Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 2012 > July 2012 Decisions > G.R. No. 190102 - Accenture, Inc. v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue:




G.R. No. 190102 - Accenture, Inc. v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue

PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

SECOND DIVISION

[G.R. NO. 190102 - July 11, 2012]

ACCENTURE, INC., Petitioner, v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent.

D E C I S I O N

SERENO, J.:

This is a Petition filed under Rule 45 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, praying for the reversal of the Decision of the Court of Tax Appeals En Banc (CTA En Banc ) dated 22 September 2009 and its subsequent Resolution dated 23 October 2009.1ςrνll

Accenture, Inc. (Accenture) is a corporation engaged in the business of providing management consulting, business strategies development, and selling and/or licensing of software.2 It is duly registered with the Bureau of Internal Revenue (BIR) as a Value Added Tax (VAT) taxpayer or enterprise in accordance with Section 236 of the National Internal Revenue Code (Tax Code).3ςrνll

On 9 August 2002, Accenture filed its Monthly VAT Return for the period 1 July 2002 to 31 August 2002 (1st period). Its Quarterly VAT Return for the fourth quarter of 2002, which covers the 1st period, was filed on 17 September 2002; and an Amended Quarterly VAT Return, on 21 June 2004.4 The following are reflected in Accenture s VAT Return for the fourth quarter of 2002:5ςηαñrοblεš �νιr†υαl �lαω �lιbrαrÿ

Purchases Amount Input VAT
Domestic Purchases- Capital Goods P12,312,722.00 P1,231,272.20
Domestic Purchases- Goods other than capital Goods P64,789,507.90 P6,478,950.79
Domestic Purchases- Services P16,455,868.10 P1,645,586.81
Total Input Tax
P9,355,809.80



Zero-rated Sales
P316,113,513.34
Total Sales
P335,640,544.74

Accenture filed its Monthly VAT Return for the month of September 2002 on 24 October 2002; and that for October 2002, on 12 November 2002. These returns were amended on 9 January 2003. Accenture s Quarterly VAT Return for the first quarter of 2003, which included the period 1 September 2002 to 30 November 2002 (2nd period), was filed on 17 December 2002; and the Amended Quarterly VAT Return, on 18 June 2004. The latter contains the following information:6ςηαñrοblεš �νιr†υαl �lαω �lιbrαrÿ

Purchases Amount Input VAT
Domestic Purchases- Capital Goods P80,765,294.10 P8,076,529.41
Domestic Purchases- Goods other than capital Goods P132,820,541.70 P13,282,054.17
Domestic Purchases-Services P63,238,758.00 P6,323,875.80
Total Input Tax
P27,682,459.38



Zero-rated Sales
P545,686,639.18
Total Sales P P572,880,982.68

The monthly and quarterly VAT returns of Accenture show that, notwithstanding its application of the input VAT credits earned from its zero-rated transactions against its output VAT liabilities, it still had excess or unutilized input VAT credits. These VAT credits are in the amounts of P9,355,809.80 for the 1st period and P27,682,459.38 for the 2nd period, or a total of P37,038,269.18.7ςrνll

Out of the P37,038,269.18, only P35,178,844.21 pertained to the allocated input VAT on Accenture s "domestic purchases of taxable goods which cannot be directly attributed to its zero-rated sale of services."8 This allocated input VAT was broken down to P8,811,301.66 for the 1st period and P26,367,542.55 for the 2nd period.9ςrνll

The excess input VAT was not applied to any output VAT that Accenture was liable for in the same quarter when the amount was earned or to any of the succeeding quarters. Instead, it was carried forward to petitioner s 2nd Quarterly VAT Return for 2003.10ςrνll

Thus, on 1 July 2004, Accenture filed with the Department of Finance (DoF) an administrative claim for the refund or the issuance of a Tax Credit Certificate (TCC). The DoF did not act on the claim of Accenture. Hence, on 31 August 2004, the latter filed a Petition for Review with the First Division of the Court of Tax Appeals (Division), praying for the issuance of a TCC in its favor in the amount of P35,178,844.21.

The Commissioner of Internal Revenue (CIR), in its Answer,11 argued thus:ςηαñrοblεš �νιr†υαl �lαω �lιbrαrÿ

1. The sale by Accenture of goods and services to its clients are not zero-rated transactions.

2. Claims for refund are construed strictly against the claimant, and Accenture has failed to prove that it is entitled to a refund, because its claim has not been fully substantiated or documented.

chanrobles virtual law library

In a 13 November 2008 Decision,12 the Division denied the Petition of Accenture for failing to prove that the latter s sale of services to the alleged foreign clients qualified for zero percent VAT.13ςrνll

In resolving the sole issue of whether or not Accenture was entitled to a refund or an issuance of a TCC in the amount of P35,178,844.21,14 the Division ruled that Accenture had failed to present evidence to prove that the foreign clients to which the former rendered services did business outside the Philippines.15 Ruling that Accenture s services would qualify for zero-rating under the 1997 National Internal Revenue Code of the Philippines (Tax Code) only if the recipient of the services was doing business outside of the Philippines,16 the Division cited Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Burmeister and Wain Scandinavian Contractor Mindanao, Inc. (Burmeister)17 as basis.

Accenture appealed the Division s Decision through a Motion for Reconsideration (MR).18 In its MR, it argued that the reliance of the Division on Burmeister was misplaced19 for the following reasons:ςηαñrοblεš �νιr†υαl �lαω �lιbrαrÿ

1. The issue involved in Burmeister was the entitlement of the applicant to a refund, given that the recipient of its service was doing business in the Philippines; it was not an issue of failure of the applicant to present evidence to prove the fact that the recipient of its services was a foreign corporation doing business outside the Philippines.20ςrνll

2. Burmeister emphasized that, to qualify for zero-rating, the recipient of the services should be doing business outside the Philippines, and Accenture had successfully established that.21ςrνll

3. Having been promulgated on 22 January 2007 or after Accenture filed its Petition with the Division, Burmeister cannot be made to apply to this case.22ςrνll

chanrobles virtual law library

Accenture also cited Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. American Express (Amex)23 in support of its position. The MR was denied by the Division in its 12 March 2009 Resolution.24ςrνll

Accenture appealed to the CTA En Banc. There it argued that prior to the amendment introduced by Republic Act No. (R.A.) 9337, 25 there was no requirement that the services must be rendered to a person engaged in business conducted outside the Philippines to qualify for zero-rating. The CTA En Banc agreed that because the case pertained to the third and the fourth quarters of taxable year 2002, the applicable law was the 1997 Tax Code, and not R.A. 9337.26 Still, it ruled that even though the provision used in Burmeister was Section 102(b)(2) of the earlier 1977 Tax Code, the pronouncement therein requiring recipients of services to be engaged in business outside the Philippines to qualify for zero-rating was applicable to the case at bar, because Section 108(B)(2) of the 1997 Tax Code was a mere reenactment of Section 102(b)(2) of the 1977 Tax Code.

The CTA En Banc concluded that Accenture failed to discharge the burden of proving the latter s allegation that its clients were foreign-based.27ςrνll

Resolute, Accenture filed a Petition for Review with the CTA En Banc, but the latter affirmed the Division s Decision and Resolution.28 A subsequent MR was also denied in a Resolution dated 23 October 2009.

Hence, the present Petition for Review29 under Rule 45.

In a Joint Stipulation of Facts and Issues, the parties and the Division have agreed to submit the following issues for resolution:ςηαñrοblεš �νιr†υαl �lαω �lιbrαrÿ

1. Whether or not Petitioner s sales of goods and services are zero-rated for VAT purposes under Section 108(B)(2)(3) of the 1997 Tax Code.

2. Whether or not petitioner s claim for refund/tax credit in the amount of P35,178,884.21 represents unutilized input VAT paid on its domestic purchases of goods and services for the period commencing from 1 July 2002 until 30 November 2002.

3. Whether or not Petitioner has carried over to the succeeding taxable quarter(s) or year(s) the alleged unutilized input VAT paid on its domestic purchases of goods and services for the period commencing from 1 July 2002 until 30 November 2002, and applied the same fully to its output VAT liability for the said period.

4. Whether or not Petitioner is entitled to the refund of the amount of P35,178,884.21, representing the unutilized input VAT on domestic purchases of goods and services for the period commencing from 1 July 2002 until 30 November 2002, from its sales of services to various foreign clients.

5. Whether or not Petitioner s claim for refund/tax credit in the amount of P35,178,884.21, as alleged unutilized input VAT on domestic purchases of goods and services for the period covering 1 July 2002 until 30 November 2002 are duly substantiated by proper documents.30ςrνll

chanrobles virtual law library

For consideration in the present Petition are the following issues:ςηαñrοblεš �νιr†υαl �lαω �lιbrαrÿ

1. Should the recipient of the services be "doing business outside the Philippines" for the transaction to be zero-rated under Section 108(B)(2) of the 1997 Tax Code?chanroblesvirtualawlibrary

2. Has Accenture successfully proven that its clients are entities doing business outside the Philippines?

chanrobles virtual law library

Recipient of services must be doing business outside the Philippines for the transactions to qualify as zero-rated.

Accenture anchors its refund claim on Section 112(A) of the 1997 Tax Code, which allows the refund of unutilized input VAT earned from zero-rated or effectively zero-rated sales. The provision reads:ςrαlαω

SEC. 112. Refunds or Tax Credits of Input Tax. -

(A) Zero-Rated or Effectively Zero-Rated Sales. - Any VAT-registered person, whose sales are zero-rated or effectively zero-rated may, within two (2) years after the close of the taxable quarter when the sales were made, apply for the issuance of a tax credit certificate or refund of creditable input tax due or paid attributable to such sales, except transitional input tax, to the extent that such input tax has not been applied against output tax: Provided, however, That in the case of zero-rated sales under Section 106(A)(2)(a)(1), (2) and (B) and Section 108 (B)(1) and (2), the acceptable foreign currency exchange proceeds thereof had been duly accounted for in accordance with the rules and regulations of the Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas (BSP): Provided, further, That where the taxpayer is engaged in zero-rated or effectively zero-rated sale and also in taxable or exempt sale of goods of properties or services, and the amount of creditable input tax due or paid cannot be directly and entirely attributed to any one of the transactions, it shall be allocated proportionately on the basis of the volume of sales. Section 108(B) referred to in the foregoing provision was first seen when Presidential Decree No. (P.D.) 199431 amended Title IV of P.D. 1158,32 which is also known as the National Internal Revenue Code of 1977. Several Decisions have referred to this as the 1986 Tax Code, even though it merely amended Title IV of the 1977 Tax Code.

Two years thereafter, or on 1 January 1988, Executive Order No. (E.O.) 27333 further amended provisions of Title IV. E.O. 273 by transferring the old Title IV provisions to Title VI and filling in the former title with new provisions that imposed a VAT.

The VAT system introduced in E.O. 273 was restructured through Republic Act No. (R.A.) 7716.34 This law, which was approved on 5 May 1994, widened the tax base. Section 3 thereof reads:ςrαlαω

SECTION 3. Section 102 of the National Internal Revenue Code, as amended, is hereby further amended to read as follows:ςrαlαω

"SEC. 102. Value-added tax on sale of services and use or lease of properties. x x x

x x x � � � � � x x x � � � � � x x x

"(b) Transactions subject to zero-rate. The following services performed in the Philippines by VAT-registered persons shall be subject to 0%:ςηαñrοblεš �νιr†υαl �lαω �lιbrαrÿ

"(1) Processing, manufacturing or repacking goods for other persons doing business outside the Philippines which goods are subsequently exported, where the services are paid for in acceptable foreign currency and accounted for in accordance with the rules and regulations of the Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas (BSP).

"(2) Services other than those mentioned in the preceding sub-paragraph, the consideration for which is paid for in acceptable foreign currency and accounted for in accordance with the rules and regulations of the Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas (BSP)."

chanrobles virtual law library

Essentially, Section 102(b) of the 1977 Tax Code as amended by P.D. 1994, E.O. 273, and R.A. 7716 provides that if the consideration for the services provided by a VAT-registered person is in a foreign currency, then this transaction shall be subjected to zero percent rate.

The 1997 Tax Code reproduced Section 102(b) of the 1977 Tax Code in its Section 108(B), to wit:ςrαlαω

(B) Transactions Subject to Zero Percent (0%) Rate. - The following services performed in the Philippines by VAT- registered persons shall be subject to zero percent (0%) rate.ςηαñrοblεš �νιr†υαl �lαω �lιbrαrÿ

(1) Processing, manufacturing or repacking goods for other persons doing business outside the Philippines which goods are subsequently exported, where the services are paid for in acceptable foreign currency and accounted for in accordance with the rules and regulations of the Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas (BSP);

(2) Services other than those mentioned in the preceding paragraph, the consideration for which is paid for in acceptable foreign currency and accounted for in accordance with the rules and regulations of the Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas (BSP); x x x.

chanrobles virtual law library

On 1 November 2005, Section 6 of R.A. 9337, which amended the foregoing provision, became effective. It reads:

SEC. 6. Section 108 of the same Code, as amended, is hereby further amended to read as follows:

"SEC. 108. Value-added Tax on Sale of Services and Use or Lease of

Properties. -

(B) Transactions Subject to Zero Percent (0%) Rate. - The following services performed in the Philippines by VAT-registered persons shall be subject to zero percent (0%) rate:ςηαñrοblεš �νιr†υαl �lαω �lιbrαrÿ

(1) Processing, manufacturing or repacking goods for other persons doing business outside the Philippines which goods are subsequently exported, where the services are paid for in acceptable foreign currency and accounted for in accordance with the rules and regulations of the Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas (BSP);

"(2) Services other than those mentioned in the preceding paragraph rendered to a person engaged in business conducted outside the Philippines or to a nonresident person not engaged in business who is outside the Philippines when the services are performed, the consideration for which is paid for in acceptable foreign currency and accounted for in accordance with the rules and regulations of the Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas (BSP); x x x." (Emphasis supplied)cralawlibrary

chanrobles virtual law library

The meat of Accenture s argument is that nowhere does Section 108(B) of the 1997 Tax Code state that services, to be zero-rated, should be rendered to clients doing business outside the Philippines, the requirement introduced by R.A. 9337.35 Required by Section 108(B), prior to the amendment, is that the consideration for the services rendered be in foreign currency and in accordance with the rules of the Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas (BSP). Since Accenture has complied with all the conditions imposed in Section 108(B), it is entitled to the refund prayed for.

In support of its claim, Accenture cites Amex, in which this Court supposedly ruled that Section 108(B) reveals a clear intent on the part of the legislators not to impose the condition of being "consumed abroad" in order for the services performed in the Philippines to be zero-rated.36ςrνll

The Division ruled that this Court, in Amex and Burmeister, did not declare that the requirement that the client must be doing business outside the Philippines can be disregarded, because this requirement is expressly provided in Article 108(2) of the Tax Code.37ςrνll

Accenture questions the Division s application to this case of the pronouncements made in Burmeister. According to petitioner, the provision applied to the present case was Section 102(b) of the 1977 Tax Code, and not Section 108(B) of the 1997 Tax Code, which was the law effective when the subject transactions were entered into and a refund was applied for.

In refuting Accenture s theory, the CTA En Banc ruled that since Section 108(B) of the 1997 Tax Code was a mere reproduction of Section 102(b) of the 1977 Tax Code, this Court s interpretation of the latter may be used in interpreting the former, viz:ςrαlαω

In the Burmeister case, the Supreme Court harmonized both Sections 102(b)(1) and 102(b)(2) of the 1977 Tax Code, as amended, pertaining to zero-rated transactions. A parallel approach should be accorded to the renumbered provisions of Sections 108(B)(2) and 108(B)(1) of the 1997 NIRC. This means that Section 108(B)(2) must be read in conjunction with Section 108(B)(1). Section 108(B)(2) requires as follows: a) services other than processing, manufacturing or repacking rendered by VAT registered persons in the Philippines; and b) the transaction paid for in acceptable foreign currency duly accounted for in accordance with BSP rules and regulations. The same provision made reference to Section 108(B)(1) further imposing the requisite c) that the recipient of services must be performing business outside of Philippines. Otherwise, if both the provider and recipient of service are doing business in the Philippines, the sale transaction is subject to regular VAT as explained in the Burmeister case x x x.

x x x � � � � � x x x � � � � � x x x

Clearly, the Supreme Court s pronouncements in the Burmeister case requiring that the recipient of the services must be doing business outside the Philippines as mandated by law govern the instant case.38ςrνll

Assuming that the foregoing is true, Accenture still argues that the tax appeals courts cannot be allowed to apply to Burmeister this Court s interpretation of Section 102(b) of the 1977 Tax Code, because the Petition of Accenture had already been filed before the case was even promulgated on 22 January 2007,39 to wit:ςrαlαω

x x x. While the Burmeister case forms part of the legal system and assumes the same authority as the statute itself, however, the same cannot be applied retroactively against the Petitioner because to do so will be prejudicial to the latter.40ςrνll

The CTA en banc is of the opinion that Accenture cannot invoke the non-retroactivity of the rulings of the Supreme Court, whose interpretation of the law is part of that law as of the date of its enactment.41ςrνll

We rule that the recipient of the service must be doing business outside the Philippines for the transaction to qualify for zero-rating under Section 108(B) of the Tax Code.

This Court upholds the position of the CTA en banc that, because Section 108(B) of the 1997 Tax Code is a verbatim copy of Section 102(b) of the 1977 Tax Code, any interpretation of the latter holds true for the former.

Moreover, even though Accenture s Petition was filed before Burmeister was promulgated, the pronouncements made in that case may be applied to the present one without violating the rule against retroactive application. When this Court decides a case, it does not pass a new law, but merely interprets a preexisting one.42 When this Court interpreted Section 102(b) of the 1977 Tax Code in Burmeister, this interpretation became part of the law from the moment it became effective. It is elementary that the interpretation of a law by this Court constitutes part of that law from the date it was originally passed, since this Court's construction merely establishes the contemporaneous legislative intent that the interpreted law carried into effect.43ςrνll

Accenture questions the CTA s application of Burmeister, because the provision interpreted therein was Section 102(b) of the 1977 Tax Code. In support of its position that Section 108 of the 1997 Tax Code does not require that the services be rendered to an entity doing business outside the Philippines, Accenture invokes this Court s pronouncements in Amex. However, a reading of that case will readily reveal that the provision applied was Section 102(b) of the 1977 Tax Code, and not Section 108 of the 1997 Tax Code. As previously mentioned, an interpretation of Section 102(b) of the 1977 Tax Code is an interpretation of Section 108 of the 1997 Tax Code, the latter being a mere reproduction of the former.

This Court further finds that Accenture s reliance on Amex is misplaced.

We ruled in Amex that Section 102 of the 1977 Tax Code does not require that the services be consumed abroad to be zero-rated. However, nowhere in that case did this Court discuss the necessary qualification of the recipient of the service, as this matter was never put in question. In fact, the recipient of the service in Amex is a nonresident foreign client.

The aforementioned case explains how the credit card system works. The issuance of a credit card allows the holder thereof to obtain, on credit, goods and services from certain establishments. As proof that this credit is extended by the establishment, a credit card draft is issued. Thereafter, the company issuing the credit card will pay for the purchases of the credit card holders by redeeming the drafts. The obligation to collect from the card holders and to bear the loss in case they do not pay rests on the issuer of the credit card.

The service provided by respondent in Amex consisted of gathering the bills and credit card drafts from establishments located in the Philippines and forwarding them to its parent company's regional operating centers outside the country. It facilitated in the Philippines the collection and payment of receivables belonging to its Hong Kong-based foreign client.

The Court explained how the services rendered in Amex were considered to have been performed and consumed in the Philippines, to wit:ςrαlαω

Consumption is "the use of a thing in a way that thereby exhausts it." Applied to services, the term means the performance or "successful completion of a contractual duty, usually resulting in the performer s release from any past or future liability x x x." The services rendered by respondent are performed or successfully completed upon its sending to its foreign client the drafts and bills it has gathered from service establishments here. Its services, having been performed in the Philippines, are therefore also consumed in the Philippines.44ςrνll

The effect of the place of consumption on the zero-rating of the transaction was not the issue in Burmeister. Instead, this Court addressed the squarely raised issue of whether the recipient of services should be doing business outside the Philippines for the transaction to qualify for zero-rating. We ruled that it should. Thus, another essential condition for qualification for zero-rating under Section 102(b)(2) of the 1977 Tax Code is that the recipient of the business be doing that business outside the Philippines. In clarifying that there is no conflict between this pronouncement and that laid down in Amex, we ruled thus:ςrαlαω

x x x. As the Court held in Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. American Express International, Inc. (Philippine Branch), the place of payment is immaterial, much less is the place where the output of the service is ultimately used. An essential condition for entitlement to 0% VAT under Section 102 (b) (1) and (2) is that the recipient of the services is a person doing business outside the Philippines. In this case, the recipient of the services is the Consortium, which is doing business not outside, but within the Philippines because it has a 15-year contract to operate and maintain NAPOCOR s two 100-megawatt power barges in Mindanao. (Emphasis in the original)45ςrνll

In Amex we ruled that the place of performance and/or consumption of the service is immaterial. In Burmeister, the Court found that, although the place of the consumption of the service does not affect the entitlement of a transaction to zero-rating, the place where the recipient conducts its business does.

Amex does not conflict with Burmeister. In fact, to fully understand how Section 102(b)(2) of the 1977 Tax Code and consequently Section 108(B)(2) of the 1997 Tax Code was intended to operate, the two aforementioned cases should be taken together. The zero-rating of the services performed by respondent in Amex was affirmed by the Court, because although the services rendered were both performed and consumed in the Philippines, the recipient of the service was still an entity doing business outside the Philippines as required in Burmeister.

That the recipient of the service should be doing business outside the Philippines to qualify for zero-rating is the only logical interpretation of Section 102(b)(2) of the 1977 Tax Code, as we explained in Burmeister:ςrαlαω

This can only be the logical interpretation of Section 102 (b) (2). If the provider and recipient of the "other services" are both doing business in the Philippines, the payment of foreign currency is irrelevant. Otherwise, those subject to the regular VAT under Section 102 (a) can avoid paying the VAT by simply stipulating payment in foreign currency inwardly remitted by the recipient of services. To interpret Section 102 (b) (2) to apply to a payer-recipient of services doing business in the Philippines is to make the payment of the regular VAT under Section 102 (a) dependent on the generosity of the taxpayer. The provider of services can choose to pay the regular VAT or avoid it by stipulating payment in foreign currency inwardly remitted by the payer-recipient. Such interpretation removes Section 102 (a) as a tax measure in the Tax Code, an interpretation this Court cannot sanction. A tax is a mandatory exaction, not a voluntary contribution.

x x x � � � � � x x x � � � � � x x x

Further, when the provider and recipient of services are both doing business in the Philippines, their transaction falls squarely under Section 102 (a) governing domestic sale or exchange of services. Indeed, this is a purely local sale or exchange of services subject to the regular VAT, unless of course the transaction falls under the other provisions of Section 102 (b).

Thus, when Section 102 (b) (2) speaks of "services other than those mentioned in the preceding subparagraph," the legislative intent is that only the services are different between subparagraphs 1 and 2. The requirements for zero-rating, including the essential condition that the recipient of services is doing business outside the Philippines, remain the same under both subparagraphs. (Emphasis in the original)46ςrνll

Lastly, it is worth mentioning that prior to the promulgation of Burmeister, Congress had already clarified the intent behind Sections 102(b)(2) of the 1977 Tax Code and 108(B)(2) of the 1997 Tax Code amending the earlier provision. R.A. 9337 added the following phrase: "rendered to a person engaged in business conducted outside the Philippines or to a nonresident person not engaged in business who is outside the Philippines when the services are performed."

Accenture has failed to establish that the recipients of its services do business outside the Philippines.

Accenture argues that based on the documentary evidence it presented,47 it was able to establish the following circumstances:ςηαñrοblεš �νιr†υαl �lαω �lιbrαrÿ

1. The records of the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) show that Accenture s clients have not established any branch office in which to do business in the Philippines.

2. For these services, Accenture bills another corporation, Accenture Participations B.V. (APB), which is likewise a foreign corporation with no "presence in the Philippines."

3. Only those not doing business in the Philippines can be required under BSP rules to pay in acceptable currency for their purchase of goods and services from the Philippines. Thus, in a domestic transaction, where the provider and recipient of services are both doing business in the Philippines, the BSP cannot require any party to make payment in foreign currency.48ςrνll

chanrobles virtual law library

Accenture claims that these documentary pieces of evidence are supported by the Report of Emmanuel Mendoza, the Court-commissioned Independent Certified Public Accountant. He ascertained that Accenture s gross billings pertaining to zero-rated sales were all supported by zero-rated Official Receipts and Billing Statements. These documents show that these zero-rated sales were paid in foreign exchange currency and duly accounted for in the rules and regulations of the BSP.49ςrνll

In the CTA s opinion, however, the documents presented by Accenture merely substantiate the existence of the sales, receipt of foreign currency payments, and inward remittance of the proceeds of these sales duly accounted for in accordance with BSP rules. Petitioner presented no evidence whatsoever that these clients were doing business outside the Philippines.50ςrνll

Accenture insists, however, that it was able to establish that it had rendered services to foreign corporations doing business outside the Philippines, unlike in Burmeister, which allegedly involved a foreign corporation doing business in the Philippines.51ςrνll

We deny Accenture s Petition for a tax refund.

The evidence presented by Accenture may have established that its clients are foreign. This fact does not automatically mean, however, that these clients were doing business outside the Philippines. After all, the Tax Code itself has provisions for a foreign corporation engaged in business within the Philippines and vice versa, to wit:

SEC. 22. Definitions - When used in this Title:ςηαñrοblεš �νιr†υαl �lαω �lιbrαrÿ

x x x � � � � � x x x � � � � � x x x

(H) The term "resident foreign corporation" applies to a foreign corporation engaged in trade or business within the Philippines.

(I) The term nonresident foreign corporation applies to a foreign corporation not engaged in trade or business within the Philippines. (Emphasis in the original)

chanrobles virtual law library

Consequently, to come within the purview of Section 108(B)(2), it is not enough that the recipient of the service be proven to be a foreign corporation; rather, it must be specifically proven to be a nonresident foreign corporation.

There is no specific criterion as to what constitutes "doing" or "engaging in" or "transacting" business. We ruled thus in Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. British Overseas Airways Corporation:52ςrνll

x x x. There is no specific criterion as to what constitutes "doing" or "engaging in" or "transacting" business. Each case must be judged in the light of its peculiar environmental circumstances. The term implies a continuity of commercial dealings and arrangements, and contemplates, to that extent, the performance of acts or works or the exercise of some of the functions normally incident to, and in progressive prosecution of commercial gain or for the purpose and object of the business organization. "In order that a foreign corporation may be regarded as doing business within a State, there must be continuity of conduct and intention to establish a continuous business, such as the appointment of a local agent, and not one of a temporary character."53ςrνll

A taxpayer claiming a tax credit or refund has the burden of proof to establish the factual basis of that claim. Tax refunds, like tax exemptions, are construed strictly against the taxpayer.54ςrνll

Accenture failed to discharge this burden. It alleged and presented evidence to prove only that its clients were foreign entities. However, as found by both the CTA Division and the CTA En Banc, no evidence was presented by Accenture to prove the fact that the foreign clients to whom petitioner rendered its services were clients doing business outside the Philippines.

As ruled by the CTA En Banc, the Official Receipts, Intercompany Payment Requests, Billing Statements, Memo Invoices-Receivable, Memo Invoices-Payable, and Bank Statements presented by Accenture merely substantiated the existence of sales, receipt of foreign currency payments, and inward remittance of the proceeds of such sales duly accounted for in accordance with BSP rules, all of these were devoid of any evidence that the clients were doing business outside of the Philippines.55ςrνll

WHEREFORE, the instant Petition is DENIED. The 22 September 2009 Decision and the 23 October 2009 Resolution of the Court of Tax Appeals En Banc in C.T.A. EB No. 477, dismissing the Petition for the refund of the excess or unutilized input VAT credits of Accenture, Inc., are AFFIRMED.

SO ORDERED.


C E R T I F I C A T I O N

I certify that the conclusions in the above Decision had been reached in consultation before the case was assigned to the writer of the opinion or the Court's Division.


Endnotes:


1 Rollo, Decision, pp. 35-49; rollo, Resolution, pp. 51-31; C.T.A. EB No. 477, penned by Associate Justice Juanito C. Castañeda, Jr., and concurred in by Presiding Justice Ernesto D. Acosta and Associate Justices Lovell R. Bautista, Erlinda P. Uy, Caesar A. Casanova, and Olga Palanca-Enriquez.

2 Id. at 11.

3 Id. at 139.

4 Id. at 140-141.

5 Id. at 161.

6 Id.

7 Rollo, pp. 140-141.

8 Id. at 140.

9 Id.

10 Rollo, pp. 142-143.

11 Id. at 99-100.

12 Id. at 160-171; CTA Case No. 7046, penned by Associate Justice Lovell R. Bautista, and concurred in by Presiding Justice Ernesto D. Acosta and Associate Justice Caesar A. Casanova.

13 Id. at 170.

14 Id. at 165.

15 Id. at 168.

16 Id. at 167.

17 G.R. No. 153205, 22 January 2007, 515 SCRA 124.

18 Rollo, pp. 172-179.

19 Id. at 173.

20 Id.

21 Rollo, pp. 173-174.

22 Id. at 21.

23 500 Phil. 586 (2005).

24 Rollo, pp. 181-183.

25 AN ACT AMENDING SECTIONS 27, 28, 34, 106, 107, 108, 109, 110, 111, 112, 113, 114, 116, 117, 119, 121, 148, 151, 236, 237 AND 288 OF THE NATIONAL INTERNAL REVENUE CODE OF 1997, AS AMENDED, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES

26 Rollo, p. 41.

27 Id. at 48.

28 Id.

29 Rollo, pp. 9-33.

30 Id. at 164.

31 FURTHER AMENDING CERTAIN PROVISIONS OF THE NATIONAL INTERNAL REVENUE CODE.

32 A DECREE TO CONSOLIDATE AND CODIFY ALL THE INTERNAL REVENUE LAWS OF THE PHILIPPINES.

33 ADOPTING A VALUE-ADDED TAX, AMENDING FOR THIS PURPOSE CERTAIN PROVISIONS OF THE NATIONAL INTERNAL REVENUE CODE, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES.

34 AN ACT RESTRUCTURING THE VALUE-ADDED TAX (VAT) SYSTEM, WIDENING ITS TAX BASE AND ENHANCING ITS ADMINISTRATION, AND FOR THESE PURPOSES AMENDING AND REPEALING THE RELEVANT PORTIONS OF THE NATIONAL INTERNAL REVENUE CODE, AS AMENDED, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES.

35 Rollo, p. 194.

36 Id. at 192-193.

37 Id. at 182.

38 Id. at 43-45.

39 Id. at 196.

40 Id. at 21.

41 Id. at 46, citing National Amnesty Commission v. Commission on Audit, 481 Phil. 279 (2004).

42 Columbia Pictures, Inc. v. Court of Appeals, 329 Phil. 875, 907-908 (1996).

43 Senarillos v. Hermosisima, 100 Phil. 501 (1956).

44 Supra note 23, at 605, citing Garner (ed. in chief).

45 Supra note 17, at 139.

46 Rollo, pp. 136-137.

47 Official Receipts, Intercompany Payment Request, Billing Statements, Memo Invoices Receivable, Memo Invoices-Payable, and Bank Statements.

48 Rollo, pp. 23-24.

49 Id. at 25.

50 Id. at 47.

51 Id. at 138.

52 233 Phil. 406 (1987).

53 Id. at 420 citing The Mentholatum Co., Inc. v. Anacleto Mangaliman, 72 Phil. 524 (1941);

Section 1, R.A. No. 5455; and Pacific Micronesian Line, Inc. v. Del Rosario and Pelingon, 96 Phil. 23, 30 (1954), which in turn cited Thompson on Corporations, Vol. 8, 844-847 (3rd ed.); and Fisher, PHILIPPINE LAW O F STOCK CORPORATION, 415.

54 Paseo Realty & Development Corporation v. Court of Tax Appeals, el al., 483 Phil. 254 (2004 ).

55 Rollo, p. 47.

chanrobles virtual law library



Back to Home | Back to Main




















chanrobles.com





ChanRobles On-Line Bar Review

ChanRobles Internet Bar Review : www.chanroblesbar.com

ChanRobles MCLE On-line

ChanRobles Lawnet Inc. - ChanRobles MCLE On-line : www.chanroblesmcleonline.com






July-2012 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. 191109, July 18, 2012 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, REPRESENTED BY THE PHILIPPINE RECLAMATION AUTHORITY (PRA), Petitioner, v. CITY OF PARA�AQUE Respondents.

  • [G.R. No. 155680 : July 02, 2012] FIRST LEVERAGE AND SERVICES GROUP, INC., PETITIONER, VS. SOLID BUILDERS, INC., RESPONDENT.

  • [G.R. No. 187298 : July 03, 2012] JAMAR M. KULAYAN, TEMEN S. TULAWIE, HJI. MOH. YUSOP ISMI, JULHAJAN AWADI, AND SPO1 SATTAL H. JADJULI, PETITIONER, VS. GOV. ABDUSAKUR M. TAN, IN HIS CAPACITY AS GOVERNOR OF SULU; GEN. JUANCHO SABAN, COL. EUGENIO CLEMEN PN, P/SUPT. JULASIRIM KASIM AND P/SUPT. BIENVENIDO G. LATAD, IN THEIR CAPACITY AS OFFICERS OF THE PHIL. MARINES AND PHIL. NATIONAL POLICE, RESPECTIVELY, RESPONDENTS.

  • [G.R. No. 182069 : July 03, 2012] ARNOLD D. VICENCIO, PETITIONER, VS. HON. REYNALDO A. VILLAR AND HON. JUANITO G. ESPINO, JR., IN THEIR CAPACITY AS ACTING CHAIRMAN AND COMMISSIONER, RESPECTIVELY, OF THE HON. COMMISSION ON AUDIT, AND ELIZABETH S. ZOSA, RESPONDENTS.

  • [G.R. No. 189767 : July 03, 2012] PHILIPPINE ECONOMIC ZONE AUTHORITY (PEZA), PETITIONER, VS. COMMISSION ON AUDIT AND REYNALDO A. VILLAR, CHAIRMAN, COMMISSION ON AUDIT, RESPONDENTS.c

  • [A.M. No. P-06-2186 (Formerly A.M. OCA I.P.I. No. 05-2256-P), July 03, 2012] FILOMENA B. CONSOLACION, COMPLAINANT, VS. LYDIA S. GAMBITO, COURT STENOGRAPHER, MUNICIPAL CIRCUIT TRIAL COURT, BINALONAN, PANGASINAN, RESPONDENT. [A.M. NO. P-12-3026 (FORMERLY A.M. OCA I.P.I. NO. 05-2081-P) ] JUDGE EMMA S. INES-PARAJAS, COMPLAINANT, VS. LYDIA S. GAMBITO, COURT STENOGRAPHER, MUNICIPAL CIRCUIT TRIAL COURT, BINALONAN, PANGASINAN, RESPONDENT.

  • [G.R. No. 175123 : July 04, 2012] MOLDEZ REALTY INC. AND ANSELMO AGERO, PETITIONERS, VS. SPOUSES RICARDO J. VILLABONA AND GILDA G. VILLABONA, AND EDUARDO J. VILLABONA, RESPONDENTS.cralaw

  • [A.M. No. P-12-3067 [formerly A.M. OCA IPI No. 10-3400-P], July 04, 2012] RHEA AIRENE P. KATAGUE, RODOLFO E. KATAGUE, RONA SALVACION K. DELA, COMPLAINANTS, VS. JERRY A. LEDESMA, SHERIFF IV, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, BRANCH 48, BACOLOD CITY, RESPONDENT.cralaw

  • [G. R. No. 161090 : July 04, 2012] SPOUSES ROMEO LL. PLOPENIO AND ROSIELINDA PLOPENIO REPRESENTED BY GAVINO PLOPENIO, PETITIONERS, VS. DEPARTMENT OF AGRARIAN REFORM AND LAND BANK OF THE PHILIPPINES, RESPONDENTS. [G.R. NO. 161092] EDUARDO LL. PLOPENIO REPRESENTED BY GAVINO PLOPENIO, PETITIONER, VS. DEPARTMENT OF AGRARIAN REFORLVI AND LAND BANK OF THE PHILIPPINES, RESPONDENTS.cralaw

  • G.R. No. 192885 : July 04, 2012] SUBIC BAY METROPOLITAN AUTHORITY, PETITIONER, VS. HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS AND SUBIC INTERNATIONAL HOTEL CORPORATION, RESPONDENTS.

  • [G.R. No 176556 : July 04, 2012] BRIGIDO B. QUIAO, PETITIONER, VS. RITA C. QUIAO, KITCHIE C. QUIAO, LOTIS C. QUIAO, PETCHIE C. QUIAO, REPRESENTED BY THEIR MOTHER RITA QUIAO, RESPONDENTS.cr

  • [G.R. No. 189755 : July 04, 2012] EMETERIA LIWAG, PETITIONER, VS. HAPPY GLEN LOOP HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION, INC., RESPONDENT.cralaw

  • [G.R. No. 182059 : July 04, 2012] PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. CAMILO D. NICART AND MANUEL T. CAPANPAN, ACCUSED-APPELLANTS.cra

  • [G.R. No. 183260 : July 04, 2012] PHILIPPINE SPORTS COMMISSION, CESAR PRADAS, NOEL ELNAR, EMERENCIANA SAMSON, CESAR ABALON, JULIA LLANTO, EDGARDO MATEO AND ERIC BUHAIN, PETITIONERS, VS. DEAR JOHN SERVICES, INC., RESPONDENT.cralaw

  • [G.R. No. 184482 : July 04, 2012] BETHEL REALTY AND DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, PETITIONER, VS. HOUSING AND LAND USE REGULATORY BOARD, AND SPOUSES MARJORIE AND NEMESIO VISAYA, RESPONDENTS.cra

  • [G.R. No. 175851 : July 04, 2012] EMILIA LIM, PETITIONER, VS. MINDANAO WINES & LIQUOR GALLERIA, A SINGLE PROPRIETORSHIP BUSINESS OUTFIT OWNED BY EVELYN S. VALDEVIESO, RESPONDENT.cralaw

  • [G.R. No. 172438 : July 04, 2012] METROPOLITAN CEBU WATER DISTRICT, PETITIONER, VS. MACTAN ROCK INDUSTRIES, INC., RESPONDENT.cralaw

  • [G.R. No. 172035 : July 04, 2012] FERNANDO Q. MIGUEL, PETITIONER, VS. THE HONORABLE SANDIGANBAYAN, RESPONDENT.cralaw

  • [G.R. No. 171050 : July 04, 2012] FAR EAST BANK AND TRUST COMPANY (NOW BANK OF THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS), PETITIONER, VS. TENTMAKERS GROUP, INC., GREGORIA PILARES SANTOS AND RHOEL P. SANTOS, RESPONDENTS.cralaw

  • [G.R. No. 172418 : July 09, 2012] NEMESIO V. SAYCON (DECEASED), SUBSTITUTED BY HIS HEIRS, JOVEN V. SAYCON AND SPOUSE EILLEN G. SAYCON; REY V. SAYCON AND SPOUSE PACITA S. SAYCON; ARNOLD V. SAYCON AND SPOUSE EVANGELINE D. SAYCON; JEOFFREY V. SAYCON AND SPOUSE ROCHEL M. SAYCON; AND CHARLIE V. SAYCON, PETITIONERS, VS. ANACLETA BAROT VDA. DE TULABING, DIONISIO B. TULABING, ARCADIA B. TULABING, BALDOMERO B. TULABING, CARMEN TULABING, JULIA B. TULABING, HILARION BELIDA, JOEL B. TULABING, PACITA TULABING, NICOLAS B. TULABING, HENIA TULABING, VICTORIA B. TULABING, ARMANDO DEVIRA AND BENITA B. TULABING, RESPONDENTS.

  • [A.M. No. P-06-2241 (Formerly OCA IPI No. 06-2422-P), July 10, 2012] JUDGE PELAGIA DALMACIO- JOAQUIN, COMPLAINANT, VS. NICOMEDES DELA CRUZ, PROCESS SERVER, MUNICIPAL TRIAL COURT IN CITIES, SAN JOSE DEL MONTE, BULACAN, RESPONDENT.

  • [G. R. No. 174893 : July 11, 2012] FLORDELIZA MARIA REYES RAYEL, PETITIONER, VS. PHILIPPINE LUEN THAI HOLDINGS, CORPORATION/L&T INTERNATIONAL GROUP PHILIPPINES, INC., RESPONDENTS.cra

  • [G.R. No. 170038 : July 11, 2012] CHINA BANKING CORPORATION, PETITIONER, VS. SPS. HARRY CIRIACO AND ESTHER CIRIACO, RESPONDENTS.

  • [G.R. No. 169957 : July 11, 2012] NATIONAL POWER CORPORATION, PETITIONER, VS. SPS. FLORIMON V. ILETO AND ROWENA NOLASCO, SPS. SERAFIN VALERO AND TERESITA GONZALES, SPS. CORNELIO VALDERAMA AND REMEDIOS CRUZ, SPS. ALEJANDRINO VALDERAMA AND TEODORA STA. MARIA, RENATO VALDERAMA, ALL REPRESENTED BY SPS. CORNELIO VALDERAMA AND REMEDIOS CRUZ; HEIRS OF APOLONIO DEL ROSARIO, REPRESENTED BY RICARDO DEL ROSARIO; DANILO BRILLO, WLLFREDO BRILLO, REYNALDO BRILLO, THELMA BRILLO BORDADOR, AND MA. VICTORIA BRILLO VILLARICO, REPRESENTED BY DANILO BRILLO; SPS. RUDY AND MODESTA VELASCO; ROSEMARIE FUKUSUMI (VENDEE)/ DANILO HERRERA (VENDOR); HEIRS OF SOFIA MANGAHAS VDA. DE SILVA, ROGELIO DE SILVA, APOLONIA DE SILVA GENER, AND LUCIO DE SILVA, ALL REPRESENTED BY ROGELIO DE SILVA; AND, FRANCISCA MATEO-EUGENIO, RESPONDENTS. [G.R. NO. 171558 ] DANILO BRILLO, WILFREDO BRILLO, LAURO BRILLO, REYNALDO BRILLO, THELMA BRILLO BORDADOR, THE MINOR RIKKA OLGA VILLARICO, KRISTIAN GERALD VILLARICO, DEAN MARBIEN VLLLARICO, HEREIN REPRESENTED BY THEIR LEGAL GUARDIAN WILFREDO BRILLO, PETITIONERS, VS. NATIONAL POWER CORPORATION, RESPONDENT.cralaw

  • [G.R. No. 167732 : July 11, 2012] TEAM PACIFIC CORPORATION, PETITIONER, VS. JOSEPHINE DAZA IN HER CAPACITY AS MUNICIPAL TREASURER OF TAGUIG, RESPONDENT.

  • [G.R. No. 198588 : July 11, 2012] UNITED MERCHANTS CORPORATION, PETITIONER, VS. COUNTRY BANKERS INSURANCE CORPORATION, RESPONDENT.cralaw

  • [G.R. No. 178477 : July 16, 2012] HEIRS OF RAMON B. GAYARES, REPRESENTED BY EMELINDA GAYARES AND RHAYAN GAYARES IN THEIR CAPACITY AS LEGAL HEIRS OF THE LATE RAMON GAYARES, PETITIONERS. VS. PACIFIC ASIA OVERSEAS SHIPPING CORPORATION, AND KUWAIT OIL TANKER, CO., S.A.K., RESPONDENTS.

  • [G.R. No. 170071 : July 16, 2012] HEIRS OF JOSE MARCIAL K. OCHOA NAMELY: RUBY B. OCHOA MICAELA B. OCHOA AND JOMAR B. OCHOA, PETITIONER, VS. G & S TRANSPORT CORPORATION, RESPONDENT. [G.R. NO. 170125] G & S TRANSPORT CORPORATION, PETITIONER, VS. HEIRS OF JOSE MARCIAL K. OCHOA NAMELY: RUBY B. OCHOA, MICAELA B. OCHOA AND JOMAR B. OCHOA, RESPONDENTS.

  • [G.R. No. 155680 : July 02, 2012] FIRST LEVERAGE AND SERVICES GROUP, INC., PETITIONER, VS. SOLID BUILDERS, INC., RESPONDENT.

  • [G.R. No. 187298 : July 03, 2012] JAMAR M. KULAYAN, TEMEN S. TULAWIE, HJI. MOH. YUSOP ISMI, JULHAJAN AWADI, AND SPO1 SATTAL H. JADJULI, PETITIONER, VS. GOV. ABDUSAKUR M. TAN, IN HIS CAPACITY AS GOVERNOR OF SULU; GEN. JUANCHO SABAN, COL. EUGENIO CLEMEN PN, P/SUPT. JULASIRIM KASIM AND P/SUPT. BIENVENIDO G. LATAD, IN THEIR CAPACITY AS OFFICERS OF THE PHIL. MARINES AND PHIL. NATIONAL POLICE, RESPECTIVELY, RESPONDENTS.

  • [G.R. No. 182069 : July 03, 2012] ARNOLD D. VICENCIO, PETITIONER, VS. HON. REYNALDO A. VILLAR AND HON. JUANITO G. ESPINO, JR., IN THEIR CAPACITY AS ACTING CHAIRMAN AND COMMISSIONER, RESPECTIVELY, OF THE HON. COMMISSION ON AUDIT, AND ELIZABETH S. ZOSA, RESPONDENTS.

  • [G.R. No. 189767 : July 03, 2012] PHILIPPINE ECONOMIC ZONE AUTHORITY (PEZA), PETITIONER, VS. COMMISSION ON AUDIT AND REYNALDO A. VILLAR, CHAIRMAN, COMMISSION ON AUDIT, RESPONDENTS.c

  • [A.M. No. P-06-2186 (Formerly A.M. OCA I.P.I. No. 05-2256-P), July 03, 2012] FILOMENA B. CONSOLACION, COMPLAINANT, VS. LYDIA S. GAMBITO, COURT STENOGRAPHER, MUNICIPAL CIRCUIT TRIAL COURT, BINALONAN, PANGASINAN, RESPONDENT. [A.M. NO. P-12-3026 (FORMERLY A.M. OCA I.P.I. NO. 05-2081-P) ] JUDGE EMMA S. INES-PARAJAS, COMPLAINANT, VS. LYDIA S. GAMBITO, COURT STENOGRAPHER, MUNICIPAL CIRCUIT TRIAL COURT, BINALONAN, PANGASINAN, RESPONDENT.

  • [G.R. No. 175123 : July 04, 2012] MOLDEZ REALTY INC. AND ANSELMO AGERO, PETITIONERS, VS. SPOUSES RICARDO J. VILLABONA AND GILDA G. VILLABONA, AND EDUARDO J. VILLABONA, RESPONDENTS.cralaw

  • [A.M. No. P-12-3067 [formerly A.M. OCA IPI No. 10-3400-P], July 04, 2012] RHEA AIRENE P. KATAGUE, RODOLFO E. KATAGUE, RONA SALVACION K. DELA, COMPLAINANTS, VS. JERRY A. LEDESMA, SHERIFF IV, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, BRANCH 48, BACOLOD CITY, RESPONDENT.cralaw

  • [G. R. No. 161090 : July 04, 2012] SPOUSES ROMEO LL. PLOPENIO AND ROSIELINDA PLOPENIO REPRESENTED BY GAVINO PLOPENIO, PETITIONERS, VS. DEPARTMENT OF AGRARIAN REFORM AND LAND BANK OF THE PHILIPPINES, RESPONDENTS. [G.R. NO. 161092] EDUARDO LL. PLOPENIO REPRESENTED BY GAVINO PLOPENIO, PETITIONER, VS. DEPARTMENT OF AGRARIAN REFORLVI AND LAND BANK OF THE PHILIPPINES, RESPONDENTS.cralaw

  • G.R. No. 192885 : July 04, 2012] SUBIC BAY METROPOLITAN AUTHORITY, PETITIONER, VS. HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS AND SUBIC INTERNATIONAL HOTEL CORPORATION, RESPONDENTS.

  • [G.R. No 176556 : July 04, 2012] BRIGIDO B. QUIAO, PETITIONER, VS. RITA C. QUIAO, KITCHIE C. QUIAO, LOTIS C. QUIAO, PETCHIE C. QUIAO, REPRESENTED BY THEIR MOTHER RITA QUIAO, RESPONDENTS.cr

  • [G.R. No. 189755 : July 04, 2012] EMETERIA LIWAG, PETITIONER, VS. HAPPY GLEN LOOP HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION, INC., RESPONDENT.cralaw

  • [G.R. No. 182059 : July 04, 2012] PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. CAMILO D. NICART AND MANUEL T. CAPANPAN, ACCUSED-APPELLANTS.cra

  • [G.R. No. 183260 : July 04, 2012] PHILIPPINE SPORTS COMMISSION, CESAR PRADAS, NOEL ELNAR, EMERENCIANA SAMSON, CESAR ABALON, JULIA LLANTO, EDGARDO MATEO AND ERIC BUHAIN, PETITIONERS, VS. DEAR JOHN SERVICES, INC., RESPONDENT.cralaw

  • [G.R. No. 184482 : July 04, 2012] BETHEL REALTY AND DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, PETITIONER, VS. HOUSING AND LAND USE REGULATORY BOARD, AND SPOUSES MARJORIE AND NEMESIO VISAYA, RESPONDENTS.cra

  • [G.R. No. 175851 : July 04, 2012] EMILIA LIM, PETITIONER, VS. MINDANAO WINES & LIQUOR GALLERIA, A SINGLE PROPRIETORSHIP BUSINESS OUTFIT OWNED BY EVELYN S. VALDEVIESO, RESPONDENT.cralaw

  • [G.R. No. 172438 : July 04, 2012] METROPOLITAN CEBU WATER DISTRICT, PETITIONER, VS. MACTAN ROCK INDUSTRIES, INC., RESPONDENT.cralaw

  • [G.R. No. 172035 : July 04, 2012] FERNANDO Q. MIGUEL, PETITIONER, VS. THE HONORABLE SANDIGANBAYAN, RESPONDENT.cralaw

  • [G.R. No. 171050 : July 04, 2012] FAR EAST BANK AND TRUST COMPANY (NOW BANK OF THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS), PETITIONER, VS. TENTMAKERS GROUP, INC., GREGORIA PILARES SANTOS AND RHOEL P. SANTOS, RESPONDENTS.cralaw

  • [G.R. No. 172418 : July 09, 2012] NEMESIO V. SAYCON (DECEASED), SUBSTITUTED BY HIS HEIRS, JOVEN V. SAYCON AND SPOUSE EILLEN G. SAYCON; REY V. SAYCON AND SPOUSE PACITA S. SAYCON; ARNOLD V. SAYCON AND SPOUSE EVANGELINE D. SAYCON; JEOFFREY V. SAYCON AND SPOUSE ROCHEL M. SAYCON; AND CHARLIE V. SAYCON, PETITIONERS, VS. ANACLETA BAROT VDA. DE TULABING, DIONISIO B. TULABING, ARCADIA B. TULABING, BALDOMERO B. TULABING, CARMEN TULABING, JULIA B. TULABING, HILARION BELIDA, JOEL B. TULABING, PACITA TULABING, NICOLAS B. TULABING, HENIA TULABING, VICTORIA B. TULABING, ARMANDO DEVIRA AND BENITA B. TULABING, RESPONDENTS.

  • [A.M. No. P-06-2241 (Formerly OCA IPI No. 06-2422-P), July 10, 2012] JUDGE PELAGIA DALMACIO- JOAQUIN, COMPLAINANT, VS. NICOMEDES DELA CRUZ, PROCESS SERVER, MUNICIPAL TRIAL COURT IN CITIES, SAN JOSE DEL MONTE, BULACAN, RESPONDENT.

  • [G. R. No. 174893 : July 11, 2012] FLORDELIZA MARIA REYES RAYEL, PETITIONER, VS. PHILIPPINE LUEN THAI HOLDINGS, CORPORATION/L&T INTERNATIONAL GROUP PHILIPPINES, INC., RESPONDENTS.cra

  • [G.R. No. 170038 : July 11, 2012] CHINA BANKING CORPORATION, PETITIONER, VS. SPS. HARRY CIRIACO AND ESTHER CIRIACO, RESPONDENTS.

  • [G.R. No. 169957 : July 11, 2012] NATIONAL POWER CORPORATION, PETITIONER, VS. SPS. FLORIMON V. ILETO AND ROWENA NOLASCO, SPS. SERAFIN VALERO AND TERESITA GONZALES, SPS. CORNELIO VALDERAMA AND REMEDIOS CRUZ, SPS. ALEJANDRINO VALDERAMA AND TEODORA STA. MARIA, RENATO VALDERAMA, ALL REPRESENTED BY SPS. CORNELIO VALDERAMA AND REMEDIOS CRUZ; HEIRS OF APOLONIO DEL ROSARIO, REPRESENTED BY RICARDO DEL ROSARIO; DANILO BRILLO, WLLFREDO BRILLO, REYNALDO BRILLO, THELMA BRILLO BORDADOR, AND MA. VICTORIA BRILLO VILLARICO, REPRESENTED BY DANILO BRILLO; SPS. RUDY AND MODESTA VELASCO; ROSEMARIE FUKUSUMI (VENDEE)/ DANILO HERRERA (VENDOR); HEIRS OF SOFIA MANGAHAS VDA. DE SILVA, ROGELIO DE SILVA, APOLONIA DE SILVA GENER, AND LUCIO DE SILVA, ALL REPRESENTED BY ROGELIO DE SILVA; AND, FRANCISCA MATEO-EUGENIO, RESPONDENTS. [G.R. NO. 171558 ] DANILO BRILLO, WILFREDO BRILLO, LAURO BRILLO, REYNALDO BRILLO, THELMA BRILLO BORDADOR, THE MINOR RIKKA OLGA VILLARICO, KRISTIAN GERALD VILLARICO, DEAN MARBIEN VLLLARICO, HEREIN REPRESENTED BY THEIR LEGAL GUARDIAN WILFREDO BRILLO, PETITIONERS, VS. NATIONAL POWER CORPORATION, RESPONDENT.cralaw

  • [G.R. No. 167732 : July 11, 2012] TEAM PACIFIC CORPORATION, PETITIONER, VS. JOSEPHINE DAZA IN HER CAPACITY AS MUNICIPAL TREASURER OF TAGUIG, RESPONDENT.

  • [G.R. No. 198588 : July 11, 2012] UNITED MERCHANTS CORPORATION, PETITIONER, VS. COUNTRY BANKERS INSURANCE CORPORATION, RESPONDENT.cralaw

  • [G.R. No. 178477 : July 16, 2012] HEIRS OF RAMON B. GAYARES, REPRESENTED BY EMELINDA GAYARES AND RHAYAN GAYARES IN THEIR CAPACITY AS LEGAL HEIRS OF THE LATE RAMON GAYARES, PETITIONERS. VS. PACIFIC ASIA OVERSEAS SHIPPING CORPORATION, AND KUWAIT OIL TANKER, CO., S.A.K., RESPONDENTS.

  • [G.R. No. 170071 : July 16, 2012] HEIRS OF JOSE MARCIAL K. OCHOA NAMELY: RUBY B. OCHOA MICAELA B. OCHOA AND JOMAR B. OCHOA, PETITIONER, VS. G & S TRANSPORT CORPORATION, RESPONDENT. [G.R. NO. 170125] G & S TRANSPORT CORPORATION, PETITIONER, VS. HEIRS OF JOSE MARCIAL K. OCHOA NAMELY: RUBY B. OCHOA, MICAELA B. OCHOA AND JOMAR B. OCHOA, RESPONDENTS.

  • A.C. No. 6910 - Isaac C. Basilio, Perlita Pedrozo and Jun Basilio v. Atty. Virgil R. Castro

  • A.C. No. 6622 - Manuel G. Villatuya v. Atty. Bede S. Tabalingcos

  • A.C. No. 7360 - Atty. Policarpio I. Catalan, Jr. v. Atty. Joselito M. Silvosa

  • A.M. No. 11-7-10-SC - Re: COA Opinion on the Computation of the Appraised Value of the Properties Purchased by the Retired Chief/Associate Justices of the Supreme Court

  • A.M. No. MTJ-10-1770 Formerly A.M. OCA IPI No. 10-2255-MTJ - Office of Administrative Services-Office of the Court Administrator v. Judge Ignacio B. Macarine, MCTC, Gen. Luna, Surigao del Norte

  • A.M. No. MTJ-11-1779 Formerly A.M. OCA IPI No. 09-2191-MTJ - Murphy Chu, et al. v. Hon. Mario B. Capellan, Assisting Judge, MeTC, Br. 40, Quezon City

  • A.M. No. MTJ-12-1804 Formerly A.M. OCA I.P.I. No. 09-2179-MTJ - City Prosecutor Armando P. Abanado v. Judge Abraham A. Bayona, Municipal Trial Court in Cities, Branch 7, Bacolod City

  • A.M. No. P-06-2186 Formerly A.M. OCA I.P.I. No. 05-2256-P and A.M. No. P-12-3026 Formerly A.M. OCA I.P.I. No. 05-2081-P - Filomena B. Consolacion v. Lydia S. Gambito, Court Stenographer, MCTC, Binalonan, Pangasinan/Judge Emma S. Ines-Parajas v. Lydia S. Gambito, Court Stenographer, MCTC, Binalonan, Pangasinan

  • A.M. No. P-06-2241 Formerly OCA IPI No. 06-2422-P - Judge Pelagia Dalmacio-Joaquin v. Nicomedes Dela Cruz, Process Server, Municipal Trial Court in Cities, San Jose del Monte, Bulacan

  • A.M. No. P-06-2246 Formerly OCA I.P.I. No. 05-2287-P - Lambayong Teachers and Employees Cooperative, represented in this act by its Manager, Gudelio S. Valeroso v. Carlos P. Diaz, in his capacity as Sheriff IV, RTC, Branch 20, Tacurong City

  • A.M. No. P-09-2647 - Office of the Court Administrator v. Lunalinda M. Peradilla, Clerk of Court II, MCTC, E1 Nido-Linapacan, Palawan

  • A.M. No. P-11-2952 Formerly A.M. OCA I.P.I. No. 10-3502-P - Anecita Panaligan v. Clerk of Court II Ethelda B. Valente, Municipal Circuit Trial Court, Patno gon, Antique

  • A.M. No. P-11-2965 Formerly OCA I.P.I. No. 08-3029-P and A.M. No. P-10-2752 Formerly A.M. No. 09-1 0-173-MTC - Commission on Audit, represented by Atty. Francisco R. Velasco v. Arlene B. Asetre, Clerk of Court, MTC, Ocampo, Camarines Sur/Re: Financial Audit conducted in the MTC, Ocampo, Camarines Sur

  • A.M. No. P-11-2983 Formerly OCA l.P.I. No. 10-3439-P - Ruby C. Campomanes v. Nancy S. Violon, Clerk of Court IV, Municipal Trial Court in Cities, Office of the Clerk of Court, Oroquieta City

  • A.M. No. P-11-3024 - Office of the Court Administrator v. Ma. Irissa G. Musni, Court Legal Researcher II RTC, Judicial Region III, Branch 36, Gapan City, Nueva Ecija

  • A.M. No. P-12-3062 Formerly A.M. OCA IPI No. 11-3651-P - Normandy R. Bautista v. Marking G. Cruz, Sheriff IV, Regional Trial Court, Br. 53, Rosales, Pangasinan

  • A.M. No. P-12-3067 Formerly A.M. OCA IPI No. 10-3400-P - Rhea Airene P. Katague, et al. v. Jerry A. Ledesma, Sheriff IV, RTC, Br. 48, Bacolod City

  • A.M. No. RTJ-10-2257 - Criselda C. Gacad v. Judge Hilarion P. Clapis, Jr., RTC, Br. 3, Nabunturan, Compostela Valley

  • A.M. No. RTJ-12-2317 Formerly OCA I.P.I. No. 10-3378-RTJ - Atty. Felino U. Bangalan v. Judge Benjamin D. Turgano, RTC, Br. 15, Laoag City

  • B.M. No. 2112 - In Re: Petition to re-acquire the privelege to practive law in the Philippines

  • G.R. No. 132073 and G.R. NO. 132361 - Remman Enterprises, Inc. v. Hon. Ernesto D. Garilao in his capacity as Secretary of DAR, et al./Eduardo Adriano, et al. v. Court of Appeals, et al..

  • G.R. No. 153511 - Legend Hotel Manila, owned by Titatium Corporation, et al. v. Hernani S. Realuyo, also known as Joey Roa

  • G.R. No. 154952 - Hilarion F. Dimagiba, Irma Mendoza, and Ellen Rasco v. Julita Espartero, Ma. Berndardita L. Carreon and Melina San Pedro

  • G.R. No. 155680 - First Leverage and Services Group, Inc. v. Solid Builders, Inc.

  • G.R. No. 159746 - Spouses Ramon Mendiola and Araceli v. Pilipinas Shell Petroleum, et al.

  • G.R. No. 161090 and G.R. NO. 161092 - Sps. Romeo LL. Plopenio and Rosielinda Plopenio, etc. v. Department of Agrarian Reform, et al./Eduardo LL. Plopenio, etc. v. Department of Agrarian Reform, et al.

  • G.R. No. 167732 - Team Pacific Corporation v. Josephine Daza, etc.

  • G.R. No. 168771 - Roberto Dipad and Sandra Dipad v. Sps. Rolando Olivan and Brigida Olivan, and Rubio Guijon Madrigallo

  • G.R. No. 169272 - National Spiritual Assembly of the Baha'is of the Philippines, etc. v. Alfredo S. Pascual, in his capacity as the Regional Executive Director, DENR, Regional Office No. 02

  • G.R. No. 169957 and G.R. No. 171558 - National Power Corporation v. Sps. Florimon V. Lleto, et al./Danilo Brillo, et al. v. National Power Corporation

  • G.R. No. 170038 - China Banking Corporation v. Sps. Harry Ciriaco and Esther Ciriaco

  • G.R. No. 170071 and G.R. No. 170125 - Heirs of Jose Marcial K. Ochoa, namely: Ruby B. Ochoa, et al. v. G & S Transport Corporation/G & S Transport Corporation v. Heirs of Jose Marcial K. Ochoa, namely: Ruby B. Ochoa, et al.

  • G.R. No. 171050 - Far East Bank and Trust Company (now Bank of the Philippine Islands) v. Tentmakers Group, Inc., Gregoria Pilares Santos and Rhoel P. Santos

  • G.R. No. 171337 - Benjamin Cua (Cua Hian Tek) v. Wallem Philippines Shipping, Inc. and Advance Shipping Corporation

  • G.R. No. 171359, G.R. NO. 171755 and G.R. NO. 171776 - Benjamin A. Umipag v. People of the Philippines/Renato B. Palomo and Margie C. Mabitad v. People of the Philippines/Carmencita Fontanilla-Payabyab v. People of the Philippines

  • G.R. No. 171514 - Republic of the Philippines v. Domingo Espinosa

  • G.R. No. 172035 - Fernando Q. Miguel v. The Hon. Sandiganbayan

  • G.R. No. 172418 - Nemesio V. Saycon (deceased), substituted by his heirs, Joven V. Saycon and Spouse Eillen G. Saycon, et al. v. Anacieta Barot Vda. De Tulabing, Dionisio B. Tulabing, et al.

  • G.R. No. 172438 - Metropolitan Cebu Water District v. Mactan Rock Industries, Inc.

  • G.R. No. 172829 - Rosa H. Fenequito, Corazon E. Hernandez and Lauro H. Rodriguez v. Bernardo Vergara, Jr.

  • G.R. No. 173171 - Philippine Charity Sweepstakes Office (PCSO) v. New Dagupan Metro Gas Corporation, et al.

  • G.R. No. 174893 - Flordeliza Maria Reyes-Rayel v. Philippine Luen Thai Holdings Corporation, et al.

  • G.R. No. 175123 - Moldex Realty, Inc. and Anselmo Agero v. Sps. Ricardo J. Villabona and Gilda G. Villabona, and Eduardo J. Villabona

  • G.R. No. 175552 - Spouses Rolando D. Soller and Nenita T. Soller v. Heirs of Jeremias Ulayao, namely, Nelson Ulayao, Ferelyn Ulayao-Del Mundo, et al.

  • G.R. No. 175851 - Emilia Lim v. Mindanao Wines & Liqour Galleria a Single Proprietorship Business Outfit Owned by Evelyn S. Valdevieso

  • G.R. No. 176556 - Brigido B. Quia v. Rita C. Quiao, et al.

  • G.R. No. 176570 - Spouses Ramon Villuga and Mercedita Villuga v. Kelly Hardware and Construction Supply Inc., represented by Ernesto V. Yu, Executive Vice-President and General Manager

  • G.R. No. 178477 - Heirs of Ramon B. Gayares, represented by Emelinda Gayares, et al. v. Pacific Asia Overseas Shipping Corp. and Kuwait Oil Tanker S.A.K.

  • G.R. No. 179265 - People of the Philippines v. Cristina Gustafsson

  • G.R. No. 180027 - Republic of the Philippines v. Michael C. Santos, et al., etc.

  • G.R. No. 179545 - Engr. Emelyne P. Cayetano, et al. v. Colegio De San Juan De Letran-Calamba

  • G.R. No. 180036 - Situs Development Corporation, et al. v. Asiatrust Bank, et al.

  • G.R. No. 180245 - Philippine International Air Terminals Co., Inc. v. Tekanaka Corporation and Asahikosan Corporation

  • G.R. No. 181250 - People of the Philippines v. Emmalyn Dela Cerna y Quindao @ "Inday", et al., accused; Regie Medenceles y Istil

  • G.R. No. 181491 - People of the Philippines v. Henry Arcillas

  • G.R. No. 181995 - Bibiano C. Elegir v. Philippine Airlines, Inc.

  • G.R. No. 182059 - People of the Philippines v. Camilo D. Nicart and Manuel T. Capanpan

  • G.R. No. 182069 - Arnold D. Vicencio v. Hon. Reynaldo A. Villar, et al.

  • G.R. No. 183260 - Philippine Sports Commission, Cesar Pradas, Noel Elnar, Emereciana Samson, Cesar Abalon, Julia Llanto, Edgardo Mateo and Eric Buhain v. Dear John Services, Inc.

  • G.R. No. 183573 - Dizon Copper Silver Mines, Inc. v. Dr. Luis D. Dizon

  • G.R. No. 183987 - Asiatrust Development Bank v. Carmelo H. Tuble

  • G.R. No. 184300 - Malayan Insurance Co., Inc. v. Philippine First Insurance, Co., Inc., et al.

  • G.R. No. 184482 - Bethel Realty and Development Corporation v. Housing and Land Use Regulatory Board, et al.

  • G.R. No. 185460 - Edwin Fajardo and Reynaldo Coralde v. People of the Philippines

  • G.R. No. 185491 - Julieta E. Bernardo v. Andrew L. Tan

  • G.R. No. 185527 - Harry L. Go, Tonny Ngo Jerry Ngo and Jane Go v. The People of the Philippines and Highdone Company, Ltd., et al.

  • G.R. No. 185806 - Generoso Abellanosa, et al. v. Commission on Audit and National Housing Authority

  • G.R. No. 187298 - Jamar M. Kulayan, et al. v. Gov. Abdusakur M. Tan etc., et al.

  • G.R. No. 187316 - Wonder Book Corporation v. Philippine Bank of Communications

  • G.R. No. 188612 - People of the Philippines v. Diosdado Camat and Mamerto Dulay

  • G.R. No. 189041 - Civil Service Commission v. Dr. Agnes Quida P. Yu

  • G.R. No. 189082 - Josephine Ruiz v. Wendel Osaka Realty Corp., et al.

  • G.R. No. 189755 - Emeteria Liwag v. Happy Glen Loop Homeowners Association, Inc.

  • G.R. No. 189767 - Philippine Econimic Zone Authority (PEZA) v. Commission on Audit and Reynaldo A. Villar, Chairman, Commission on Audit

  • G.R. No. 190102 - Accenture, Inc. v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue

  • G.R. No. 191109 - Republic of the Philippines, represented by the Philippine Reclamation Authority (PRA) v. City of Para aque

  • G.R. No. 192250 - People of the Philippines v. Hermogenes De Guzman @ Mong

  • G.R. No. 192377 - Cesar V. Madriaga, Jr. v. China Banking Corporation

  • G.R. No. 192450 - Santiago V. Soquillo v. Jorge P. Tortola

  • G.R. No. 192591 - Efren L. Alvarez v. People of the Philippines

  • G.R. No. 192885 - Subic Bay Metropolitan Authority v. Honorable Court of Appeals and Subic International Hotel Corporation

  • G.R. No. 192999 - Diamond Farms, Inc. v. Diamond Farm Workers Multi-Purpose Cooperative, Eliseo Emanel, Voltaire Lopez, Ruel Romero, Patricio Capricio, Ernesto Fatallo, Zosimo Gomez and 100 John Doeste1

  • G.R. No. 193089 - Rose a Fontelar Ogawa v. Elizabeth Gache Menigishi

  • G.R. No. 193636 - Marynette R. Gamboa v. P/Ssupt. Marlou C. Chan, etc., et al.

  • G.R. No. 193679 - C.F. Sharp Crew Management, Inc., et al. v. Joel D. Taok

  • G.R. No. 194581 - People of the Philippines v. Danilo Mirasol Agustin, et al., accused; Danilo Mirasol Agustin, accused-appellant

  • G.R. No. 194608 - People of the Philippines v. Antonio Baraoil

  • G.R. No. 194785 - Virgilio S. David v. Misamis Occidental II Electric Cooperative, Inc.

  • G.R. No. 194945 - People of the Philippines v. Alex Watamama y Esil @ Alex

  • G.R. No. 195770 - Aquilino Q. Pimentel, Jr., Sergio Tadeo and Nelson Alcantara v. Executive Secretary Paquito N. Ochoa and Secretary Corazon Juliano-Soliman of the Department of Social Welfare and Development

  • G.R. No. 196425 - Prospero A. Pichay, Jr. v. Office of the Deputy Executive Secretary for Legal Affairs-Investigative and Adjudicatory Division, et al.

  • G.R. No. 198554 - Major General Carlos F. Garcia, AFP (Ret.) v. The Executive Secretary, representing the Office of the President; The Secretary of National Defense Voltaire T. Gazmin; The Chief of Staff, Armed Forces of the Philippines, Gen. Eduardo SL. Oban, Jr., and Lt. Gen. Gaudencio S. Pangilinan, AFP (Ret.) Director, Bureau of Corrections

  • G.R. No. 198585 - Republic of the Philippines v. Metro Index Realty and Development Corporation

  • G.R. No. 198588 - United Merchants Corporation v. Country Bankers Insurance Corporation

  • G.R. No. 198589 - People of the Philippines v. The Honorable Court of Appeals, Fourt Division and Julieta G. Ando

  • G.R. No. 198860 - Abraham Rimando v. Naguilan Emission Testing Center, Inc., etc., et al.

  • G.R. No. 200242 - Chief Justice Renato C. Corona v. Senate of the Philippines sitting as an Impeachment Court, BPI, Phil. Savings Bank, et al.

  • G.R. No. 200922 - People of the Philippines v. Cesar Concepcion y Bulanio