. AQUILINO A. MEJICA, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 203774, March 11, 2015 - CARGILL PHILIPPINES, INC., Petitioner, v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 198024, March 16, 2015 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. RAFAEL CUNANAN Y DAVID ALIAS “PAENG PUTOL”, Accused-Appellant.

  • G.R. No. 212054, March 11, 2015 - ST. LUKE’S MEDICAL CENTER, INC., Petitioner, v. MARIA THERESA V. SANCHEZ, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 200983, March 18, 2015 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, Petitioner, v. HUANG TE FU, A.K.A. ROBERT UY, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 175433, March 11, 2015 - ATTY. JACINTO C. GONZALES, Petitioner, v. MAILA CLEMEN F. SERRANO, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 201427, March 18, 2015 - TEOFILO B. ADOLFO, Petitioner, v. FE. T. ADOLFO, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 155701, March 11, 2015 - LIM TECK CHUAN, Petitioner, v. SERAFIN UY AND LEOPOLDA CECILIO, LIM SING CHAN @ HENRY LIM, Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 176908, March 25, 2015 - PURISIMO M. CABAOBAS, EXUPERIO C. MOLINA, GILBERTO V. OPINION, VICENTE R. LAURON, RAMON M. DE PAZ, JR., ZACARIAS E. CARBO, JULITO G. ABARRACOSO, DOMINGO B. GLORIA, AND FRANCISCO P. CUMPIO, Petitioners, v. PEPSI-COLA PRODUCTS, PHILIPPINES, INC., Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 200620, March 18, 2015 - ROBERTO L. ABAD, MANUEL D. ANDAL, BENITO V. ARANETA, PHILIP G. BRODETT, ENRIQUE L. LOCSIN AND ROBERTO V. SAN JOSE, Petitioners, v. PHILIPPINE COMMUNICATIONS SATELLITE CORPORATION, REPRESENTED BY VICTOR AFRICA, Respondent.

  • A.C. No. 10132, March 24, 2015 - HEIRS OF PEDRO ALILANO REPRESENTED BY DAVID ALILANO, Complainants, v. ATTY. ROBERTO E. EXAMEN, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 209843, March 25, 2015 - TAIWAN KOLIN CORPORATION, LTD., Petitioner, v. KOLIN ELECTRONICS CO., INC., Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 203655, March 18, 2015 - SM LAND, INC., Petitioner, v. BASES CONVERSION AND DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY AND ARNEL PACIANO D. CASANOVA, ESQ., IN HIS OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS PRESIDENT AND CEO OF BCDA, Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 209227, March 25, 2015 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. CHARLIE OROSCO, Accused-Appellant.

  • G.R. No. 205469, March 25, 2015 - BPI FAMILY SAVINGS BANK, INC., Petitioner, v. ST. MICHAEL MEDICAL CENTER, INC., Respondent.

  • OCA IPI NO. 14-220-CA-J, March 17, 2015 - RE: COMPLAINT DATED JANUARY 28, 2014 OF WENEFREDO PARREÑO, ET AL., AGAINST HON. CELIA C. LIBREA-LEAGOGO, HON. ELIHU A. YBAÑEZ AND HON. AMY C. LAZARO-JAVIER, ASSOCIATE JUSTICES OF THE COURT OF APPEALS, RELATIVE TO CA G.R. SP NO. 108807

  • G.R. No. 206381, March 25, 2015 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. DANIEL MATIBAG Y DE VILLA @ “DANI” OR “DANILO,” Accused-Appellant.

  • G.R. No. 192284, March 11, 2015 - ALEX TIONCO Y ORTEGA, Petitioner, v. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondent.

  • A.C. No. 8330, March 16, 2015 - TERESITA B. ENRIQUEZ, Complainant, v. ATTY. TRINA DE VERA, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 183212, March 16, 2015 - WALLEM PHILIPPINES SERVICES, INC. AND WALLEM SHIP MANAGEMENT, LTD., Petitioners, v. HEIRS OF THE LATE PETER PADRONES, Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 179640, March 18, 2015 - HACIENDA CATAYWA/MANUEL VILLANUEVA, owner, JOEMARIE VILLANUEVA, manager, MANCY AND SONS ENTERPRISES, INC., Petitioners, v. ROSARIO LOREZO, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 212496, March 18, 2015 - NESTOR BRACERO, Petitioner, v. RODULFO ARCELO AND THE HEIRS OF VICTORIANO MONISIT, namely: LOURDES MENCHAVEZ, ROGELIO RUELO, AND MARTINIANA APOR, Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 196750, March 11, 2015 - MA. ELENA R. DIVINAGRACIA, AS ADMINISTRATRIX OF THE ESTATE OF THE LATE SANTIAGO C. DIVINAGRACIA, Petitioner, v. CORONACION PARILLA, CELESTIAL NOBLEZA, CECILIA LELINA, CELEDONIO NOBLEZA, AND MAUDE NOBLEZA, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 209370, March 25, 2015 - FORT BONIFACIO DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, Petitioner, v. VALENTIN L. FONG, Respondent.

  • A.C. No. 8826, March 25, 2015 - SHIRLEY OLAYTA-CAMBA, Complainant, v. ATTY. OTILIO SY BONGON, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 203240, March 18, 2015 - NORTHERN ISLANDS, CO., INC., Petitioner, v. SPOUSES DENNIS AND CHERYLIN* GARCIA, DOING BUSINESS UNDER THE NAME AND STYLE “ECOLAMP MULTI RESOURCES,”, Respondents.

  • A.C. No. 8776, March 22, 2015 - ANTONINA S. SOSA, Complainant, v. ATTY. MANUEL V. MENDOZA, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 209283, March 11, 2015 - CECILIA RACHEL V. QUISUMBING, Petitioner, v. LORETTA ANN P. ROSALES, MA. VICTORIA V. CARDONA AND NORBERTO DELA CRUZ, IN THEIR CAPACITIES AS CHAIRPERSON AND MEMBERS, RESPECTIVELY, OF THE COMMISSION ON HUMAN RIGHTS, Respondent.

  • A.C. No. 10672, March 18, 2015 - EDUARDO A. MAGLENTE, Complainant, v. ATTY. DELFIN R. AGCAOILI, JR., Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 208908, March 11, 2015 - THE COFFEE BEAN AND TEA LEAF PHILIPPINES, INC. AND WALDEN CHU, Petitioners, v. ROLLY P. ARENAS, Respondent.

  • A.C. No. 10695, March 18, 2015 - CRESCENCIANO M. PITOGO, Complainant, v. ATTY. JOSELITO TROY SUELLO, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 200759, March 25, 2015 - FAJ CONSTRUCTION & DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, Petitioner, v. SUSAN M. SAULOG, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 207988, March 11, 2015 - THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. BRIAN MERCADO Y SARMIENTO, Accused-Appellant.

  • G.R. No. 185374, March 11, 2015 - SIMPLICIA CERCADO-SIGA AND LIGAYA CERCADO-BELISON, Petitioners, v. VICENTE CERCADO, JR., MANUELA C. ARABIT, LOLITA C. BASCO, MARIA C. ARALAR AND VIOLETA C. BINADAS, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 176033, March 11, 2015 - FELILIBETH AGUINALDO AND BENJAMIN PEREZ, Petitioners, v. REYNALDO P. VENTUS AND JOJO B. JOSON, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 205492, March 11, 2015 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, Petitioner, v. SPOUSES DANTE AND LOLITA BENIGNO, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 202805, March 23, 2015 - ROSARIO BANGUIS-TAMBUYAT, Petitioner, v. WENIFREDA BALCOM-TAMBUYAT, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 202943, March 25, 2015 - THE DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY ENRIQUE T. ONA, AND THE FOOD AND DRUG ADMINISTRATION (FORMERLY THE BUREAU OF FOOD AND DRUGS), REPRESENTED BY ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF HEALTH NICOLAS B. LUTERO III, OFFICER-IN-CHARGE, Petitioners, v. PHILIP MORRIS PHILIPPINES MANUFACTURING, INC., Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 160914, March 25, 2015 - MARCELA M. DELA CRUZ, Petitioner, v. ANTONIO Q. HERMANO AND HIS WIFE REMEDIOS HERMANO, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 189296, March 11, 2015 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. RECTO ANGNGAO Y MAKAY AND ROBERT CARLIN Y PECDASEN, ACCUSED, RECTO ANGNGAO Y MAKAY, Accused-Appellant.

  • G.R. No. 202989, March 25, 2015 - COMGLASCO CORPORATION/AGUILA GLASS, Petitioner, v. SANTOS CAR CHECK CENTER CORPORATION, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 167052, March 11, 2015 - BANK OF THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS SECURITIES CORPORATION, Petitioner, v. EDGARDO V. GUEVARA, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 183531, March 25, 2015 - EASTERN TELECOMMUNICATIONS PHILIPPINES, INC., Petitioner, v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 184301, March 23, 2015 - GE MONEY BANK, INC. (FORMERLY KEPPEL BANK PHILIPPINES, INC.), Petitioner, v. SPOUSES VICTORINO M. DIZON AND ROSALINA L. DIZON, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 198753, March 25, 2015 - JOSE “PEPE” SANICO, Petitioner, v. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES AND JENNIFER SON-TENIO, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 202970, March 25, 2015 - NATANYA JOANA D. ARGEL, Petitioner, v. GOV. LUIS C. SINGSON, IN HIS CAPACITY AS THE GOVERNOR OF THE PROVINCE OF ILOCOS SUR, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 197556, March 25, 2015 - WATERFRONT CEBU CITY CASINO HOTEL, INC. AND MARCO PROTACIO, Petitioners, v. ILDEBRANDO LEDESMA, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 211199, March 25, 2015 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff and Appellee, v. RANDY ROLLO Y LAGASCA, Defendant and Appellant.

  • G.R. No. 173241, March 25, 2015 - SILICON PHILIPPINES, INC. (FORMERLY INTEL PHILIPPINES MANUFACTURING, INC.), Petitioner, v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 193809, March 23, 2015 - SATURNINO NOVECIO, GAVINO NOVECIO, ANASTACIO GOLEZ, ABUNDIO SOMBILON, BERTING RODRIGUEZ, MELITON CATALAN, Petitioners, v. HON. RODRIGO F. LIM, JR., AS CHAIRMAN, HON. LEONCIA R. DIMAGIBA AS PONENTE AND AS MEMBER AND HON. ANGELITA A. GACUTAN AS MEMBER, FORMER TWENTY-THIRD DIVISION, COURT OF APPEALS, MINDANAO STATION, HON. JUDGE BENJAMIN ESTRADA, IN HIS CAPACITY AS PRESIDING JUDGE OF BRANCH 9, RTC, MALAYBALAY, BUKIDNON, MARIA CARMEN J. TUAZON, REP. BY HER ATTORNEY-IN-FACT, LOPE DUROTAN, Respondents.; VERGELIO ROSALES, LUIS TEQUILIO, GREGORIO PANANGIN, JOSEPH RODRIQUEZ, EDDIE RODRIGUEZ, Petitioners, v. HON. RODRIGO F. LIM, JR., AS CHAIRMAN, HON. LEONCIA R. DIMAGIBA AS PONENTE AND AS MEMBER DESIGNATED AS ACTING CHAIRPERSON, PER SPECIAL ORDER NO. 1955 DATED MARCH 23, 2015. DESIGNATED AS ACTING MEMBER VICE ASSOCIATE JUSTICE ANTONIO T. CARPIO, PER SPECIAL ORDER NO. 1956 DATED MARCH 23, 2015. AND HON. ANGELITA A. GACUTAN AS MEMBER, FORMER TWENTY-THIRD DIVISION, COURT OF APPEALS, MINDANAO STATION, HON. JUDGE BENJAMIN ESTRADA, IN HIS CAPACITY AS PRESIDING JUDGE OF BRANCH 9, RTC, MALAYBALAY, BUKIDNON, MANUEL V. NIETO, REP. BY HIS ATTORNEY-IN-FACT, LOPE DUROTAN, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 207422, March 18, 2015 - ANGEL ABAD, Petitioner, v. HERMINIO DELA CRUZ, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 208685, March 09, 2015 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. RODRIGO CASACOP Y DE CASTRO, Accused-Appellant.

  • G.R. No. 211159, March 18, 2015 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. MARCELINO OLOVERIO, Accused-Appellant.

  • G.R. No. 175842, March 18, 2015 - NILO MACAYAN, JR. Y MALANA, Petitioner, v. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 189949, March 25, 2015 - CASTILLEJOS CONSUMERS ASSOCIATION, INC. (CASCONA), Petitioner, v. JOSE S. DOMINGUEZ, ISIAS Q. VIDUA, VICENTE M. BARRETO, JOSE M. SANTIAGO, JOSE NASERIV C. DOLOJAN, JUAN FERNANDEZ, HONORARIO DILAG, JR., FIDEL CORREA, ALICIA MERCADO, LECIRA JUAREZ, ATTY. FULGENCIO VIGARE, JR., ANGELITO U. SACRO, MILDRED ESGUERRA, ANTONIO APALISOK, SALAMAN D. MANGCA, DANILO S. SEGOBRE, EDMUNDO D. ENGAO, P/SUPT. ROLAND FELIX, P/SUPT. JERRY SUMBAD, P/INSP. GERRY HADUCA, P/INSP. ROBIN FUGIRAN, COOPERATIVE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY (CDA), BARTOLOME GALARITA, JR., WILFRE0O JIMENEZ, HITLER UNTAL, JOEL JOHN PACTORES, ROLLY CADORNA, RUDY ELIPSE, IBRAHIM LAHI, RODOLFO BONIFACIO, JR., ANECITO VIEJO, JR., JONARD IRAN, ANGELITO BALDONAZA, NIKKO DAJAY, ROLANDO ASPA, JESON CABATINGAN, JOBERT UGANG (SECURITY GUARDS), JOHN DOES (MEMBERS OF THE ZAMBALES PROVINCIAL MOBILE GROUP OF THE PHILIPPINE NATIONAL POLICE), Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 178407, March 18, 2015 - METROPOLITAN BANK AND TRUST COMPANY, Petitioner, v. S.F. NAGUIAT ENTERPRISES, INC., Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 155405, March 18, 2015 - THE HEIRS OF EUGENIO LOPEZ, SR. NAMELY, OSCAR M. LOPEZ, MANUEL M. LOPEZ AND PRESENTACION L. PSINAKIS, Petitioners, v. THE HONORABLE FRANCISCO QUERUBIN, IN HIS CAPACITY AS PRESIDING JUDGE OF THE REGIONAL TRIAL COURT OF ANTIPOLO, BRANCH 74, THE HEIRS OF ALFONSO SANDOVAL AND HIS WIFE ROSA RUIZ, REPRESENTED BY THEIR ATTORNEY-IN-FACT, MRS. IMELDA RIVERA, Respondents.; G.R. No. 164092 - HEIRS OF EUGENIO LOPEZ, Petitioners, v. ALFONSO SANDOVAL AND ROMAN OZAETA, JR., Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 212635, March 25, 2015 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. CHARLIE SORIN Y TAGAYLO, Accused-Appellant.

  • G.R. No. 171127, March 11, 2015 - NOEL CASUMPANG, RUBY SANGA-MIRANDA AND SAN JUAN DE DIOS HOSPITAL, Petitioners, v. NELSON CORTEJO, Respondent.; G.R. No. 171217 - DRA. RUBY SANGA-MIRANDA, Petitioner, v. NELSON CORTEJO, Respondent; G.R. No. 171228 - SAN JUAN DE DIOS HOSPITAL, Petitioner, v. NELSON CORTEJO, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 197115, March 23, 2015 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY OF AGRICULTURE, Petitioner, v. FEDERICO DACLAN, JOSEFINA COLLADO AND HER HUSBAND FEDERICO DACLAN, TEODORO DACLAN AND MINVILUZ DACLAN AS SURVIVING HEIRS OF DECEASED JOSE DACLAN, Respondents.; [G.R. NO. 197267] - FEDERICO DACLAN, JOSEFINA COLLADO, TEODORO DACLAN AND MINVILUZ DACLAN AS SURVIVING HEIRS OF DECEASED JOSE DACLAN, Petitioners, v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY OF AGRICULTURE AND PROVINCE OF LA UNION, REPRESENTED BY ITS PROVINCIAL GOVERNOR, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 160728, March 11, 2015 - CLT REALTY DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, Petitioner, v. PHIL-VILLE DEVELOPMENT AND HOUSING CORPORATION, REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES (THROUGH THE OFFICE OF THE SOLICITOR GENERAL), AND THE REGISTER OF DEEDS OF METRO MANILA DISTRICT III, CALOOCAN CITY, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 193038, March 11, 2015 - JOSEFINA V. NOBLEZA, Petitioner, v. SHIRLEY B. NUEGA, Respondent.

  • G.R. Nos. 211789-90, March 17, 2015 - DR. REY B. AQUINO, Petitioner, v. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, Respondent.

  • A.C. No. 8261, March 11, 2015 - JESSIE T. CAMPUGAN AND ROBERT C. TORRES, Complainants, v. ATTY. FEDERICO S. TOLENTINO, JR., ATTY. RENATO G. CUNANAN, ATTY. DANIEL F. VICTORIO, JR., AND ATTY. ELBERT T. QUILALA, Respondents.; A.C. No. 8725 - JESSIE T. CAMPUGAN AND ROBERT C. TORRES, Complainants, v. ATTY. CONSTANTE P. CALUYA, JR., AND ATTY. ELBERT T. QUILALA, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 206267, March 25, 2015 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. RONNIE BUAT ALIAS DATU SINSUAT, Accused-Appellant.

  • G.R. No. 182886, March 09, 2015 - SPOUSES SALVADOR P. NORBERTE, JR. AND ELIZABETH S. NORBERTE, Petitioners, v. SPOUSES FELICISIMO G. MEJIA AND ELVIRA C. MEJIA AND/OR THEIR HEIRS, REPRESENTED BY ALEXIS MEJIA-QUERUBIN, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 169407, March 25, 2015 - BANK OF THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS, Petitioner, v. AMADOR DOMINGO, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 201248, March 11, 2015 - LETICIA NAGUIT AQUINO, MELVIN NAGUIT, ROMMEL NAGUIT, ELMA NAGUIT TAYAG, YSSEL L. NAGUIT, ROSALINA NAGUIT AUMENTADO, RIZEL NAGUIT CUNANAN, CARIDAD NAGUIT PARAJAS, MILLIE NAGUIT FLORENDO, MARNEL NAGUIT, EDUARDO NAGUIT, JOSE NAGUIT, ZOILO NAGUIT, AND AMELIA NAGUIT DIZON, REPRESENTED BY YSSEL L. NAGUIT, Petitioners, v. CESAR B. QUIAZON, AMANDA QUIAZON, JOSE B. QUIAZON AND REYNALDO B. QUIAZON, REPRESENTED BY JAIME B. QUIAZON, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 193890, March 11, 2015 - ESTANISLAO AND AFRICA SINAMBAN, Petitioners, v. CHINA BANKING CORPORATION, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 191945, March 11, 2015 - NATIONAL POWER CORPORATION, Petitioner, v. SOCORRO T. POSADA, RENATO BUENO, ALICE BALIN, ADRIAN TABLIZO, TEOFILO TABLIZO, AND LYDIA T. OLIVO, SUBSTITUTED BY HER HEIRS, ALFREDO M. OLIVO, ALICIA O. SALAZAR, ANITA O. ORDONO, ANGELITA O. LIM, AND ADELFA O. ESPINAS, Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 175493, March 25, 2015 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, Petitioner, v. HEIRS OF GABRIEL Q. FERNANDEZ, Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 197546, March 23, 2015 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. BAYANI DE LEON, ANTONIO DE LEON, DANILO DE LEON AND YOYONG DE LEON, Accused-Appellants.

  • G.R. No. 195956, March 11, 2015 - ABS-CBN CORPORATION, Petitioner, v. FELIPE GOZON, GILBERTO R. DUAVIT, JR., MARISSA L. FLORES, JESSICA A. SOHO, GRACE DELA PEÑA-REYES, JOHN OLIVER T. MANALASTAS, JOHN DOES AND JANE DOES, Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 184355, March 23, 2015 - ARNULFO A.K.A. ARNOLD JACABAN, Petitioner, v. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 179047, March 11, 2015 - SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION, Petitioner, v. SUBIC BAY GOLF AND COUNTRY CLUB, INC. AND UNIVERSAL INTERNATIONAL GROUP DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, Respondents.

  •  




     
     

    G.R. No. 183531, March 25, 2015 - EASTERN TELECOMMUNICATIONS PHILIPPINES, INC., Petitioner, v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent.

      G.R. No. 183531, March 25, 2015 - EASTERN TELECOMMUNICATIONS PHILIPPINES, INC., Petitioner, v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent.

    PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

    THIRD DIVISION

    G.R. No. 183531, March 25, 2015

    EASTERN TELECOMMUNICATIONS PHILIPPINES, INC., Petitioner, v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent.

    D E C I S I O N

    REYES, J.:

    This is a Petition for Review on Certiorari1 under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court which seeks to reverse and set aside the Decision2 dated  April 30, 2008 and Resolution3 dated July 2, 2008 of the Court of Tax Appeals (CTA) en banc in C.T.A. EB No. 327 affirming the denial of Eastern Telecommunications Philippines, Inc.’s (ETPI) claim for refund of its unutilized input value-added tax (VAT) in the amount of P9,265,913.42 allegedly attributable to ETPI’s zero-rated sales of services to non-resident foreign corporation for the taxable year 1998.

    The Antecedents

    ETPI is a domestic corporation located at the Telecoms Plaza Building, No. 316, Sen. Gil Puyat Avenue, Salcedo Village, Makati City.  It registered with the Bureau of Internal Revenue (BIR) as a VAT taxpayer with Certificate of Registration bearing RDO Control No. 49-490-000205 dated June 10, 1994.4

    As a telecommunications company, ETPI entered into various international service agreements with international telecommunications carriers and handles incoming telecommunications services for non-resident foreign telecommunication companies and the relay of said international calls within and around other places in the Philippines.  Consequently, to broaden its distribution coverage of telecommunications services throughout the country, ETPI entered into various interconnection agreements with local carriers  that  can  readily  relay  the  said  foreign  calls  to  the  intended local end-receiver.5

    The non-resident foreign corporations pays ETPI in US dollars inwardly remitted through the Philippine local banks, Metropolitan Banking Corporation, HongKong and Shanghai Banking Corporation and Citibank through the manner and mode of payments based on an internationally established standard which is embodied in a Blue Book, or Manual, prepared by the Consultative Commission of International Telegraph and Telephony and implemented between the contracting parties in consonance with a set  of procedural guidelines denominated as Traffic Settlement Procedure.6

    ETPI seasonably filed its Quarterly VAT Returns for the year 1998 which were, however, simultaneously amended on February 22, 2001 to correct its input VAT on domestic purchases of goods and services and on importation of goods and to reflect its zero-rated and exempt sales for said year.7

    On January 25, 2000, ETPI filed an administrative claim with the BIR for the refund of the amount of P9,265,913.42 representing excess input tax attributable to its effectively zero-rated sales in 1998 pursuant to Section 1128 of the Republic Act (R.A.) No. 8424, also known as the National Internal Revenue Code of 1997 (NIRC), as implemented by Revenue Regulations (RR) No. 5-87 and as amended by RR No. 7-95.9

    Pending review by the BIR, ETPI filed a Petition for Review10 before the CTA on February 21, 2000 in order to toll the two-year reglementary period under Section 22911 of the NIRC.  The case was docketed as C.T.A. Case No. 6019.  The BIR Commissioner opposed the petition and averred that no judicial action can be instituted by a taxpayer unless a claim has been duly filed before it.  Considering the importance of such procedural requirement, the BIR stressed that ETPI did not file a formal/written claim for refund but merely submitted a quarterly VAT return for the 4th quarter of 1998 contrary to what Section 229 of the NIRC prescribes.12

    In a Decision13 dated November 19, 2003, the CTA denied the petition because the VAT official receipts presented by ETPI to support its claim failed to imprint the word “zero-rated” on its face in violation of the invoicing requirements under Section 4.108-1 of RR No. 7-95 which reads:

    Sec. 4.108-1. Invoicing Requirements.– All VAT-registered persons shall, for every sale or lease of goods or properties or services, issue duly registered receipts or sales or commercial invoices which must show:
    1. the name, TIN and address of seller;
    2. date of transaction;
    3. quantity, unit cost and description of merchandise or nature of service;
    4. the name, TIN, business style, if any, and address of the VAT-registered purchaser, customer or client;
    5. the word “zero-rated” imprinted on the invoice covering zero-rated sales; and
    6. the invoice value or consideration. x x x (Emphasis ours)

    The CTA further mentioned that even if ETPI is entitled to a refund, it still failed to present sales invoices covering its VATable and exempt sales for purposes of allocating its input taxes.  It also criticized ETPI for filing its 1998 audited financial records on February 22, 2001 when the same should have been reported to the BIR as early as February 22, 1999.  It being so, the CTA  ratiocinated  that  tax  refunds,  being  in  the  nature  of  tax exemptions, are construed in strictissimi juris against the taxpayer.14  Thus, ETPI’s non-compliance with what the tax laws and regulations require resulted to the denial of its claim for VAT refund.

    ETPI moved for the CTA’s reconsideration15 but it was denied in the Resolution16 dated March 19, 2004.  It was discussed: (1) that ETPI’s failure to imprint the word “zero-rated” on the face of its receipts and invoices gives the presumption that it is 10% VATable; (2) that its validly supported input VAT may still be claimed as an automatic tax credit in payment of its future output VAT liability; (3) that the total sales appearing on its 1998 Quarterly Return affects the determination of its allowable refund even if the amounts of the reported zero-rated sales indicated in the amended Quarterly VAT Returns and company-provided zero-rated sales are the same; (4) that there is a need to verify the truthfulness regarding ETPI’s claim that the discrepancy in the sales was due to “write off” accounts; and (5) that the denial of the claim for refund was based on the allocation it provided to its independent certified public accountant (CPA) which it failed to support and which the independent CPA failed to include in its audit.

    Undaunted, ETPI filed a petition before the Court of Appeals (CA) which referred the case to the CTA en banc due to the passage of R.A. No. 9282.17

    On April 30, 2008, the CTA en banc rendered a Decision18 which affirmed the decision of the old CTA.  In its disquisition, the CTA en banc stated that VAT-registered persons must comply with the invoicing requirements prescribed in Sections 113(A)19 and 23720 of the NIRC.  Moreover,  the  invoicing  requirements  enumerated  in  Section  4.108-1  of RR No. 7-95 are mandatory due to the word “shall” and not “may”.  Hence, non-compliance with any thereof would disallow any claim for tax credit or VAT refund.

    CTA Presiding Justice Ernesto Acosta (PJ Acosta) filed a Concurring and Dissenting Opinion21 wherein he disagreed with the majority’s view regarding  the  supposed  mandatory  requirement  of  imprinting  the  term “zero-rated” on official receipts or invoices.  He stated that Section 113 in relation to Section 237 of the NIRC does not require the imprinting of the phrase “zero-rated” on an invoice or official receipt for the document to be considered valid for the purpose of claiming a refund or an issuance of a tax credit certificate.  Hence, the absence of the term “zero-rated” in an invoice or official receipt does not affect its admissibility or competency as evidence in support of a refund claim.  Assuming that stamping the term “zero-rated” on an invoice or official receipt is a requirement of the current NIRC, the denial of a refund claim is not the imposable penalty for failure to comply with that requirement.  Nevertheless, PJ Acosta agreed with the majority’s decision to deny the claim due to ETPI’s failure to prove the input taxes it paid on its domestic purchases of goods and services during the period involved.

    ETPI filed a motion for reconsideration which was denied in the Resolution22 dated July 2, 2008.  Hence, this petition.

    The Issue

    Whether or not the CTA erred in denying ETPI’s claim for refund of input taxes resulting from its zero-rated sales.

    Ruling of the Court

    The petition is bereft of merit.

    Foremost, it should be noted that the CTA has developed an expertise on the subject of taxation because it is a specialized court dedicated exclusively to the study and resolution of tax problems.  As such, its findings of fact are accorded the highest respect and are generally conclusive upon this Court, in the absence of grave abuse of discretion or palpable error.  Its decisions shall not be lightly set aside on appeal, unless this Court finds that the questioned decision is not supported by substantial evidence or there is a showing of abuse or improvident exercise of authority.23

    The word “zero-rated” is required on
    the invoices or receipts issued by
    VAT-registered taxpayers.


    ETPI posits that the NIRC allows VAT-registered taxpayers to file a claim for refund of input taxes directly attributable to zero-rated transactions subject to compliance with certain conditions.  To bolster its averment, ETPI pointed out that the imprint of the word “zero-rated” on the face of the sales invoice or receipt is merely required in RR No. 7-95 which cannot prevail over a taxpayer’s substantive right to claim a refund or tax credit for its input taxes.  And, that the lack of the word “zero-rated” on its invoices and receipts does not justify an outright denial of its claim for refund or tax credit considering that it has presented equally relevant and competent evidence to prove its claim.  Moreover, its clients are non-resident foreign corporations which are exempted from paying VAT.  Thus, it cannot take advantage of its omission to print the word “zero-rated” on its invoices and sales receipts.

    The Secretary of Finance has the authority to promulgate the necessary rules and regulations for the effective enforcement of the provisions of the NIRC.  Such rules and regulations are given weight and respect by the courts in view of the rule-making authority given to those who formulate them and their specific expertise in their respective fields.24

    An  applicant  for  a  claim  for  tax  refund  or  tax  credit  must  not only prove entitlement to the claim but also compliance with all the documentary and evidentiary requirements.25  Consequently, the old CTA, as affirmed by the CTA en banc, correctly ruled that a claim for the refund of creditable input taxes must be evidenced by a VAT invoice or official receipt in accordance with Section 110(A)(1)26 of the NIRC.  Sections 237 and 23827 of the same Code as well as Section 4.108-1 of RR No. 7-95 provide for the invoicing requirements that all VAT-registered taxpayers should observe, such as: (a) the BIR Permit to Print; (b) the Tax Identification Number of the VAT-registered purchaser; and (c) the word “zero-rated” imprinted thereon.  Thus, the failure to indicate the words “zero-rated” on the invoices and receipts issued by a taxpayer would result in the denial of the  claim  for  refund  or  tax  credit.  Revenue  Memorandum  Circular  No. 42-2003 on this point reads:

    A-13: Failure by the supplier to comply with the invoicing requirements on the documents supporting the sale of goods and services will result to the disallowance of the claim for input tax by the purchaser-claimant.

    If the claim for refund/TCC is based on the existence of zero-rated sales by the taxpayer but it fails to comply with the invoicing requirements in the issuance of sales invoices (e.g. failure to indicate the TIN), its claim for tax credit/refund of VAT on its purchases shall be denied considering that the invoice it is issuing to its customers does not depict its being a VAT-registered taxpayer whose sales are classified as zero-rated sales.  Nonetheless, this treatment is without prejudice to the right of the taxpayer to charge the input taxes to the appropriate expense account or asset account subject to depreciation, whichever is applicable.  Moreover, the case shall be referred by the processing office to the concerned BIR office for verification of other tax liabilities of the taxpayer. (Emphasis ours)

    In this respect, the Court has consistently ruled on the denial of a claim for refund or tax credit whenever the word “zero-rated” has been omitted on the invoices or sale receipts of the taxpayer-claimant as pronounced in Panasonic Communications Imaging Corporation of the Philippines v. CIR28 wherein it was ratiocinated, viz:

    Section 4.108-1 of RR 7-95 proceeds from the rule-making authority granted to the Secretary of Finance under Section 245 of the 1977 NIRC (Presidential Decree 1158) for the efficient enforcement of the tax code and of course its amendments.  The requirement is reasonable and is in accord with the efficient collection of VAT from the covered sales of goods and services.  As aptly explained by the CTA’s First Division, the appearance of the word “zero-rated” on the face of invoices covering zero-rated sales prevents buyers from falsely claiming input VAT from their purchases when no VAT was actually paid.  If, absent such word, a successful claim for input VAT is made, the government would be refunding money it did not collect.

    Further, the printing of the word “zero-rated” on the invoice helps segregate sales that are subject to 10% (now 12%) VAT from those sales that are zero-rated.  Unable to submit the proper invoices, petitioner Panasonic has been unable to substantiate its claim for refund.29 (Citations omitted and emphasis ours)

    ETPI failed to substantiate its claim
    for refund or tax credit.


    ETPI argues that its quarterly returns for the year 2008 substantiate the amounts of its taxable and exempt sales which show the amounts of its taxable sales, zero-rated sales and exempt sales.  Moreover, the submission of its invoices and receipts including the verification of its independent CPA are all sufficient to support its claim.

    The Court is not persuaded.

    ETPI failed to discharge its burden to prove its claim.  Tax refunds, being in the nature of tax exemptions, are construed in strictissimi juris against the taxpayer and liberally in favor of the government.  Accordingly, it is a claimant’s burden to prove the factual basis of a claim for refund or tax credit.  Considering that ETPI is engaged in mixed transactions that cover its zero-rated sales, taxable and exempt sales, it is only appropriate and reasonable for it to present competent evidence to validate all entries in its returns in order to properly determine which transactions are zero-rated and which are taxable.  Clearly, compliance with all the VAT invoicing requirements provided by tax laws and regulations is mandatory.  A claim for unutilized input taxes attributable to zero-rated sales will be given due course; otherwise, the claim should be struck off for failure to do so, such as what ETPI did in the present case.

    As aptly discussed by the old CTA:

    But even assuming that the VAT official receipts which failed to indicate the word “zero-rated” are accepted because of the corroborating evidence, still we cannot grant petitioner’s claim for refund. This court noted that the amounts of sales appearing on the 1998 quarterly returns differ from those of the amounts used by the commissioned independent CPA as bases for the allocation of verified input taxes, to wit:

    Type of
      Income
    Per
    Amended Quarterly
    VAT Returns
      (A)
    Per allocation
    Provided by
      the Company
    (B)
    Discrepancy
    (Over/Under)
    A)-(B)
    Taxable Sales
    P 8,594,177.20
    P 59,584,311.25
    P(50,990,134.05)
    Zero-rated Sales
    1,388,297,621.52
    1,388,297,621.52
    -
    Exempt Sales
    855,372,356.09
    562,282,775.64
    293,089,580.45
    Total
    P2,252,264,154.81
    P2,010,164,708.41
    P242,099,446.40
    ==============
    ==============
    ============

    The above table shows that [ETPI] adjusted its taxable sales by reducing the same to P8,594,177.20 or a reduction of P50,990,134.05 while the amount of exempt sales was overstated by P293,089,580.45.  The adjustments, according to [ETPI’s] Assistant Vice-President – Finance Controllership Regina E. De Leon, were due to write-off of accounts. Such being the case, the court believes that [ETPI] should have presented additional documents to prove the accuracy of the adjustments made. Earlier, we have noted that petitioner failed to present its VAT official receipts for taxable sales and non-VAT official receipts for its exempt sales.  These documents are necessary to verify the amounts of taxable and exempt sales and for the court to properly allocate the verified input taxes among the taxable, zero-rated and exempt sales.  It is pertinent to state that while a decrease in taxable sales will not affect [ETPI’s] claim for refund, the increase in the exempt sales has the effect of a proportionate reduction on its claimed input VAT credits.  Thus, in the absence of the aforementioned documents, the court has no basis in the computation of the allowable refund that may be granted to [ETPI].

    The disparity between the amounts declared as taxable or exempt sales by [ETPI] in its amended 1998 quarterly VAT returns and the revenue allocation provided by petitioner has further created a doubt as to the accuracy of [ETPI’s] claim, considering further that the 1998 audited financial statements, which were the bases of the revenue allocation, were already available as early as February 22, 1999 while [ETPI] filed its amended 1998 quarterly VAT returns on February 22, 2001.30

    Lastly, the old CTA and the CTA en banc, including PJ Acosta in his Concurring and Dissenting Opinion, both found that ETPI failed to sufficiently substantiate the existence of its effectively zero-rated sales for taxable year 1998.  It is noteworthy to state that the CTA is a highly specialized court dedicated exclusively to the study and consideration of revenue-related problems, in which it has necessarily developed an expertise.  Hence, its factual findings, when supported by substantial evidence, will not be disturbed on appeal.  Verily, this Court finds no sufficient reason to rule otherwise.

    WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing premises, the Decision dated April 30, 2008 and Resolution dated July 2, 2008 of the Court of Tax Appeals en banc in C.T.A. EB No. 327 are AFFIRMED.

    SO ORDERED.

    Velasco, Jr., (Chairperson), Peralta, Villarama, Jr., and Jardeleza, JJ., concur.

    Endnotes:


    1Rollo, pp. 46-74.

    2 Id. at 78-91.

    3 Id. at 97-98.

    4 Id. at 103-104.

    5 Id.

    6 Id. at 104-105.

    7 Id. at 105.

    8Sec. 112. Refunds or Tax Credits of Input Tax -

    x x x x

    (D) Period within which Refund or Tax Credit of Input Taxes shall be Made. – In proper cases, the Commissioner shall grant a refund or issue the tax credit certificate for creditable input taxes within one hundred twenty (120) days from the date of submission of complete documents in support of the application filed in accordance with Subsections (A) and (B) hereof.

    In case of full or partial denial of the claim for tax refund or tax credit, or the failure on the part of the Commissioner to act on the application within the period prescribed above, the taxpayer affected may, within thirty (30) days from the receipt of the decision denying the claim or after the expiration of the one hundred twenty day-period, appeal the decision or the unacted claim with the Court of Tax Appeals.

    x x x x (Emphasis ours)

    9Rollo, pp. 105-106.

    10 CTA records, pp. 1-7.

    11Sec. 229. Recovery of Tax Erroneously or Illegally Collected. – x x x.

    In any case, no such suit or proceeding shall be filed after the expiration of two (2) years from the date of payment of the tax or penalty regardless of any supervening cause that may arise after payment: Provided, however, That the Commissioner may, even without a written claim therefor, refund or credit any tax, where on the face of the return upon which payment was made, such payment appears clearly to have been erroneously paid.

    12 CTA records, pp. 20-23.

    13 Penned by Associate Judge Juanito C. Castañeda, Jr., with Presiding Judge Ernesto D. Acosta and Associate Judge Lovell R. Bautista concurring; id. at 615-627.

    14 Id. at 625-626.

    15 Id. at 631-642.

    16 Id. at 646-649.

    17 AN ACT EXPANDING THE JURISDICTION OF THE COURT OF TAX APPEALS (CTA), ELEVATING ITS RANK TO THE LEVEL OF A COLLEGIATE COURT WITH SPECIAL JURISDICTION AND ENLARGING ITS MEMBERSHIP, AMENDING FOR THE PURPOSE CERTAIN SECTIONS OF REPUBLIC ACT NO. 1125, AS AMENDED, OTHERWISE KNOWN AS THE LAW CREATING THE COURT OF TAX APPEALS, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES.  Approved on March 30, 2004.

    18Rollo, pp. 78-91.

    19 Sec. 113. Invoicing and Accounting Requirements for VAT-Registered Persons. -

    (A) Invoicing Requirements. - A VAT-registered person shall, for every sale, issue an invoice or receipt. In addition to the information required under Section 237, the following information shall be indicated in the invoice or receipt:

    (1) A statement that the seller is a VAT-registered person, followed by his taxpayer’s identification number (TIN); and

    (2) The total amount which the purchaser pays or is obligated to pay to the seller with the indication that such amount includes the value-added tax.

    x x x x

    20Sec. 237. Issuance of Receipts or Sales or Commercial Invoices. - All persons subject to an internal revenue tax shall, for each sale or transfer of merchandise or for services rendered valued at Twenty-five pesos (P25.00) or more, issue duly registered receipts or sales or commercial invoices, prepared at least in duplicate, showing the date of transaction, quantity, unit cost and description of merchandise or nature of service: Provided, however, That in the case of sales, receipts or transfers in the amount of One hundred pesos (P100.00) or more, or regardless of the amount, where the sale or transfer is made by a person liable to value-added tax to another person also liable to value-added tax; or where the receipt is issued to cover payment made as rentals, commissions, compensations or fees, receipts or invoices shall be issued which shall show the name, business style, if any, and address of the purchaser, customer or client: Provided, further, That where the purchaser is a VAT-registered person, in addition to the information herein required, the invoice or receipt shall further show the Taxpayer Identification Number (TIN) of the purchaser.

    x x x x

    21Rollo, pp. 92-96.

    22 Id. at 97-98.

    23Eastern Telecommunications Philippines, Inc. v. CIR, G.R. No. 168856, August 29, 2012, 679 SCRA 305, 316-317.

    24Chamber of Real Estate and Builders’ Associations, Inc. v. Hon. Executive Secretary Alberto Romulo, et al., 628 Phil. 508, 535 (2010).

    25J.R.A. Philippines, Inc. v. CIR, G.R. No. 171307, August 28, 2013, 704 SCRA 94, 99.

    26Sec. 110. Tax Credits. – (A) Creditable Input Tax. –

    (1)  Any input tax evidenced by a VAT invoice or official receipt issued in accordance with Section 113 hereof x x x.

    x x x x

    27Sec. 238. Printing of Receipts or Sales or Commercial Invoices. - All persons who are engaged in business shall secure from the Bureau of Internal Revenue an authority to print receipts or sales or commercial invoices before a printer can print the same.

    No authority to print receipts or sales or commercial invoices shall be granted unless the receipts or invoices to be printed are serially numbered and shall show, among other things, the name, business style, Taxpayer Identification Number (TIN) and business address of the person or entity to use the same, and such other information that may be required by rules and regulations to be promulgated by the Secretary of Finance, upon recommendation of the Commissioner.

    x x x x

    28 625 Phil. 631 (2010).

    29 Id. at 641-642.

    30 CTA records, pp. 624-625.

    G.R. No. 183531, March 25, 2015 - EASTERN TELECOMMUNICATIONS PHILIPPINES, INC., Petitioner, v. 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