EN BANC
G.R. No. 207112, December 08, 2015
PILIPINAS TOTAL GAS, INC., Petitioner, v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent.
D E C I S I O N
MENDOZA, J.:
Before the Court is a petition for review on certiorari1 under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court assailing the October 11, 2012 Decision2 and the May 8, 2013 Resolution3 of the Court of Tax Appeals (CTA) En Banc, in CTA EB Case No. 776, which affirmed the January 13, 2011 Decision4 of the CTA Third Division (CTA Division) in CTA Case No. 7863.
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the present Petition for Review is hereby DENIED DUE COURSE, and, accordingly DISMISSED for having been prematurely filed.Ruling of the CTA En Banc
SO ORDERED.13ChanRoblesVirtualawlibrary
In its petition, Total Gas argues that its judicial claim was filed within the prescriptive period for claiming excess unutilized input VAT refund as provided under Section 112 of the NIRC and expounded in the Court's ruling in CIR v. Aichi Forging Company of Asia20 (Aichi) and in compliance with Section 112 of the NIRC. In addition to citing Section 112 (C) of the Tax Code, Total Gas points out that in one of its previous claims for refund of excess unutilized input VAT, the CTA En Banc in CTA En Banc Case No. 674,21 faulted the BIR in not considering that the reckoning period for the 120-period should be counted from the date of submission of complete documents.22 It then adds that the previous ruling of the CTA En Banc was in accordance with law because Section 112 (C) of the Tax Code is clear in providing that the 120-day period should be counted from the date of its submission of the complete documents or from August 28, 2008 and not from the date it filed its administrative claim on May 15, 2008.23 Total Gas argues that, since its claim was filed within the period of exception provided in CIR v. San Roque Power Corporation24 (San Roque), it did not have to strictly comply with 120+30 day period before it could seek judicial relief.25cralawredISSUES
(a) whether the judicial claim for refund was belatedly filed on 23 January 2009, or way beyond the 30-day period to appeal as provided in Section 112(c) of the Tax Code, as amended; and
(b) whether the submission of incomplete documents at the adminstrative level (BIR) renders the judicial claim premature and dismissible for lack of jurisdiction.19ChanRoblesVirtualawlibrary
Section 112 (C) of the NIRC provides:chanRoblesvirtualLawlibraryFrom the above, it is apparent that the CIR has 120 days from the date of submission of complete documents to decide a claim for tax credit or refund of creditable input taxes. The taxpayer may, within 30 days from receipt of the denial of the claim or after the expiration of the 120-day period, which is considered a "denial due to inaction," appeal the decision or unacted claim to the CTA.
SEC. 112. Refunds or Tax Credits of Input Tax. -x x x x
(C) Period within which Refund or Tax Credit of Input Taxes shall be Made. - In proper cases, the Commissioner shall grant a refund or issue the tax credit certificate for creditable input taxes within one hundred twenty (120) days from the date of submission of complete documents in support of the application filed in accordance with Subsections (A) and (B) hereof.
In case of full or partial denial of the claim for tax refund or tax credit, or the failure on the part of the Commissioner to act on the application within the period prescribed above, the taxpayer affected may, within thirty (30) days from the receipt of the decision denying the claim or after the expiration of the one hundred twenty day-period, appeal the decision or the unacted claim with the Court of Tax Appeals.x x x x [Emphasis and Underscoring Supplied]
(e) Period within which refund of input taxes may be made by the Commissioner. The Commissioner shall refund input taxes within 60 days from the date the application for refund was filed with him or his duly authorized representative. No refund or input taxes shall be allowed unless the VAT-registered person files an application for refund within the period prescribed in paragraphs (a), (b) and (c), as the case maybe.Here, the CIR was not only given 60 days within which to decide an administrative claim for refund of input taxes, but the beginning of the period was reckoned "from the date the application for refund was filed."[Emphasis supplied]
(d) Period within which refund or tax credit of input taxes shall be made. - In proper cases, The Commissioner shall grant a refund or issue the tax credit for creditable input taxes within sixty (60) days from the date of submission of complete documents in support of the application filed in accordance with sub-paragraphs (a) and (b) hereof. In case of full or partial denial of the claim for tax refund or tax credit, or the failure on the part of the Commissioner to act on the application within the period prescribed above, the taxpayer affected may, within thirty (30) days from the receipt of the decision denying the claim or after the expiration of the sixty-day period, appeal the decision or the unacted claim with the Court of Tax Appeals.Again, while the CIR was given only 60 days within which to act upon an administrative claim for refund or tax credit, the period came to be reckoned "from the date of submission of complete documents in support of the application." With this amendment, the date when a taxpayer made its submission of complete documents became relevant. In order to ensure that such date was at least determinable, RMO No. 4-94 provides:[Emphasis supplied]
Then, when the NIRC34 was enacted on January 1, 1998, the rule was once more amended to read:REVENUE MEMORANDUM ORDER NO. 40-94
SUBJECT : Prescribing the Modified Procedures on the Processing of Claims for Value-Added Tax Credit/Refund
III. Procedures
REGIONAL OFFICE
A. Revenue District Office
In General:chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary
1. Ascertain the completeness of the supporting documents prior to the receipt of the application for VAT credit/refund from the taxpayer.
2. Receive application for VAT Credit/Refund (BIR Form No. 2552) in three (3) copies in the following manner:a. stamp the word "RECEIVED" on the appropriate space provided in all copies of application;The application shall be received only if the required attachments prescribed in RAMO 1-91 have been fully complied with x x x.
b. indicate the claim number;
c. indicate the date of receipt; and
d. initial by receiving officer.
(D) Period within which Refund or Tax Credit of Input Taxes shall be Made. - In proper cases, the Commissioner shall grant a refund or issue the tax credit certificate for creditable input taxes within one hundred twenty (120) days from the date of submission of compete documents in support of the application filed in accordance with Subsections (A) and (B) hereof.This time, the period granted to the CIR to act upon an admmistrative claim for refund was extended to 120 days. The reckoning point however, remained "from the date of submission of complete documents."
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.[Emphasis supplied]
Q-18: For pending claims with incomplete documents, what is the period within which to submit the supporting documents required by the investigating/processing office? When should the investigating/processing office officially receive claims for tax credit/refund and what is the period required to process such claims?Consequently, upon filing of his application for tax credit or refund for excess creditable input taxes, the taxpayer-claimant is given thirty (30) days within which to complete the required documents, unless given further extension by the head of the processing unit. If, in the course of the investigation and processing of the claim, additional documents are required for the proper determination of the legitimate amount of claim, the taxpayer-claimants shall submit such documents within thirty (30) days from request of the investigating/processing office. Notice, by way of a request from the tax collection authority to produce the complete documents in these cases, became essential. It is only upon the submission of these documents that the 120-day period would begin to run.
A-18: For pending claims which have not been acted upon by the investigating/processing office due to incomplete documentation, the taxpayer-claimants are given thirty (30) days within which to submit the documentary requirements unless given further extension by the head of the processing unit, but such extension should not exceed thirty (30) days.
For claims to be filed by claimants with the respective investigating/processing office of the administrative agency, the same shall be officially received only upon submission of complete documents.
For current and future claims for tax credit/refund, the same shall be processed within one hundred twenty (120) days from receipt of the complete documents. If, in the course of the investigation and processing of the claim, additional documents are required for the proper determination of the legitimate amount of claim, the taxpayer-claimants shall submit such documents within thirty (30) days from request of the investigating/processing office, which shall be construed as within the one hundred twenty (120) day period.[Emphases Supplied]
(C) 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 Subsection (A) hereof.With the amendments only with respect to its place under Section 112, the Court finds that RMC No. 49-2003 should still be observed. Thus, taking the foregoing changes to the law altogether, it becomes apparent that, for purposes of determining when the supporting documents have been completed — it is the taxpayer who ultimately determines when complete documents have been submitted for the purpose of commencing and continuing the running of the 120-day period. After all, he may have already completed the necessary documents the moment he filed his administrative claim, in which case, the 120-day period is reckoned from the date of filing.
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.
The application for VAT refund/tax credit must be accompanied by complete supporting documents as enumerated in Annex "A" hereof. In addition, the taxpayer shall attach a statement under oath attesting to the completeness of the submitted documents (Annex B). The affidavit shall further state that the said documents are the only documents which the taxpayer will present to support the claim. If the taxpayer is a juridical person, there should be a sworn statement that the officer signing the affidavit (i.e., at the very least, the Chief Financial Officer) has been authorized by the Board of Directors of the company.Thus, under the current rule, the reckoning of the 120-day period has been withdrawn from the taxpayer by RMC 54-2014, since it requires him at the time he files his claim to complete his supporting documents and attest that he will no longer submit any other document to prove his claim. Further, the taxpayer is barred from submitting additional documents after he has filed his administrative claim.
Upon submission of the administrative claim and its supporting documents, the claim shall be processed and no other documents shall be accepted/required from the taxpayer in the course of its evaluation. A decision shall be rendered by the Commissioner based only on the documents submitted by the taxpayer. The application for tax refund/tax credit shall be denied where the taxpayer/claimant failed to submit the complete supporting documents. For this purpose, the concerned processing/investigating office shall prepare and issue the corresponding Denial Letter to the taxpayer/claimant.
SEC. 246. Non-Retroactivity of Rulings. - Any revocation, modification or reversal of any of the rules and regulations promulgated in accordance with the preceding Sections or any of the rulings or circulars promulgated by the Commissioner shall not be given retroactive application if the revocation, modification or reversal will be prejudicial to the taxpayers, except in the following cases:chanRoblesvirtualLawlibraryApplying the foregoing precepts to the case at bench, it is observed that the CIR made no effort to question the inadequacy of the documents submitted by Total Gas. It neither gave notice to Total Gas that its documents were inadequate, nor ruled to deny its claim for failure to adequately substantiate its claim. Thus, for purposes of counting the 120-day period, it should be reckoned from August 28, 2008, the date when Total Gas made its "submission of complete documents to support its application" for refund of excess unutilized input VAT. Consequently, counting from this later date, the BIR had 120 days to decide the claim or until December 26, 2008. With absolutely no action or notice on the part of the BIR for 120 days, Total Gas had 30 days or until January 25, 2009 to file its judicial claim.
(a) Where the taxpayer deliberately misstates or omits material facts from his return or any document required of him by the Bureau of Internal Revenue;
(b) Where the facts subsequently gathered by the Bureau of Internal Revenue are materially different from the facts on which the ruling is based; or
(c) Where the taxpayer acted in bad faith.[Emphasis and Italics Supplied]
As can be gleaned from the above, RMO No. 53-98 is addressed to internal revenue officers and employees, for purposes of equity and uniformity, to guide them as to what documents they may require taxpayers to present upon audit of their tax liabilities. Nothing stated in the issuance would show that it was intended to be a benchmark in determining whether the documents submitted by a taxpayer are actually complete to support a claim for tax credit or refund of excess unutilized excess VAT. As expounded in Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Team Sual Corporation (formerely Mir ant Sual Corporation):37REVENUE MEMORANDUM ORDER NO. 53-98
SUBJECT: Checklist of Documents to be Submitted by a Taxpayer upon Audit of his Tax Liabilities as well as of the Mandatory Reporting Requirements to be Prepared by a Revenue Officer, all of which Comprise a Complete Tax Docket.
TO: All Internal Revenue Officers, Employees and Others Concerned
I. BACKGROUND
It has been observed that for the same kind of tax audit case, Revenue Officers differ in their request for requirements from taxpayers as well as in the attachments to the dockets resulting to tremendous complaints from taxpayers and confusion among tax auditors and reviewers.
For equity and uniformity, this Bureau comes up with a prescribed list of requirements from taxpayers, per kind of tax, as well as of the internally prepared reporting requirements, all of which comprise a complete tax docket.
II. OBJECTIVE
This order is issued to:chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary
a. Identify the documents to be required from a taxpayer during audit, according to particular kind of tax; and
b. Identify the different audit reporting requirements to be prepared, submitted and attached to a tax audit docket.
III. LIST OF REQUIREMENTS PER TAX TYPE
Income Tax/ Withholding Tax
- Annex A (3 pages)
Value Added Tax
- Annex B (2 pages)
- Annex B-1 (5 pages)
x x x x
The CIR's reliance on RMO 53-98 is misplaced. There is nothing in Section 112 of the NIRC. RR 3-88 or RMO K3-Q8 itself that requires submission of the complete documents enumerated in RMO 53-98 for a grant of a refund or credit of input VAT. The subject of RMO 53-98 states that it is a "Checklist of Documents to be Submitted by a Taxpayer upon Audit of his Tax Liabilities x x x." In this case, TSC was applying for a grant of refund or credit of its input tax. There was no allegation of an audit being conducted by the CIR. Even assuming that RMO 53-98 applies, it specifically states that some documents are required to be submitted by the taxpayer "if applicable."As explained earlier and underlined in Team Sual above, taxpayers cannot simply be faulted for failing to submit the complete documents enumerated in RMO No. 53-98, absent notice from a revenue officer or employee that other documents are required. Granting that the BIR found that the documents submitted by Total Gas were inadequate, it should have notified the latter of the inadequacy by sending it a request to produce the necessary documents in order to make a just and expeditious resolution of the claim.
Moreover, if TSC indeed failed to submit the complete documents in support of its application, the CIR could have informed TSC of its failure, consistent with Revenue Memorandum Circular No. (RMC) 42-03. However, the CIR did not inform TSC of the document it failed to submit, even up to the present petition. The CIR likewise raised the issue of TSC's alleged failure to submit the complete documents only in its motion for reconsideration of the CTA Special First Division's 4 March 2010 Decision. Accordingly, we affirm the CTA EB's finding that TSC filed its administrative claim on 21 December 2005, and submitted the complete documents in support of its application for refund or credit of its input tax at the same time.[Emphasis included. Underlining Ours.]
To repeat, a claim for tax refund or credit, like a claim for tax exemption, is construed strictly against the taxpayer. One of the conditions for a judicial claim of refund or credit under the VAT System is compliance with the 120+30 day mandatory and jurisdictional periods. Thus, strict compliance with the 120+30 day periods is necessary for such a claim to prosper, whether before, during, or after the effectivity of the Atlas doctrine, except for the period from the issuance of BIR Ruling No. DA-489-03 on 10 December 2003 to 6 October 2010 when the Aichi doctrine was adopted, which again reinstated the 120+30 day periods as mandatory and jurisdictional.At this stage, a review of the nature of a judicial claim before the CTA is in order. In Atlas Consolidated Mining and Development Corporation v. CIR, it was ruled -x x x x
Clearly, BIR Ruling No. DA-489-03 is a general interpretative rule. Thus, all taxpayers 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, where this Court held that the 120+30 day periods are mandatory and jurisdictional.
x x x First, a judicial claim for refund or tax credit in the CTA is by no means an original action but rather an appeal by way of petition for review of a previous, unsuccessful administrative claim. Therefore, as in every appeal or petition for review, a petitioner has to convince the appellate court that the quasi-judicial agency a quo did not have any reason to deny its claims. In this case, it was necessary for petitioner to show the CTA not only that it was entitled under substantive law to the grant of its claims but also that it satisfied all the documentary and evidentiary requirements for an administrative claim for refund or tax credit. Second, cases filed in the CTA are litigated de novo. Thus, a petitioner should prove every minute aspect of its case by presenting, formally offering and submitting its evidence to the CTA. Since it is crucial for a petitioner in a judicial claim for refund or tax credit to show that its administrative claim should have been granted in the first place, part of the evidence to be submitted to the CTA must necessarily include whatever is required for the successful prosecution of an administrative claim.39A distinction must, thus, be made between administrative cases appealed due to inaction and those dismissed at the administrative level due to the failure of the taxpayer to submit supporting documents. If an administrative claim was dismissed by the CIR due to the taxpayer's failure to submit complete documents despite notice/request, then the judicial claim before the CTA would be dismissible, not for lack of jurisdiction, but for the taxpayer's failure to substantiate the claim at the administrative level. When a judicial claim for refund or tax credit in the CTA is an appeal of an unsuccessful administrative claim, the taxpayer has to convince the CTA that the CIR had no reason to deny its claim. It, thus, becomes imperative for the taxpayer to show the CTA that not only is he entitled under substantive law to his claim for refund or tax credit, but also that he satisfied all the documentary and evidentiary requirements for an administrative claim. It is, thus, crucial for a taxpayer in a judicial claim for refund or tax credit to show that its administrative claim should have been granted in the first place. Consequently, a taxpayer cannot cure its failure to submit a document requested by the BIR at the administrative level by filing the said document before the CTA.[Underscoring Supplied]
Endnotes:
1Rollo, pp. 11-394.
2 Id. at 39-60; penned by Associate Justice Esperanza R. Fabon-Victorino, with Associate Justice Ernesto D. Acosta, Associate Justice Juanito C. Castaneda, Jr., Associate Justice Caesar A. Casanova, Associate Justice Olga Palanca-Enriquez, and Associate Justice Cielito N. Mindaro-Grulla, concurring; Associate Justice Lovell R. Bautista, dissenting; and Associate Justice Erlinda P. Uy and Associate Justice Amelia R. Cotangco-Manalastas, on leave.
3 Id. at 62-65.
4 Id. at 93-108.
5 Id.
6 Id. at 102-105
7 Id. at 106-107.
8 Id. at 114-126.
9 Id. at 128-133.
10 Id. at 130.
11 Id.
12 Id.
13 Id. at 107.
14 Id. at 52.
15 Id. at 56-57.
16 Id. at 57-58.
17 Id. at 157-169.
18 Id. at 62-65.
19 Id. at 18.
20 646 Phil. 710 (2010).
21 Affirmed by the Third Division of this Court in G.R. No. 201920 via Resolutions dated October 14, 2013 and February 10, 2014; see rollo, G.R. No. 201920, p. 302 and p. 320.
22 Id. at 20-21.
23 Id. at 21.
24 G.R. No. 187485, February 12, 2013, 690 SCRA 336.
25Rollo, pp. 21-22.
26 Id. at 23.
27 Id. at 23-25.
28 Id. at 25-26.
29 Id. at 28.
30 Id. at 426-433.
31 Id. at 436-440.
32 Titled "Adopting A Value-Added Tax, Amending For This Purpose Certain Provisions of the National Internal Revenue Code, and For Other Purposes."
33 Titled "An Act Restructing the Value Added Tax (Vat) System, Widening its Tax Base and Enhancing its Administration, and for these Purposes Amending and Repealing the Relevant Provisions of the National Internal Revenue Code, as amended, and For Other Purposes."
34 Otherwise known as R.A. No. 8424.
35 Titled "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."
36 (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: Provided, finally, That for a person making sales that are zero-rated under Section 108 (B)(6), the input taxes shall be allocated ratably between his zero-rated and non- zero-rated sales.
37 G.R. No. 205055, July 18, 2014, 730 SCRA 242.
38CIR v. Aichi Forging Company of Asia, supra note 17, at 714.
39Atlas Consolidated Mining and Development Corporation v. CIR, 547 Phil. 332, 339 (2007).
40 Id.cralawlawlibraryCONCURRING OPINIONLEONEN, J.:
I concur with the ponencia in the result. I agree that it is the taxpayer's burden to determine whether complete documents have been submitted for purposes of computing the 120-day period1 for the Commissioner to decide administrative claims.
Between the taxpayer and the Commissioner, it is the former that has the greater incentive to (a) have its case decided expeditiously by the Bureau of Internal Revenue, and (b) in cases where it prefers to have the Court of Tax Appeals rule on its case, have the administrative period lapse.
Besides, the sooner the taxpayer is able to get a refund, the sooner its resources can be further reinvested into our economy, thus translating to greater efficiencies, productivities, and an increase in overall welfare.
Furthermore, in view of the nature of a judicial action explained in Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Aichi Forging Company of Asia, Inc.2 and deftly emphasized again in this case, it is the taxpayer that has the greater incentive to present as complete a set of evidence as possible to have the Commissioner rule and, should the ruling be adverse, as basis for an appeal.
On the other hand, it is not to the government's interest to allow the Bureau of Internal Revenue to determine whether the documents are complete. Otherwise, we would sanction bias on its part with the corresponding opportunities for illicit rent-seeking that deters honest investors and prudent entrepreneurship. Should the documents, in the opinion of the Commissioner, be incomplete, then the Commissioner should simply proceed to decide on the administrative claim. The sooner it is resolved, the better its effect on our economy. After all, it is truly the taxpayer that has the burden of proving its basis for a claim for tax exemptions3 and VAT refunds.4
Any attempt on the part of the taxpayer to amend or add to the documents it initially submitted after an administrative finding by the Commissioner would, therefore, be unacceptable. This way, the prerogative of the taxpayer and the interest of the state, in not making the regulatory period of 120 days in Section 112(D) flexible, could be met. Therefore, I do not agree that the effect of Revenue Memorandum Circular No. 54-2014 and its validity should be decided in this case to arrive at the required result.
The ambient facts in Hedcor v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue5 are different from this case. In Hedcor, before the filing of a Petition for Review before the Court of Tax Appeals, there was a letter of authority to the officials of the Bureau of Internal Revenue to inspect the documents of the taxpayer. In this case, there was none. It was the taxpayer, on its own initiative, that sought to complete its submissions. Parenthetically, the belated issuance of a letter of authority for administrative claims for VAT refunds in Hedcor seems to me, at best, strange. At worse, it is irregular.Endnotes:
1 Tax Code, sec. 112(D) provides, in part, that [i]n 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 Subsection (A) hereof[.]
2 646 Phil. 710 (2010) [Per J. Del Castillo, First Division].
3See, for example, Smart Communications, Inc. v. City of Davao, 587 Phil. 20, 31 (2008) [Per J. Nachura, Third Division]; Digital Telecom v. City Government of Batangas, 594 Phil. 269, 299 (2008) [Per J. Carpio, En Banc].
4See, for example, Republic v. GST Philippines, Inc., G.R. No. 190872, October 17, 2013, 707 SCRA 695, 712 [Per J. Perlas-Bernabe, En Banc]; Microsoft Phils., Inc. v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, 662 Phil. 762, 767 (2011) [Per J. Carpio, Second Division]; Bonifacio Water Corporation v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, G.R. No. 175142, July 22, 2013, 701 SCRA 574, 584 [Per J. Peralta, Third Division], citing Western Mindanao Power v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, 687 Phil. 328 (2012) [Per J. Sereno (now Chief Justice), Second Division]. See also Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. San Roque, G.R. No. 187485, February 12, 2013, 690 SCRA 336, 383 [Per J. Carpio, En Banc].
5 G.R. No. 207575, July 15, 2015 <http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/pdf/web/viewer.html?file=/jurisprudence/2015/july2015/207575.pdf> [Per C.J. Sereno, First Division].