Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 2014 > March 2014 Decisions > G.R. No. 169778, March 12, 2014 - COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Petitioner, v. SILICON PHILIPPINES, INC. (FORMERLY INTEL PHILIPPINES MANUFACTURING, INC.), Respondent.:




G.R. No. 169778, March 12, 2014 - COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Petitioner, v. SILICON PHILIPPINES, INC. (FORMERLY INTEL PHILIPPINES MANUFACTURING, INC.), Respondent.

PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

SECOND DIVISION

G.R. No. 169778, March 12, 2014

COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Petitioner, v. SILICON PHILIPPINES, INC. (FORMERLY INTEL PHILIPPINES MANUFACTURING, INC.), Respondent.

D E C I S I O N

PEREZ, J.:

To obviate the possibility that its decision may be rendered void, the Court can, by its own initiative, rule on the question of jurisdiction, although not raised by the parties.1  As a corollary thereto, to inquire into the existence of jurisdiction over the subject matter is the primary concern of a court, for thereon would depend the validity of its entire proceedings.2

Before the Court is a Petition for Review on Certiorari seeking to reverse and set aside the 16 September 2005 Decision3 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA–G.R. SP No. 80886 granting respondent’s claim for refund of input Value Added Tax (VAT) on domestic purchases of goods and services attributable to zero–rated sales in the amount of P21,338,910.44 for the period covering 1 April 1998 to 30 June 1998.

The Facts

The factual antecedents of the case are as follows:chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary

Petitioner is the duly appointed Commissioner of Internal Revenue empowered to perform the duties of said office including, among others, the power to decide, approve and grant refunds or tax credits of erroneously or excessively paid taxes.

Respondent Silicon Philippines, Inc., on the other hand, is a corporation duly organized and existing under and by virtue of the laws of the Philippines, engaged primarily in the business of designing, developing, manufacturing, and exporting advance and large–scale integrated circuits components (ICs).

On 6 May 1999, respondent filed with the One–Stop Shop Inter–Agency Tax Credit and Duty Drawback Center of the Department of Finance (DOF) an application for Tax Credit/Refund of VAT paid for the second quarter of 1998 in the aggregate amount of P29,559,050.44, representing its alleged unutilized input tax.

Thereafter, since no final action has been taken by petitioner on respondent’s administrative claim for refund, respondent filed a Petition for Review before the Court of Tax Appeals (CTA) on 30 June 2000 docketed as CTA Case No. 6129.

The Ruling of the CTA

In a Decision dated 26 May 2003,4 the CTA partially granted respondent’s Petition and ordered petitioner to issue a tax credit certificate in favor of the former in the reduced amount of P8,179,049.00 representing input VAT on importation of capital goods, the dispositive portion of which are quoted hereunder as follows:chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary

WHEREFORE, the instant petition is PARTIALLY GRANTED.  [Petitioner] is hereby ORDERED to ISSUE A TAX CREDIT CERTIFICATE to [respondent] in the amount of P8,179,049.00 representing input VAT on importation of capital goods.  However, petitioner’s (respondent’s) claim for refund of input VAT in the sum of P21,338,910.44 attributable to zero–rated sales is hereby DENIED for lack of merit.5

The CTA denied respondent’s claim for refund of input VAT on domestic purchases of goods and services attributable to zero–rated sales on the ground that the export sales invoices presented in support thereto do not have Bureau of Internal Revenue (BIR) permit to print, while the sales invoices do not show that the sale was “zero–rated,” all in violation of Sections 1136 and 2387 of the National Internal Revenue Code (NIRC) of 1997, as amended, and Section 4.108–1 of Revenue Regulations (RR) No. 7–95.8

As to respondent’s claim for refund of input VAT on capital goods, the CTA looked into respondent’s compliance with the requirements set forth in the case of Air Liquid Philippines v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue and Commissioner of Customs, CTA Case No. 5652, 26 July 2000, and held that said claim be partially denied considering that only the amount of P8,179,049.00 have been validly supported by documentary evidence such as suppliers’ invoices, official receipts, import declarations, import remittances and airway bills, showing the actual payment of VAT on the importation of capital goods as required by Section 4.104–5(b) of RR No. 7–95.9

Relevant thereto, the CTA likewise made a factual finding that both the administrative and judicial claims of respondent were timely filed within the two–year prescriptive period required by the NIRC of 1997, as amended, reckoned from the date of filing the original quarterly VAT Return for the second quarter of taxable year 1998, or on 27 July 1998.10

On 4 November 2003, the CTA denied respondent’s Partial Motion for Reconsideration (on the denial of its claim for tax credit or refund of input VAT paid in the sum of P21,338,910.44) for lack of merit.11

Aggrieved, respondent appealed to the CA by filing a Petition for Review under Rule 43 of the Rules of Court on 10 December 2003, docketed as CA–G.R. SP No. 80886.

The Ruling of the CA

The CA found that respondent’s failure to secure a BIR authority or permit to print invoices or receipts does not completely destroy the integrity of its export sales invoices in support of its claim for refund, since the BIR permit to print is not among those required to be stated in the sales invoices or receipts to be issued by a taxpayer pursuant to Sections 113 and 237 of the NIRC of 1997, as amended.  In addition, the BIR permit to print was only mentioned under Section 238 of the same code, which merely stated that the securement of the BIR authority to print by all persons engaged in business is necessary before a printer can print receipts or sales or commercial invoices issued in the course of one’s business.  Clearly, it does not state that the same must be shown in the receipts or invoices.  Thus, the omission to indicate the said BIR authority or permit to print does not totally militate against the evidentiary weight of respondent’s export sales invoices as to defeat its claim for refund.

Moreover, it was the CA’s ruling that the omission to reflect the word “zero–rated” in its invoices is not fatal to respondent’s case considering that the absence of the word “zero–rated” in the invoices, although truly helpful in facilitating the determination of whether the sales are subject to the normal rate of ten percent (10%) tax or the preferential rate at zero percent, does not necessarily mean that the sales are not in fact “zero–rated.”  Sections 113 and 237 of the NIRC of 1997, as amended, are silent on the requisite of printing the word “zero–rated” in the invoices.

Accordingly, upon its findings of compliance with Section 112(A) of the NIRC of 1997, as amended, the CA reversed and set–aside the CTA decision dated 26 May 2003, and granted respondent’s claim for tax refund/credit in the total amount of P21,338,910.44 in its Decision dated 16 September 2005.12

Consequently, this Petition for Review wherein petitioner seeks the reversal of the aforementioned decision on the sole ground that the CA gravely erred on a question of law when it ordered a refund of respondent’s VAT Input taxes on the basis of unauthorized and illegally printed receipts in violation of the provisions of the NIRC of 1997, as amended.13

The Issue

The core issue for the Court’s resolution is whether or not respondent is entitled to its claim for refund or issuance of a tax credit certificate in its favor in the amount of P21,338,910.44 representing its unutilized creditable input taxes for the period covering 1 April 1998 to 30 June 1998 (second quarter), pursuant to the applicable provisions of the NIRC of 1997, as amended.

Our Ruling

At the outset, it bears emphasis that the determination of the issue presented in this case requires a review of the factual findings of the CTA, and of the CA.

It is well settled that in a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, only questions of law may be raised.14  The Court is not a trier of facts and does not normally undertake the re–examination of the evidence presented by the contending parties during the trial of the case considering that the findings of facts of the CA are conclusive and binding on the Court15 – and they carry even more weight when the CA affirms the factual findings of the trial court.16  However, the Court had recognized several exceptions to this rule, to wit: (1) when the findings are grounded entirely on speculation, surmises or conjectures; (2) when the inference made is manifestly mistaken, absurd or impossible; (3) when there is grave abuse of discretion; (4) when the judgment is based on a misapprehension of facts; (5) when the findings of facts are conflicting; (6) when in making its findings the CA went beyond the issues of the case, or its findings are contrary to the admissions of both the appellant and the appellee; (7) when the findings are contrary to the trial court; (8) when the findings are conclusions without citation of specific evidence on which they are based; (9) when the facts set forth in the petition as well as in the petitioner’s main and reply briefs are not disputed by the respondent; (10) when the findings of fact are premised on the supposed absence of evidence and contradicted by the evidence on record; and (11) when the CA manifestly overlooked certain relevant facts not disputed by the parties, which, if properly considered, would justify a different conclusion.17

Records of this case reveal that the CTA made a factual finding that both the administrative and judicial claims of respondent were timely filed within the two–year prescriptive period required by the NIRC of 1997, as amended, reckoned from the date of filing the original quarterly VAT Return for the second quarter of taxable year 1998, or on 27 July 1998.18  This was the CTA’s legal basis why it took cognizance of the appeal, tried the case on the merits, and rendered its judgment on 26 May 2003.19  Likewise, the same finding was affirmed and adopted by the CA in the assailed 16 September 2005 decision20 by expressing that respondent “filed the application for tax refund or credit within the prescribed period of two (2) years after the close of the taxable quarter when the sales were made”21 in accordance with Section 112(A) of the NIRC of 1997, as amended.

However, upon an assiduous review of the said factual findings, applicable provisions of the NIRC of 1997, as amended, and existing jurisprudential pronouncements, this Court finds it apropos to determine whether or not the CTA indeed properly acquired jurisdiction over respondent’s instant claim taking into consideration the timeliness of the filing of its judicial claim as provided under Section 112 of the NIRC of 1997, as amended.  Simply put, a negative finding as to the timeliness of respondent’s judicial claim, once properly considered, would definitely result in a different conclusion, being jurisdictional in nature.

It should be recalled that the CTA is a court of special jurisdiction.  As such, it can only take cognizance of such matters as are clearly within its jurisdiction.22  In view thereof, although the parties have not raised the issue of jurisdiction, nevertheless, this Court may motu proprio determine whether or not the CTA has jurisdiction over respondent’s judicial claim for refund taking into consideration, the factual and legal allegations contained in the pleadings filed by both parties and found by the court a quo.

Section 7 of Republic Act (RA) No. 1125,23 which was thereafter amended by RA No. 9282,24 defines the appellate jurisdiction of the CTA.  The said provision, in part, reads:chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary

Section 7. Jurisdiction. – The Court of Tax Appeals shall exercise exclusive appellate jurisdiction to review by appeal, as herein provided.

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

x x x x25 (Emphasis supplied)

Furthermore, Section 11 of the same law prescribes how the said appeal should be taken, to wit:chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary

Section 11. Who may appeal; effect of appeal. – Any person, association or corporation adversely affected by a decision or ruling of the Collector of Internal Revenue, the Collector of Customs or any provincial or city Board of Assessment Appeals may file an appeal in the Court of Tax Appeals within thirty days after the receipt of such decision or ruling.

x x x x26 (Emphasis and underscoring supplied)

Pertinent to the instant case, it is worth mentioning that Section 112 of the NIRC of 1997, as amended, was already the applicable law at the time that respondent filed its administrative and judicial claims, which categorically provides as follows:chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary

Section 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: x x x

x x x x

(D)27 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) 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 and underscoring supplied)

Based on the foregoing provisions, prior to seeking judicial recourse before the CTA, a VAT–registered person may apply for the issuance of a tax credit certificate or refund of creditable input tax attributable to zero–rated or effectively zero–rated sales within two (2) years after the close of taxable quarter when the sales or purchases were made.

Additionally, further reading of the provisions of Section 112 shows that under paragraph (D) thereof, the Commissioner of Internal Revenue is given a 120–day period, from submission of complete documents in support of the administrative claim within which to act on claims for refund/applications for issuance of the tax credit certificate.  Upon denial of the claim or application, or upon expiration of the 120–day period, the taxpayer only has 30 days within which to appeal said adverse decision or unacted claim before the CTA.

In the consolidated cases of Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. San Roque Power Corporation, Taganito Mining Corporation v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, and Philex Mining Corporation v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue (San Roque),28 the Court En Banc finally settled the issue on the proper interpretation of Section 112 of the NIRC of 1997, as amended, pertaining to the proper observance of the prescriptive periods provided therein.  The relevant portion of the discussions pertinent to the focal issue in the present case are quoted hereunder as follows:chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary

Unlike San Roque and Taganito, Philex’s case is not one of premature filing but of late filing.  Philex did not file any petition with the CTA within the 120–day period.  Philex did not also file any petition with the CTA within 30 days after the expiration of the 120–day period.  Philex filed its judicial claim long after the expiration of the 120–day period, in fact 426 days after the lapse of the 120–day period.  In any event, whether governed by jurisprudence before, during, or after the Atlas case, Philex’s judicial claim will have to be rejected because of late filing.  Whether the two–year prescriptive period is counted from the date of payment of the output VAT following the Atlas doctrine, or from the close of the taxable quarter when the sales attributable to the input VAT were made following the Mirant and Aichi doctrines, Philex’s judicial claim was indisputably filed late.

The Atlas doctrine cannot save Philex from the late filing of its judicial claim. The inaction of the Commissioner on Philex’s claim during the 120–day period is, by express provision of law, “deemed a denial” of Philex’s claim.  Philex had 30 days from the expiration of the 120–day period to file its judicial claim with the CTA.  Philex’s failure to do so rendered the “deemed a denial” decision of the Commissioner final and unappealable.  The right to appeal to the CTA from a decision or “deemed a denial” decision of the Commissioner is merely a statutory privilege, not a constitutional right.  The exercise of such statutory privilege requires strict compliance with the conditions attached by the statute for its exercise.  Philex failed to comply with the statutory conditions and must thus bear the consequences.29 (Emphasis and italics supplied)

Undoubtedly, it becomes apparent from the foregoing jurisprudential pronouncements and the applicable provisions of Section 112 of the NIRC of 1997, as amended, that a taxpayer–claimant only had a limited period of thirty (30) days from the expiration of the 120–day period of inaction of the Commissioner of Internal Revenue to file its judicial claim with this Court.  Failure to do so, the judicial claim shall prescribe or be considered as filed out of time.

Applying the foregoing discussion in the case at bench, although respondent has indeed complied with the required two–year period within which to file a refund/tax credit claim with the BIR by filing its administrative claim on 6 May 1999 (within the period from the close of the subject second quarter of taxable year 1998 when the relevant sales or purchases were made), it appears however, that respondent’s corresponding judicial claim filed with the CTA on 30 June 2000 was filed beyond the 30–day period, detailed hereunder as follows:chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary

Taxable year 1998
Filing date of the administrative claim
Last day of the 120–day period under Section 112(C) from the date of filing of the administrative claim in case of inaction
Last day of the 30–day period to judicially appeal said inaction
Filing date of the Petition for Review
2nd Quarter (1 April 1998 to 30 June 1998)
6 May 1999
3 September 199930
3 October 1999
30 June 2000

Notably, Section 112(D) specifically states that in case of failure on the part of the Commissioner of Internal Revenue to act on the application within the 120–day period prescribed by law, respondent only has thirty (30) days after the expiration of the 120–day period to appeal the unacted claim with the CTA.  Since respondent’s judicial claim for the aforementioned quarter was filed before the CTA only on 30 June 2000,31 which was way beyond the mandatory 120+30 days to seek judicial recourse, such non–compliance with the said mandatory period of thirty (30) days is fatal to its refund claim on the ground of prescription.

In the more recent consolidated cases of Mindanao II Geothermal Partnership v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, and Mindanao I Geothermal Partnership v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue,32 the Second Division of this Court, in applying therein the ruling in the San Roque case, provided a Summary of Rules on Prescriptive Periods Involving VAT as a guide for all parties concerned, to wit:chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary

We summarize the rules on the determination of the prescriptive period for filing a tax refund or credit of unutilized input VAT as provided in Section 112 of the 1997 Tax Code, as follows:chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary

(1) An administrative claim must be filed with the CIR within two years after the close of the taxable quarter when the zero–rated or effectively zero–rated sales were made.

(2) The CIR has 120 days from the date of submission of complete documents in support of the administrative claim within which to decide whether to grant a refund or issue a tax credit certificate.  The 120–day period may extend beyond the two–year period from the filing of the administrative claim if the claim is filed in the later part of the two–year period.  If the 120–day period expires without any decision from the CIR, then the administrative claim may be considered to be denied by inaction.

(3) A judicial claim must be filed with the CTA within 30 days from the receipt of the CIR’s decision denying the administrative claim or from the expiration of the 120–day period without any action from the CIR.

(4) All taxpayers, however, can rely on BIR Ruling No. DA–489–03 from the time of its issuance on 10 December 2003 up to its reversal by this Court in Aichi on 6 October 2010, as an exception to the mandatory and jurisdictional 120+30 day periods.33 (Emphasis supplied)

To recapitulate, the mandatory rule is that a judicial claim must be filed with the CTA within thirty (30) days from the receipt of the Commissioner’s decision denying the administrative claim or from the expiration of the 120–day period without any action from the Commissioner.  Otherwise, said judicial claim shall be considered as filed out of time.

This Court is mindful that when respondent filed its administrative claim on 6 May 1999, and its corresponding judicial claim on 30 June 2000, the NIRC of 1997, as amended, was already in effect.  Clearly therefore, the strict observance in applying the provisions of Section 112 of the NIRC of 1997 is proper.  Hence, failure of respondent to observe the 30–day period under said Section through its belated filing of the Petition for Review before the CTA warrants a dismissal with prejudice for lack of jurisdiction.

Parenthetically, it must be emphasized that jurisdiction over the subject matter or nature of an action is fundamental for a court to act on a given controversy,34 and is conferred only by law and not by the consent or waiver upon a court which, otherwise, would have no jurisdiction over the subject matter or nature of an action.  Lack of jurisdiction of the court over an action or the subject matter of an action cannot be cured by the silence, acquiescence, or even by express consent of the parties.35  If the court has no jurisdiction over the nature of an action, its only jurisdiction is to dismiss the case.  The court could not decide the case on the merits.36

As regards the prints on the supporting receipts or invoices, it is worth mentioning that the High Court already ruled on the significance of imprinting the word “zero–rated” for zero–rated sales covered by its receipts or invoices, pursuant to Section 4.108–1 of Revenue Regulations No. 7–95.37  Thus, in Panasonic Communications Imaging Corporation of the Philippines v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue,38 the Second Division of this Court enunciated:chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary

But when petitioner Panasonic made the export sales subject of this case, i.e., from April 1998 to March 1999, the rule that applied was Section 4.108–1 of RR 7–95, otherwise known as the Consolidated Value–Added Tax Regulations, which the Secretary of Finance issued on 9 December 1995 and took effect on 1 January 1996.  It already required the printing of the word “zero–rated” on the invoices covering zero–rated sales.  When R.A. 9337 amended the 1997 NIRC on November 1, 2005, it made this particular revenue regulation a part of the tax code.  This conversion from regulation to law did not diminish the binding force of such regulation with respect to acts committed prior to the enactment of that law.

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.

x x x x

This Court held that, since the “BIR authority to print” is not one of the items required to be indicated on the invoices or receipts, the BIR erred in denying the claim for refund.  Here, however, the ground for denial of petitioner Panasonic’s claim for tax refund—the absence of the word “zero–rated” on its invoices—is one which is specifically and precisely included in the above enumeration.  Consequently, the BIR correctly denied Panasonic’s claim for tax refund.39 (Emphasis supplied)

Clearly, the foregoing pronouncement affirms that absence or non–printing of the word “zero–rated” in respondent’s invoices is fatal to its claim for the refund and/or tax credit representing its unutilized input VAT attributable to its zero–rated sales.

On the other hand, while this Court considers the importance of imprinting the word “zero–rated” in said invoices, the same does not apply to the phrase “BIR authority to print.”  In Intel Technology Philippines, Inc. v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue,40 the Court ruled that there is no law or BIR rule or regulation requiring the taxpayer–claimant’s authority from the BIR to print its sales invoices (BIR authority to print) to be reflected or indicated therein.  It stressed “that while entities engaged in business are required to secure from the BIR an authority to print receipts or invoices and to issue duly registered receipts or invoices, it is not required that the BIR authority to print be reflected or indicated therein.41

All told, the CTA has no jurisdiction over respondent’s judicial appeal considering that its Petition for Review was filed beyond the mandatory 30–day period pursuant to Section 112(D) of the NIRC of 1997, as amended.  Consequently, respondent’s instant claim for refund must be denied.

WHEREFORE, the petition is GRANTED.  Accordingly, the 16 September 2005 Decision of the Court of Appeals in CA–G.R. SP No. 80886 is hereby REVERSED and SET ASIDE.  The Petition for Review filed before the Court of Tax Appeals docketed as CTA Case No. 6129 is DISMISSED for lack of jurisdiction.  No costs.

SO ORDERED.

Carpio, (Chairperson), Brion, Del Castillo, and Perlas–Bernabe, JJ., concur.


Endnotes:


1Ker & Company, Ltd. v. Court of Tax Appeals, et al., G.R. No. L–12396, 31 January 1962, 4 SCRA 160, 163.

2Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Villa, et al., 130 Phil. 3, 4 (1968).

3Rollo, pp. 34–50; Penned by Associate Justice Monina Arevalo–Zenarosa with Associate Justices Remedios A. Salazar–Fernando and Rosmari D. Carandang concurring.

4 CA rollo, pp. 32–41; Penned by Associate Judge Juanito C. Castańeda, Jr. with Presiding Judge Ernesto D. Acosta and Associate Judge Lovell R. Bautista concurring.

5 Id. at 40.

6 Section 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; 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.
(B) Accounting Requirements. — Notwithstanding the provisions of Section 233, all persons subject to the value–added tax under Sections 106 and 108 shall, in addition to the regular accounting records required, maintain a subsidiary sales journal and subsidiary purchase journal on which the daily sales and purchases are recorded. The subsidiary journals shall contain such information as may be required by the Secretary of Finance. (Italics supplied)

7 Sec. 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.

All persons who print receipts or sales or commercial invoices shall maintain a logbook/register of taxpayer who availed of their printing services.

The logbook/register shall contain the following information:chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary

(1) Names, Taxpayer Identification Numbers of the persons or entities for whom the receipts or sales or commercial invoices are printed; and

(2) Number of booklets, number of sets per booklet, number of copies per set and the serial numbers of the receipts or invoices in each booklet. (Italics supplied)

8 CA rollo, pp. 36–38.

9 Id. at 38–39.

10 Id. at 40.

11 Id. at 67–70.

12Rollo, pp. 34–50.

13 Id. at 21.

14 Salcedo v. People, 400 Phil. 1302, 1308 (2000).

15 The Insular Life Assurance Company, Ltd. v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 126850, 28 April 2004, 428 SCRA 79, 85–86.

16Borromeo v. Sun, 375 Phil. 595, 602 (1999).

17 The Insular Life Assurance Company, Ltd. v. Court of Appeals, supra note 15 at 86. (Emphasis supplied).

18 CA rollo, p. 40.

19 Id. at 32–41.

20Rollo, pp. 34–50.

21 Id. at 48.

22Ker & Company, Ltd. v. Court of Tax Appeals, et al., supra note 1.

23 “AN ACT CREATING THE COURT OF TAX APPEALS” which took effect on 16 June 1954.

24 “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” which took effect on 23 April 2004.  This Act was a consolidation of Senate Bill. No. 2712 and House Bill No. 6673 finally passed by the Senate and the House of Representatives on 8 December 2003 and 2 February 2004, respectively.

25 RA 9282 amended this provision as follows:
SEC. 7. Jurisdiction. – The CTA shall exercise:chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary

a) Exclusive appellate jurisdiction to review by appeal, as herein provided:chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary

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

(2) Inaction by the Commissioner of Internal Revenue in cases involving disputed assessments, refunds of internal revenue taxes, fees or other charges, penalties in relation thereto, or other matters arising under the National Internal Revenue Code or other laws administered by the Bureau of Internal Revenue, where the National Internal Revenue Code provides a specific period for action, in which case the inaction shall be deemed a denial;

x x x x (Emphasis supplied)
26 RA 9282 amended this provision as follows:chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary

SEC. 11. Who May Appeal; Mode of Appeal; Effect of Appeal.Any party adversely affected by a decision, ruling or inaction of the Commissioner of Internal Revenue, the Commissioner of Customs, the Secretary of Finance, the Secretary of Trade and Industry or the Secretary of Agriculture or the Central Board of Assessment Appeals or the Regional Trial Courts may file an appeal with the CTA within thirty (30) days after the receipt of such decision or ruling or after the expiration of the period fixed by law for action as referred to in Section 7(a)(2) herein.

Appeal should be made by filing a petition for review under a procedure analogous to that provided for under Rule 42 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure with the CTA within thirty (30) days from the receipt of the decision or ruling or in the case of inaction as herein provided, from the expiration of the period fixed by law to act thereon. x x x (Emphasis supplied).

27 Presently Section 112(C) upon the effectivity of Republic Act No. 9337 on 1 November 2005.

28 G.R. Nos. 187485, 196113, and 197156, 12 February 2013, 690 SCRA 336.

29 Id. at 389–390.

30 As there was no sufficient proof that respondent submitted any supporting documents to the BIR, the 120–day period commenced to run from 6 May 1999, the date of filing of respondent’s administrative claim.

31 Almost nine (9) months had lapsed since the last day allowed by law to file the appropriate judicial claim.

32 G.R. Nos. 193301 and 194637, 11 March 2013.

33 Id.

34Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Villa, et al., supra note 2.

35Laresma v. Abellana, G.R. No. 140973, 11 November 2004, 442 SCRA 156, 169.

36 Please refer to De Guzman, et al. v. Escalona, et al., G.R. No. L–51773, 16 May 1980, 97 SCRA 619, 627.

37 The Consolidated Value–Added Tax Regulations, issued on 9 December 1995 and implemented beginning 1 January 1996, provides:chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary

Section 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;
6. The invoice value or consideration.
In the case of sale of real property subject to VAT and where the zonal or market value is higher than the actual consideration, the VAT shall be separately indicated in the invoice or receipt.

Only VAT–registered persons are required to print their TIN followed by the word “VAT” in their invoices or receipts and this shall be considered as “VAT Invoice.”  All purchases covered by invoices other than “VAT Invoice” shall not give rise to any input tax.

If the taxable person is also engaged in exempt operations, he should issue separate invoices or receipts for the taxable and exempt operations.  A “VAT Invoice” shall be issued only for sales of goods, properties or services subject to VAT imposed in Sections 100 and 102 of the code.

The invoice or receipt shall be prepared at least in duplicate, the original to be given to the buyer and the duplicate to be retained by the seller as part of his accounting records. (Emphasis supplied)

38 G.R. No. 178090, 8 February 2010, 612 SCRA 28, 35–38. See also Hitachi Global Storage Technologies Philippines Corp. v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, G.R. No. 174212, 20 October 2010, 634 SCRA 205.

39 Id.

40 550 Phil. 751 (2007).

41 Id. at 786. (Emphasis supplied)




Back to Home | Back to Main


chanrobles.com



ChanRobles Professional Review, Inc.

ChanRobles Professional Review, Inc. : www.chanroblesprofessionalreview.com
ChanRobles On-Line Bar Review

ChanRobles Internet Bar Review : www.chanroblesbar.com
ChanRobles CPA Review Online

ChanRobles CPALE Review Online : www.chanroblescpareviewonline.com
ChanRobles Special Lecture Series

ChanRobles Special Lecture Series - Memory Man : www.chanroblesbar.com/memoryman





March-2014 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. 189434, March 12, 2014 - FERDINAND R. MARCOS, JR., Petitioner, v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, REPRESENTED BY THE PRESIDENTIAL COMMISSION ON GOOD GOVERNMENT, RESPONDENT.; G.R. NO. 189505 - IMELDA ROMUALDEZ-MARCOS, Petitioner, v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 188191, March 12, 2014 - ENRIQUE ALMERO Y ALCANTARA, Petitioner, v. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, MIRASOL BARTOLOME, CLARITA P. MATIAS, ROSENDO P. MATIAS, AND ANTONIO P. MATIAS, Respondents.

  • A.M. No. MTJ-13-1838 [Formerly A.M. OCA IPI NO. 10-2260-MTJ], March 12, 2014 - SPOUSES RICARDO AND EVELYN MARCELO, Complainants, v. JUDGE RAMSEY DOMINGO G. PICHAY, METROPOLITAN TRIAL COURT, BRANCH 78, PARAŃAQUE CITY, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 184371, March 05, 2014 - SPOUSES MARIO AND JULIA CAMPOS, Petitioners, v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 173423, March 05, 2014 - SPS. ANTONIO FORTUNA AND ERLINDA FORTUNA, Petitioners, v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 190837, March 05, 2014 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, REPRESENTED BY THE BUREAU OF FOOD AND DRUGS (NOW FOOD AND DRUG ADMINISTRATION), Petitioner, v. DRUGMAKER’S LABORATORIES, INC. AND TERRAMEDIC, INC., Respondents.

  • A.M. No. P-12-3070 [Formerly A.M. OCA IPI No. 10-3327-P], March 11, 2014 - CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION, Complainant, v. NENITA C. LONGOS, CLERK II, MUNICIPAL CIRCUIT TRIAL COURT, DEL CARMEN-NUMANCIA-SAN ISIDRO-SAN BENITO, SURIGAO DEL NORTE, Respondent.

  • A.C. No. ­10164, March 10, 2014 - STEPHAN BRUNET AND VIRGINIA ROMANILLOS BRUNET, Complainants, v. ATTY. RONALD L. GUAREN, Respondent.

  • A.C. No. 10185, March 12, 2014 - LICERIO DIZON, Complainant, v. ATTY. MARCELINO CABUCANA, JR., Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 195374, March 10, 2014 - PEDRO LUKANG, Petitioner, v. PAGBILAO DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION AND EDUARDO T. RODRIGUEZ, Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 196960, March 12, 2014 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Appellee, v. ERWIN TAMAYO Y BAUTISTA, Appellant.

  • A.M. No. RTJ-14-2376 [Formerly OCA I.P.I. No. 11-3625-RTJ], March 05, 2014 - MA. LIZA M. JORDA, CITY PROSECUTOR'S OFFICE, TACLOBAN CITY, Complainant, v. JUDGE CRISOLOGO S. BITAS, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, BRANCH 7, TACLOBAN CITY, RESPONDENT.; A.M. NO. RTJ-14-2377 [FORMERLY OCA I.P.I. NO. 11-3645-RTJ] - PROSECUTOR LEO C. TABAO, Complainant, v. JUDGE CRISOLOGO S. BITAS, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, BRANCH 7, TACLOBAN CITY, Respondent.

  • A.C. No. 5359, March 10, 2014 - ERMELINDA LAD VDA. DE DOMINGUEZ, REPRESENTED BY HER ATTORNEY-IN-FACT, VICENTE A. PICHON, Complainant, v. ATTY. ARNULFO M. AGLERON, SR., Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 193684, March 05, 2014 - ONE NETWORK RURAL BANK, INC.,* Petitioner, v. DANILO G. BARIC, Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 180134, March 05, 2014 - RAFAEL VALES, CECILIA VALES-VASQUEZ, AND YASMIN VALES-JACINTO, Petitioners, v. MA. LUZ CHORESCA GALINATO, ERNESTO CHORESCA, TEOFILO AMADO, LORNA PARIAN MEDIANERO, REBECCA PORCAL, AND VIVENCIO ORDOYO, Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 180069, March 05, 2014 - PHILIPPINE COMMERCIAL INTERNATIONAL BANK (NOW BDO UNIBANK, INC.), Petitioner, v. ARTURO P. FRANCO, SUBSTITUTED BY HIS HEIRS, NAMELY: MAURICIA P. FRANCO, FLORIBEL P. FRANCO, AND ALEXANDER P. FRANCO,1 Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 208660, March 05, 2014 - PEŃAFRANCIA SUGAR MILL, INC., Petitioner, v. SUGAR REGULATORY ADMINISTRATION, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 193047, March 03, 2014 - FIL-PRIDE SHIPPING COMPANY, INC., CAPTAIN NICOLAS T. DOLLOLASA AND OCEAN EAGLE SHIPMANAGEMENT COMPANY, PTE. LTD., Petitioners, v. EDGAR A. BALASTA, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 171496, March 03, 2014 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, REPRESENTED BY THE DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS AND HIGHWAYS (DPWH), Petitioner, v. ORTIGAS AND COMPANY LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 182399, March 12, 2014 - CS GARMENT, INC.,* Petitioner, v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 176055, March 17, 2014 - SPOUSES EDMUNDO DELA CRUZ AND AMELIA CONCIO-DELA CRUZ, Petitioners, v. SPOUSES RUFINO R. CAPCO AND MARTY1 C. CAPCO, Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 191360, March 10, 2014 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. SHERWIN BIS Y AVELLANEDA, Accused-Appellant.

  • A.C. No. 9896, March 19, 2014 - MA. ELENA CARLOS NEBREJA, Petitioner, v. ATTY. BENJAMIN REONAL, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 208232, March 10, 2014 - SURVIVING HEIRS OF ALFREDO R. BAUTISTA, NAMELY: EPIFANIA G. BAUTISTA AND ZOEY G. BAUTISTA, Petitioners, v. FRANCISCO LINDO AND WELHILMINA LINDO; AND HEIRS OF FILIPINA DAQUIGAN, NAMELY: MA. LOURDES DAQUIGAN, IMELDA CATHERINE DAQUIGAN, IMELDA DAQUIGAN AND CORSINO DAQUIGAN, REBECCA QUIAMCO AND ANDRES QUIAMCO, ROMULO LORICA AND DELIA LORICA, GEORGE CAJES AND LAURA CAJES, MELIDA BAŃEZ AND FRANCISCO BAŃEZ, MELANIE GOFREDO, GERVACIO CAJES AND ISABEL CAJES, EGMEDIO SEGOVIA AND VERGINIA SEGOVIA, ELSA N. SAM, PEDRO M. SAM AND LINA SAM, SANTIAGO MENDEZ AND MINA MENDEZ, HELEN M. BURTON AND LEONARDO BURTON, JOSE JACINTO AND BIENVENIDA JACINTO, IMELDA DAQUIGAN, LEO MATIGA AND ALICIA MATIGA, FLORENCIO ACEDO JR., AND LYLA VALERIO, Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 172909, March 05, 2014 - SPOUSES SILVESTRE O. PLAZA AND ELENA Y. PLAZA, Petitioners, v. GUILLERMO LUSTIVA, ELEODORA VDA. DE MARTINEZ AND VICKY SAYSON GOLOSENO, Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 181806, March 12, 2014 - WESLEYAN UNIVERSITY PHILIPPINES, Petitioner, v. WESLEYAN UNIVERSITY- PHILIPPINES FACULTY AND STAFF ASSOCIATION, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 207819, March 12, 2014 - THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. GUILLERMO B. CADANO, JR., Accused-Appellant.

  • G.R. No. 188539, March 12, 2014 - MARIANO LIM, Petitioner, v. SECURITY BANK CORPORATION,* Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 190724, March 12, 2014 - DIAMOND TAXI AND/OR BRYAN ONG, Petitioners, v. FELIPE LLAMAS, JR., Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 183034, March 12, 2014 - SPOUSES FERNANDO AND MA. ELENA SANTOS, Petitioners, v. LOLITA ALCAZAR, REPRESENTED BY HER ATTORNEY-IN-FACT DELFIN CHUA, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 205230, March 12, 2014 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. ERNESTO VENTURA, SR., Accused-Appellant.

  • G.R. No. 201234, March 17, 2014 - HEIRS OF AMADA A. ZAULDA, NAMELY: ELESEO A. ZAULDA AND RODOLFO A. ZAULDA, Petitioners, v. ISAAC Z. ZAULDA, Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 201601, March 12, 2014 - MARYLOU CABRERA, Petitioner, v. FELIX NG, Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 195872, March 12, 2014 - FORTUNE MEDICARE, INC., Petitioner, v. DAVID ROBERT U. AMORIN, Respondents.

  • A.C. No. 9116, March 12, 2014 - NESTOR B. FIGUERAS AND BIENVENIDO VICTORIA, JR., Complainants, v. ATTY. DIOSDADO B. JIMENEZ, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 204894, March 10, 2014 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Appellee, v. NOEL ENOJAS Y HINGPIT, ARNOLD GOMEZ Y FABREGAS, FERNANDO SANTOS Y DELANTAR, AND ROGER JALANDONI Y ARI, Appellants.

  • G.R. No. 163361, March 12, 2014 - SPOUSES JOSE M. ESTACION, JR. and ANGELINA T. ESTACION, Petitioners, v. THE HONORABLE SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF AGRARIAN REFORM, REGIONAL DIRECTOR, DAR, REGION 7, PROVINCIAL AGRARIAN REFORM OFFICER OF NEGROS ORIENTAL, MUNICIPAL AGRARIAN REFORM OFFICER, DAR, GUIHULNGAN, NEGROS ORIENTAL, PRESIDENT, LAND BANK OF THE PHILIPPINES, and PHILIPPINE NATIONAL BANK, DUMAGUETE BRANCH, Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 192100, March 12, 2014 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, REPRESENTED BY THE DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS AND HIGHWAYS (DPWH)1, Petitioner, v. ASIA PACIFIC INTEGRATED STEEL CORPORATION, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 186621, March 12, 2014 - SOUTH EAST INTERNATIONAL RATTAN, INC. AND/OR ESTANISLAO1 AGBAY, Petitioners, v. JESUS J. COMING, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 199689, March 12, 2014 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff–Appellee, v. HERMANOS CONSTANTINO, JR. Y BINAYUG, A.K.A. “JOJIT,” Accused-Appellant.

  • G.R. No. 191455, March 12, 2014 - DREAMLAND HOTEL RESORT AND WESTLEY J. PRENTICE, PRESIDENT, Petitioners, v. STEPHEN B. JOHNSON, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 168539, March 25, 2014 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Petitioner, v. HENRY T. GO, Respondent.

  • A.M. No. RTJ–08–2151, March 11, 2014 - OFFICE OF THE COURT ADMINISTRATOR, Petitioner, v. JUDGE EDWIN C. LARIDA, JR., RTC, BRANCH 18, TAGAYTAY CITY, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 163767, March 10, 2014 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, REPRESENTED BY THE DIRECTOR OF LANDS, Petitioner, v. ROSARIO DE GUZMAN VDA. DE JOSON, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 160689, March 26, 2014 - RAUL H. SESBREŃO, Petitioner, v. HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS, JUAN I. COROMINA (SUBSTITUTED BY ANITA COROMINA, ELIZABETH COROMINA AND ROSIEMARIE COROMINA), VICENTE E. GARCIA (SUBSTITUTED BY EDGAR JOHN GARCIA), FELIPE CONSTANTINO, RONALD ARCILLA, NORBETO ABELLANA, DEMETRIO BALICHA, ANGELITA LHUILLIER, JOSE E. GARCIA, AND VISAYAN ELECTRIC COMPANY (VECO), Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 164408, March 24, 2014 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, Petitioner, v. ZURBARAN REALTY AND DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 200468, March 19, 2014 - MACARIA ARGUELLES AND THE HEIRS OF THE DECEASED PETRONIO ARGUELLES, Petitioners, v. MALARAYAT RURAL BANK, INC., Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 201643, March 12, 2014 - OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN, Petitioner, v. JOSE T. CAPULONG, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 192717, March 12, 2014 - MINDA S. GAERLAN, Petitioner, v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 192123, March 10, 2014 - DR. FERNANDO P. SOLIDUM, Petitioner, v. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondent.

  • A.M. No. P–12–3055 (O.C.A. IPI No. 10–3509–P), March 26, 2014 - OFFICE OF THE COURT ADMINISTRATOR, Complainant, v. JOHNI GLENN D. RUNES,1 Respondent.

  • A.C. No. 7961, March 19, 2014 - ATTY. CLODUALDO C. DE JESUS, Complainant, v. ATTY. ALICIA A. RISOS–VIDAL, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 199740, March 24, 2014 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff–Appellee, v. JERRY OBOGNE, Accused–Appellant.

  • G.R. No. 199146, March 19, 2014 - HEIRS OF PACIFICO POCDO, NAMELY, RITA POCDO GASIC, GOLIC POCDO, MARCELA POCDO ALFELOR, KENNETH POCDO, NIXON CADOS, JACQUELINE CADOS LEE, EFLYN CADOS, AND GIRLIE CADOS DAPLIN, HEREIN REPRESENTED BY THEIR ATTORNEY–IN–FACT JOHN POCDO, Petitioners, v. ARSENIA AVILA AND EMELINDA CHUA, Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 189420, March 26, 2014 - RAUL V. ARAMBULO AND TERESITA A. DELA CRUZ, Petitioners, v. GENARO NOLASCO AND JEREMY SPENCER NOLASCO, Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 162063, March 31, 2014 - LEONORA A. PASCUAL, REPRESENTED BY FLOREBHEE N. AGCAOILI, ATTORNEY–IN–FACT, Petitioner, v. JOSEFINO L. DAQUIOAG, IN HIS CAPACITY AS CENRO OF BANGUI, ILOCOS NORTE; EMILIO R. D. DOLOROSO, IN HIS CAPACITY AS LAND MANAGEMENT OFFICER III, DENR, CENRO–BANGUI, ILOCOS NORTE; ALBERTO B. BAGUIO, IN HIS CAPACITY AS SPECIAL LAND INVESTIGATOR; RENATO C. TUMAMAO AND NILO C. CERALDE, IN THEIR CAPACITIES AS CARTOGRAPHERS/DPLIS, CENRO–BANGUI, ILOCOS NORTE; AND CATALINA ALMAZAN–VILLAMOR, Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 193768, March 05, 2014 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff–Appellee, v. JERRY CARANTO Y PROPETA, Accused–Appellant.

  • G.R. No. 191727, March 31, 2014 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff–Appellee, v. MANUEL APLAT Y SUBLINO AND JACKSON DANGLAY Y BOTIL, ACCUSED, MANUEL APLAT Y SUBLINO, Accused–Appellant.

  • G.R. No. 189176, March 19, 2014 - BARRY LANIER AND PERLITA LANIER, Petitioners, v. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 181055, March 19, 2014 - HEIRS OF TERESITA MONTOYA, REPRESENTED BY JOEL MONTOYA, HEIRS OF PATRICIO OCAMPO, REPRESENTED BY VIOLETA OCAMPO, AND BARTOLOME OCAMPO, Petitioners, v. NATIONAL HOUSING AUTHORITY, DORITA GONZALES AND ERNESTO GONZALES, IN HIS CAPACITY AND AS ATTORNEY–IN–FACT, Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 177493, March 19, 2014 - ERIC GODFREY STANLEY LIVESEY, Petitioner, v. BINSWANGER PHILIPPINES, INC. AND KEITH ELLIOT, Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 169778, March 12, 2014 - COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Petitioner, v. SILICON PHILIPPINES, INC. (FORMERLY INTEL PHILIPPINES MANUFACTURING, INC.), Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 161151, March 24, 2014 - BJDC CONSTRUCTION, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER/PROPRIETOR JANET S. DELA CRUZ, Petitioner, v. NENA E. LANUZO, CLAUDETTE E. LANUZO, JANET E. LANUZO, JOAN BERNABE E. LANUZO, AND RYAN JOSE E. LANUZO, Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 187944, March 12, 2014 - CARMENCITA SUAREZ, Petitioner, v. MR. AND MRS. FELIX E. EMBOY, JR. AND MARILOU P. EMBOY–DELANTAR, Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 193628, March 19, 2014 - SPLASH PHILIPPINES, INC., LORENZO ESTRADA, TAIYO SANGYO TRADING AND MARINE SERVICE, LTD. (TST PANAMA S.A.) AND M/V HARUTAMOU, Petitioners, v. RONULFO G. RUIZO, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 195031, March 26, 2014 - INTERNATIONAL CONTAINER TERMINAL SERVICES, INC., Petitioner, v. CELESTE M. CHUA, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 197204, March 26, 2014 - DANILO O. GARCIA AND JOVEN SD. BRIZUELA, Petitioners, v. SANDIGANBAYAN AND PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 196142, March 26, 2014 - VENUS B. CASTILLO, LEAH J. EVANGELISTA, DITAS M. DOLENDO, DAWN KAREN S. SY AND PRUDENTIAL PLANS, INC. EMPLOYEES UNION – FEDERATION OF FREE WORKERS (PPEU–FFW), Petitioners, v. PRUDENTIALIFE PLANS, INC., AND/OR JOSE ALBERTO T. ALBA, ATTY. CEFERINO A. PATIŃO, JR., AND ROSEMARIE DE LEMOS, Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 204869, March 11, 2014 - TECHNICAL EDUCATION AND SKILLS DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY (TESDA), Petitioner, v. THE COMMISSION ON AUDIT, CHAIRPERSON MA. GRACIA M. PULIDO TAN, COMMISSIONER JUANITO G. ESPINO, JR., AND COMMISSIONER HEIDI L. MENDOZA, Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 193494, March 07, 2014 - LUI ENTERPRISES, INC., Petitioner, v. ZUELLIG PHARMA CORPORATION AND THE PHILIPPINE BANK OF COMMUNICATIONS, Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 195542, March 19, 2014 - SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION, Petitioner, v. OUDINE SANTOS, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 154390, March 17, 2014 - METROPOLITAN FABRICS, INC. AND ENRIQUE ANG, Petitioners, v. PROSPERITY CREDIT RESOURCES INC., DOMINGO ANG AND CALEB ANG, Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 193107, March 24, 2014 - SUTHERLAND GLOBAL SERVICES (PHILIPPINES), INC. AND JANETTE G. LAGAZO, Petitioners, v. LARRY S. LABRADOR, Respondent.

  • A.C. No. 5329, March 18, 2014 - HEINZ R. HECK, Complainant, v. CITY PROSECUTOR CASIANO A. GAMOTIN, JR., Respondent.

  • A.C. No. 10179 (Formerly CBD 11–2985), March 04, 2014 - BENJAMIN Q. ONG, Complainant, v. ATTY. WILLIAM F. DELOS SANTOS, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 188828, March 05, 2014 - CO SAY COCO PRODUCTS PHILS., INC., TANAWAN PORT SERVICES, EFREN CO SAY AND YVETTE SALAZAR, Petitioners, v. BENJAMIN BALTASAR, MARVIN A. BALTASAR, RAYMUNDO A. BOTALON, NILO B. BORDEOS, JR., CARLO B. BOTALON AND GERONIMO B. BAS, Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 150326, March 12, 2014 - THE NATIONAL WAGES AND PRODUCTIVITY COMMISSION (NWPC) AND THE REGIONAL TRIPARTITE WAGES AND PRODUCTIVITY BOARD (RTWPB)– NCR, Petitioners, v. THE ALLIANCE OF PROGRESSIVE LABOR (APL) AND THE TUNAY NA NAGKAKAISANG MANGGAGAWA SA ROYAL (TNMR–APL),Respondents.

  • OCA IPI No. 12–204–CA–J, March 11, 2014 - RE: VERIFIED COMPLAINT FOR DISBARMENT OF AMA LAND, INC. (REPRESENTED BY JOSEPH B. USITA) AGAINST COURT OF APPEALS ASSOCIATE JUSTICES HON. DANTON Q. BUESER, HON. SESINANDO E. VILLON AND HON. RICARDO R. ROSARIO.

  • G.R. No. 158916, March 19, 2014 - HEIRS OF CORNELIO MIGUEL, Petitioners, v. HEIRS OF ANGEL MIGUEL, Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 196146, March 12, 2014 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff–Appellee, v. FREDDIE LADIP Y RUBIO, Accused–Appellant.

  • G.R. Nos. 197942–43, 199528, March 26, 2014 - PHILIPPINE AMUSEMENT AND GAMING CORPORATION, Petitioner, v. THUNDERBIRD PILIPINAS HOTELS AND RESORTS, INC., EASTBAY RESORTS, INC., AND HON. CICERO JURADO, JR., PRESIDING JUDGE, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT OF MANILA, BRANCH 11, Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 157485, March 26, 2014 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES REPRESENTED BY AKLAN NATIONAL COLLEGE OF FISHERIES (ANCF) AND DR. ELENITA R. ANDRADE, IN HER CAPACITY AS ANCF SUPERINTENDENT, Petitioner, v. HEIRS OF MAXIMA LACHICA SIN, NAMELY: SALVACION L. SIN, ROSARIO S. ENRIQUEZ, FRANCISCO L. SIN, MARIA S. YUCHINTAT, MANUEL L. SIN, JAIME CARDINAL SIN, RAMON L. SIN, AND CEFERINA S. VITA, Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 171482, March 12, 2014 - ASHMOR M. TESORO, PEDRO ANG AND GREGORIO SHARP, Petitioners, v. METRO MANILA RETREADERS, INC. (BANDAG) AND/OR NORTHERN LUZON RETREADERS, INC. (BANDAG) AND/OR POWER TIRE AND RUBBER CORP. (BANDAG), Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 162205, March 31, 2014 - REVELINA LIMSON, Petitioner, v. EUGENIO JUAN GONZALEZ, Respondent.

  • A.M. No. P–12–3074 (Formerly A.M. No. 12–6–48–MCTC), March 17, 2014 - THE OFFICE OF THE COURT ADMINISTRATOR, Complainant, v. CLARITA R. PEREZ, CLERK OF COURT II, MUNICIPAL CIRCUIT TRIAL COURT, SAN TEODORO–BACO–PUERTO GALERA, ORIENTAL MINDORO, Respondent.

  • A.M. No. P–09–2648 (formerly A.M. No. 09–4–181–RTC), March 26, 2014 - OFFICE OF THE COURT ADMINISTRATOR, Complainant, v. ATTY. LEAH ESPERA MIRANDA, CLERK OF COURT V; AND MS. JOCELYN H. DIVINAGRACIA, CLERK III, BOTH OF THE RTC, BR. 38, ILOILO CITY, Respondents.; A.M. No. P–13–3174 (formerly OCA I.P.I. No. 09–3128–P) - ATTY. REX G. RICO, Complainant, v. CLERK OF COURT V LEAH ESPERA MIRANDA AND CLERK III JOCELYN H. DIVINAGRACIA, Respondents.

  • A.C. No. 3405, March 18, 2014 - JULIETA B. NARAG, Complainant, v. ATTY. DOMINADOR M. NARAG, Respondent.

  • A.M. No. 07–9–454–RTC, March 18, 2014 - RE: JUDICIAL AUDIT CONDUCTED IN THE REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, BRANCH20,CAGAYAN DE ORO CITY, MISAMIS ORIENTAL.; A.M. No. 05–2–108–RTC - REQUEST OF JUDGE GREGORIO D. PANTANOSAS, JR., REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, BRANCH20, CAGAYANDE ORO CITY, FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO DECIDE CRIMINAL CASES NOS. 92–1935 & 26 OTHERS.

  • G.R. No. 193516, March 24, 2014 - VILMA MACEDONIO, Petitioner, v. CATALINA RAMO, YOLANDA S. MARQUEZ, SPOUSES ROEL AND OPHELIA PEDRO, SPOUSES JOEFFRY AND ELIZA BALANAG, AND BPI FAMILY SAVINGS BANK, INC., Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 201663, March 31, 2014 - EMMANUEL M. OLORES, Petitioner, v. MANILA DOCTORS COLLEGE AND/OR TERESITA O. TURLA, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 196894, March 03, 2014 - JESUS G. CRISOLOGO AND NANETTE B. CRISOLOGO, Petitioners, v. JEWM AGRO–INDUSTRIAL CORPORATION, Respondent.

  • A.M. No. MTJ–13–1823, March 19, 2014 - P/SR. INSP. TEDDY M. ROSQUETA, Complainant, v. JUDGE JONATHAN A. ASUNCION, MUNICIPAL TRIAL COURT IN CITIES, BRANCH 2, LAOAG CITY, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 201732, March 26, 2014 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff–Appellee, v. JESUS BURCE, Accused–Appellant.

  • G.R. No. 199687, March 24, 2014 - PACIFIC REHOUSE CORPORATION, Petitioner, v. COURT OF APPEALS AND EXPORT AND INDUSTRY BANK, INC., Respondents.; G.R. No. 201537 - PACIFIC REHOUSE CORPORATION, PACIFIC CONCORDE CORPORATION, MIZPAH HOLDINGS, INC., FORUM HOLDINGS CORPORATION AND EAST ASIA OIL COMPANY, INC., Petitioners, v. EXPORT AND INDUSTRY BANK, INC., Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 179408, March 05, 2014 - PHILIPPINE LONG DISTANCE TELEPHONE COMPANY, Petitioner, v. ABIGAIL R. RAZON ALVAREZ AND VERNON R. RAZON, Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 190053, March 24, 2014 - NAVOTAS SHIPYARD CORPORATION and JESUS VILLAFLOR, Petitioners, v. INNOCENCIO MONT ALLANA, ALFREDO BAUTISTA, TEODORO JUDLOMAN, GUILLERMO BONGAS, ROGELIO BONGAS, DIOSDADO BUSANTE, EMILIANO BADU and ROSENDO SUBING-SUBING, Respondents.