THIRD DIVISION
G.R. No. 192223, July 23, 2018
DANILO A. LIHAYLIHAY, Petitioner, v. THE TREASURER OF THE PHILIPPINES ROBERTO C. TAN, SECRETARY OF FINANCE MARGARITO B. TEVES, SECRETARY OF THE DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENT AND NATURAL RESOURCES, AND THE GOVERNOR OF BANGKO SENTRAL NG PILIPINAS (BSP), Respondents.
D E C I S I O N
LEONEN, J.:
The grant of an informer's reward for the discovery, conviction, and punishment of tax offenses is a discretionary quasi-judicial matter that cannot be the subject of a writ of mandamus. It is not a legally mandated ministerial duty. This reward cannot be given to a person who only makes sweeping averments about undisclosed wealth, rather than specific tax offenses, and who fails to show that the information which he or she supplied was the undiscovered pivotal cause for the revelation of a tax offense, the conviction and/or punishment of the persons liable, and an actual recovery made by the State. Indiscriminate, expendable information negates a clear legal right and further impugns the propriety of issuing a writ of mandamus.
A writ of mandamus will not issue unless it is shown that there is no other plain, speedy, and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law. While this Court exercises original jurisdiction over petitions for mandamus, it will not exercise jurisdiction over those filed without exhausting administrative remedies, in violation of the doctrine of primary jurisdiction and the principle of hierarchy of courts, and when their filing amounts to an act of forum shopping.
This resolves a Petition for Mandamus and Damages, with a Prayer for a Writ of Garnishment,1 praying that former Treasurer of the Philippines Roberto C. Tan (Treasurer Tan), former Secretary of Finance Margarito B. Teves (Secretary Teves), the Governor of Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas, and the Secretary of the Department of Environment and Natural Resources (collectively, respondents) be ordered to deliver to Danilo A. Lihaylihay (Lihaylihay) the amounts of P11,875,000,000,000.00 and P50,000,000,000.00, and several government lands as informer's rewards owing to Lihaylihay's alleged instrumental role in the recovery of ill-gotten wealth from former President Ferdinand E. Marcos (President Marcos), his family, and their cronies.
In his Petition, erstwhile presidential candidate2 Lihaylihay identified himself as a "Confidential Informant of the State (CIS) pursuant to Republic Act No. 2338,3 duly accredited and registered as such with the Bureau of Internal Revenue (BIR) and Presidential Commission on Good Government (PCGG)."4
Lihaylihay particularly recalled sending two (2) letters, both dated March 11, 1987, to Atty. Eliseo Pitargue (Atty. Pitargue), the former head of the Bureau of Internal Revenue-Presidential Commission on Good Government Task Force, concerning information on former President Marcos' ill-gotten wealth.
The first letter5 concerned gold bullions and diamonds. It read:
March 11, 1987The second letter7 concerned alleged dollar deposits at the Union Bank of Switzerland:
ATTY. ELISEO PITARGUE
Head-BlR-PCGG Task Force
Pursuant to MOA dated 2/27/87
BIR Tax Fraud Division
Diliman, Quezon City
Dear Sir:
In obedience to the call of her Excellency President Corazon C. Aquino thru Executive Order Nos. 1, 2, 14-A granting immunity from criminal prosecution to all persons who cooperate [in] the government's efforts of recovering the ill-gotten wealth amassed by Former President F. Marcos and deposited in several banks (177 banks) in 72 countries all over the world. These treasures include 650,000 tons (of) gold and 500,000 p[ie]ces of 10-karat diamonds lent by Royal Clan to CB.
The 205,000 metric tons of gold bullions from the VAULTS of the Philippine Central Bank as reserves were looted by former President Marcos and deposited in England/Austria (CREDITSTALT BANKVEREIN GRAZ, FILLALE HERRENGASSE, AUSTRIA UNDER CERTIFICATE OF OBLIGATION NO. 400786822 CREDIT ANST/CS-564003-VIEN-SUISSE-BCTSWITZERLAND-CTs-034000206. The $13-Billion was also deposited by President Marcos in UBS Account No. 885931 alias 'I. ARENETTA'.
On February 4, 1972, the Honorable Judge Enrique B. Agana of the Court of First Instance (CFI), Branch 28, Pasay City, in LRC/Civil Case No. 3957-P[,] ordered President Marcos to return such gold bullions and diamonds to the vaults of the Philippine Central Bank for the economic survived of the country and people.
I am privy to these transactions because I am the de[s]cendant of RAJAH LAPULAPU-the eldest son of KING LUISONG TAGEAN TALLANO, the ascendant of Don Esteban Benitez Tallano-the owner of those gold bullions/diamonds-the Royal clan that lent said treasures to the Philippine Central Bank during the time of President Manuel Roxas. Pres. Manuel Acuna Roxas is [a] first cousin of Don Esteban Benitez Tallano. While President Marcos was the brilliant lawyer of the Tagean-Tallano Clan before he entered politics in 1965.
However, upon learning of the aforesaid court decision which already became final and executory on April 4, 1972, President Marcos declared Martial Law on September 21, 1972 thereby prevented (sic) the actual enforcement of the court's decision aforecited.
I therefore hereby reserved (sic) my right to claim for the 25% informer's reward thereof pursuant to Section 1 of Republic Act No. 23386 upon actual recovery of those ill-gotten wealth/assets.DANILO A. LIHAYLIHAY
Informer
Bacoor, Cavite
March 11, 1987
ATTY. ELISEO PITARGUE
Head, PCGG-BIR Task Force
(Pursuant to MOA dated 2/27/87)
Dear Sir:Almost 20 years later, on November 29, 2006, Lihaylihay wrote to then Commissioner of Internal Revenue, Jose Mario C. Buñag (Commissioner Buñag), demanding payment of 25% informer's reward on the P118,270,243,259.00 supposedly recovered by the Philippine government through compromise agreements with the Marcoses. He also insisted on the need for the government to collect Fortune Tobacco Corporation's tax deficiencies amounting to P97,039,862,933.40, to recover P47,500,000,000,000.00 of Marcos' deposits in Switzerland, and to deliver to him the informer's rewards corresponding to the recovery of these.8
Pursuant to the call of Her Excellency President Corazon C. Aquino under Executive Order Nos. 14 and 14-A dated May 17, 1986, I hereby furnished (sic) the information that IRENE MARCOS-ARANETA, the younger daughter of former President Ferdinand E. Marcos, has ill gotten wealth or ill-gained properties (moneys) deposited in the UNION BANK OF SWITZERLAND (UBS).
Mrs. Irene Marcos-Araneta is the wife of Gregorio Araneta III with present addresses at 915 Mountain Home Rd., Woodside, California, USA 94062; 3510 Baker Street, San Francisco, California, USA, 94123.
UBS Account No. 885931 in the amount of US$13-B, more or less, were deposited by Irene Araneta using an alias/cover-up "I. ARENETTA". The UBS tolerated to hide said deposit/account of the MARCOS FAMILY to avoid exposure and freezing thereby to mislead/cheat the Philippine Government.
It is, therefore, most respectfully requested of this administration to immediately initiate the necessary legal actions for the recovery of these ill-gotten wealth/prop[e]rties of the Marcos family which were being hidden in several secret bank accounts in Switzerland, in order to protect the national interest of our government and the people of the Philippines.
I also hereby reserved (sic) my right to claim for the 25% informer[']s reward under Section 1 of Republic Act No. 2338 in consonance with Section 9 of Department Order No. 46-66 of the Department of Finance (DOF) pursuant to the ruling of the Honorable Supreme Court in the case of "Gonzalo N. Rubie vs. Auditor General," 100 Phil[.] 772 (1957).Very truly yours,
DANILO A. LIHAYLIHAY
Informer under R.A. 2338
Isla de Balot, Tabing Dagat
Bacoor, Cavite, Philippines
Section 3. Petition for mandamus. - When any tribunal, corporation, board, officer or person unlawfully neglects the performance of an act which the law specifically enjoins as a duty resulting from an office, trust, or station, or unlawfully excludes another from the use and enjoyment of a right or office to which such other is entitled, and there is no other plain, speedy and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law, the person aggrieved thereby may file a verified petition in the proper court, alleging the facts with certainty and praying that judgment be rendered commanding the respondent, immediately or at some other time to be specified by the court, to do the act required to be done to protect the rights of the petitioner, and to pay the damages sustained by the petitioner by reason of the wrongful acts of the respondent.A writ of mandamus may issue in either of two (2) situations: first, "when any tribunal, corporation, board, officer or person unlawfully neglects the performance of an act which the law specifically enjoins as a duty resulting from an office, trust, or station"; second, "when any tribunal, corporation, board, officer or person . . . unlawfully excludes another from the use and enjoyment of a right or office to which such other is entitled."
The petition shall also contain a sworn certification of non-forum shopping as provided in the third paragraph of section 3, Rule 46.
[M]andamus will not issue to control the exercise of discretion of a public officer where the law imposes upon him the duty to exercise his judgment in reference to any matter in which he is required to act, because it is his judgment that is to be exercised and not that of the court.24This Court distinguished discretionary functions from ministerial duties, and related the exercise of discretion to judicial and quasi-judicial powers. In Sanson v. Barrios:25
Discretion, when applied to public functionaries, means a power or right conferred upon them by law of acting officially, under certain circumstances, according to the dictates of their own judgments and consciences, uncontrolled by the judgments or consciences of others. A purely ministerial act or duty, in contradistinction to a discretional act, is one which an officer or tribunal performs in a given state of facts, in a prescribed manner, in obedience to the mandate of legal authority, without regard to or the exercise of his own judgment, upon the propriety or impropriety of the act done. If the law imposes a duty upon a public officer, and gives him the right to decide how or when the duty shall be performed, such duty is discretionary and not ministerial. The duty is ministerial only when the discharge of the same requires neither the exercise of official discretion nor judgment. . . . Mandamus will not lie to control the exercise of discretion of an inferior tribunal. . ., when the act complained of is either judicial or quasi-judicial. . . . It is the proper remedy when the case presented is outside of the exercise of judicial discretion.26 (Citations omitted)Mandamus, too, will not issue unless it, is shown that "there is no other plain, speedy and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law."27 This is a requirement basic to all remedies under Rule 65, i.e., certiorari, prohibition, and mandamus.
Section 1. Any person, except an internal revenue or customs official or employee, or other public officials, or his relative within the sixth degree of consanguinity, who voluntarily gives definite and sworn information, stating the facts constituting as grounds for such information not yet in the possession of the Bureau of Internal Revenue or the Bureau of Customs, leading to the discovery of frauds upon the internal revenue or customs laws, or violations of any of the provisions thereof, thereby resulting in the recovery of revenues, surcharges and fees and/or the conviction of the guilty party and/or the imposition of any fine or penalty shall be rewarded in a sum equivalent to twenty-five per centum of the revenues, surcharges or fees recovered and/or fine or penalty imposed and collected. The same amount of reward shall also be given to informer or informers where the violator has offered to compromise the violation of law committed by him and his offer has been accepted by the Commissioner of Internal Revenue or the Commissioner of Customs, as the case may be, and in such a case the twenty-five per centum reward fixed herein shall be based on the amount agreed in the compromise and collected from the violator: Provided, That should no revenue surcharges or fees be actually recovered or collected, such persons should not be entitled to a reward: Provided, further, That the information required herein shall not refer to a case already pending or previously investigated or examined by the Commissioner of Internal Revenue or the Commissioner of Customs, or any of their deputies, agents or examiners, as the case may be, or the Secretary of Finance or any of his deputies or agents: Provided, finally, That the reward provided herein shall be paid under regulations issued jointly by the Commissioners of Internal Revenue and Customs with the approval of the Secretary of Finance, and that the determination of the degree of relationship between the Internal Revenue or Customs official or employee and the informer shall be left not only to the Commissioner of Internal Revenue or the Commissioner of Customs, as the case may be, but should be jointly made by such official and the Solicitor General.To effect Republic Act No. 2338, the Department of Finance issued its Department Order No. 46-66. It "prescribes the procedure in processing and evaluating claims of rewards under Republic Act No. 2338 and the manner of payment of rewards to informers of fraud upon or violation of the internal revenue[,] tariff and customs laws."29 Section 5 of this Department Order identifies the persons to whom information may be given.30 Its Section 6 lists the material facts that claims for reward must allege, as well as the venue where. these claims are to be lodged.31 Its Section 8 identifies the Secretary of Finance as the officer responsible for approving claims for informer's rewards.32
The reward herein authorized shall be paid out of revenues, surcharges, compromises, and penalties established by law, collected and accounted for as a result of the information furnished by the informer.28
Section 282. Informer's Reward to Persons Instrumental in the Discovery of Violations of the National Internal Revenue Code and in the Discovery and Seizure of Smuggled Goods. -The grant of informer's rewards under Section 282 of the National Internal Revenue Code of 1997, as amended, is further subject to the guidelines of Revenue Regulations No. 016-10,37 Section 16 of which outlines the procedure for processing claims for informer's reward:
(A) For Violations of the National Internal Revenue Code. - Any person, except an internal revenue official or employee, or other public official or employee, or his relative within the sixth degree of consanguinity, who voluntarily gives definite and sworn information, not yet in the possession of the Bureau of Internal Revenue, leading to the discovery of frauds upon the internal revenue laws or violations of any of the provisions thereof, thereby resulting in the recovery of revenues, surcharges and fees and/or the conviction of the guilty party and/or the imposition of any of the fine or penalty, shall be rewarded in a sum equivalent to ten percent (10%) of the revenues, surcharges or fees recovered and/or fine or penalty imposed and collected or One Million Pesos (P1,000,000) per case, whichever is lower. The same amount of reward shall also be given to an informer where the offender has offered to compromise the violation of law committed by him and his offer has been accepted by the Commissioner and collected from the offender: Provided, That should no revenue, surcharges or fees be actually recovered or collected, such person shall not be entitled to a reward: Provided, further, That the information mentioned herein shall not refer to a case already pending or previously investigated or examined by the Commissioner or any of his deputies, agents or examiners, or the Secretary of Finance or any of his deputies or agents: Provided, finally, That the reward provided herein shall be paid under rules and regulations issued by the Secretary of Finance, upon recommendation of the Commissioner.
(B) For Discovery and Seizure of Smuggled Goods. - To encourage the public to extend full cooperation in eradicating smuggling, a cash reward equivalent to ten percent (10%) of the fair market value of the smuggled and confiscated goods or One Million Pesos (P1,000,000) per case, whichever is lower, shall be given to persons instrumental in the discovery and seizure of such smuggled goods.
The cash rewards of informers shall be subject to income tax, collected as a final withholding tax, at the rate often percent (10%).
The Provisions of the foregoing Subsections notwithstanding, all public officials, whether incumbent or retired, who acquired the information in the course of the performance of their duties during their incumbency, are prohibited from claiming informer's reward.36
Section 16. Claims for Informer's Reward. -Under Section 282 of the National Internal Revenue Code of 1997, as amended, an information given by an informer shall merit a reward only when it satisfies certain formal and qualitative parameters. As a matter of form and procedure, that information must be voluntarily given, definite, and sworn to. Qualitatively, that information must be novel and, subsequently, prove itself effective.
The Informer's Claim for Reward shall be filed with the Prosecution Division at the BIR National Office or with the Legal Division, Revenue Regional Office, as the case may be.
Claims for rewards shall be filed within three (3) years from the date of actual payment, recovery or collection of revenues, surcharges and fees, and/or the imposition of any fine or penalty or the actual collection of a compromise amount, in case of amicable settlement.
Claims for Reward on cases investigated at the NIDClaims for Reward on cases investigated at the SID, Revenue Region
- The Informer/Claimant shall file his claim for reward at the Prosecution Division, National Office.
- The Chief, Prosecution Division, shall evaluate the claim and determine whether the Informer is entitled to a reward as detailed in this Order.
- After evaluation, the Chief, Prosecution Division, shall forward his recommendation of approval/denial of the claim, to the Assistant Commissioner, Enforcement Service.
- After the review by the Assistant Commissioner, Enforcement Service, the recommendation of approval/denial shall be forwarded to the Deputy Commissioner, Legal and Inspection Group.
- After the review by the Deputy Commissioner, Legal and Inspection Group, the recommendation of approval/denial shall be forwarded to the Commissioner of Internal Revenue.
- Should the Commissioner of Internal Revenue find the claim meritorious, the same shall be forwarded to the Secretary of Finance for final approval. Otherwise, the Commissioner of Internal Revenue shall notify the Claimant/Informer of the denial of the claim.
- The informer/Claimant shall file his claim for reward at the Legal Division of the concerned Revenue Regional Office.
- The Chief, Legal Division, shall evaluate the claim and determine whether the Informer is entitled to a reward as detailed in this Order.
- After evaluation, the Chief, Legal Division, shall forward his recommendation of approval/denial, to the Regional Director.
- After the review by the Regional Director, the recommendation of approval/denial shall be forwarded to the Deputy Commissioner, Legal and Inspection Group.
- After the review by the Deputy Commissioner, Legal and Inspection Group, the recommendation of approval/denial shall be forwarded to the Commissioner of Internal Revenue.
- Should the Commissioner of Internal Revenue find merit on the claim, the same shall be forwarded to the Secretary of Finance for final approval. Otherwise, the Commissioner of Internal Revenue shall notify the Claimant/Informer of the denial of the claim.
Under the doctrine of exhaustion of administrative remedies, recourse through court action cannot prosper until after all such administrative remedies have first been exhausted. If remedy is available within the administrative machinery, this should be resorted to before resort can be made to courts. It is settled that non-observance of the doctrine of exhaustion of administrative remedies results in lack of cause of action, which is one of the grounds in the Rules of Court justifying the dismissal of the complaint.54 (Citations omitted)The need for petitioner to have previously exhausted administrative remedies is congruous with the Bureau of Internal Revenue's and the Finance Secretary's preeminent competence to consider the merits of his claims. Indeed, between this Court on the one hand, and the Bureau of Internal Revenue and the Department of Finance on the other, the latter are in a better position to ascertain whether or not the information supplied by an informer has actually been pivotal to the discovery of tax offenses, and the conviction and punishment of offenders. Having direct access to their own records, they are in the best position to know if the information supplied to them is novel, not having been previously within their knowledge or not otherwise having been the subject of previous proceedings. Petitioner's direct recourse to this Court is an invitation for it to run afoul with the doctrine of primary jurisdiction:
In cases involving specialized disputes, the practice has been to refer the same to an administrative agency of special competence in observance of the doctrine of primary jurisdiction. The Court has ratiocinated that it cannot or will not determine a controversy involving a question which is within the jurisdiction of the administrative tribunal prior to the resolution of that question by the administrative tribunal, where the question demands the exercise of sound administrative discretion requiring the special knowledge, experience and services of the administrative tribunal to determine technical and intricate matters of fact, and a uniformity of ruling is essential to comply with the premises of the regulatory statute administered. The objective of the doctrine of primary jurisdiction is to guide a court in determining whether it should refrain from exercising its jurisdiction until after an administrative agency has determined some question or some aspect of some question arising in the proceeding before the court. It applies where claim is originally cognizable in the courts and comes into play whenever enforcement of the claim requires the resolution of issues which, under a regulatory scheme, has been placed within the special competence of an administrative body; in such case, the judicial process is suspended pending referral of such issues to the administrative body for its view.55 (Citations omitted)
The Supreme Court is a court of last resort, and must so remain if it is to satisfactorily perform the functions assigned to it by the fundamental charter and immemorial tradition. It cannot and should not be burdened with the task of dealing with causes in the first instance. Its original jurisdiction to issue the so-called extraordinary writs should be exercised only where absolutely necessary or where serious and important reasons exist therefor. Hence, that jurisdiction should generally be exercised relative to actions or proceedings before the Court of Appeals, or before constitutional or other tribunals, bodies or agencies whose acts for some reason or another, are not controllable by the Court of Appeals. Where the issuance of an extraordinary writ is also within the competence of the Court of Appeals or a Regional Trial Court, it is in either of these courts that the specific action for the writ's procurement must be presented. This is and should continue to be the policy in this regard, a policy that courts and lawyers must strictly observe.57
Very truly yours, |
(SGD) |
WILFREDO V. LAPITAN |
Division Clerk of Court |
Endnotes:
1Rollo, pp. 3-29, Petition.
2This presidential wannabe claims chatting with Obama, ABS-CBN HALALAAN 2016, October 18, 2018 <http://news.abs-cbn.com/halalan2016/nation/10/17/15/presidential-wannabe-claims-chattingobama>; and Ariel; Joseph Hegina, List: Presidential, VP, senatorial aspirations on day 1 of COC filing, PHILIPPINE DAILY INQUIRER, October 12, 2015 .
3 An Act to Provide for Reward to Informers of Violations of the Internal Revenue and Customs Laws.
4Rollo, p. 5.
5 Id. at 30. Annex A of Petition.
6 Section 1. Any person, except an internal revenue or customs official or employee, or other public officials, or his relative within the sixth degree of consanguinity, who voluntarily gives definite and sworn information, stating the facts constituting as grounds for such information not yet in the possession of the Bureau of Internal Revenue or the Bureau of Customs, leading to the discovery of frauds upon the internal revenue or customs laws, or violations of any of the provisions thereof, thereby resulting in the recovery of revenues, surcharges and fees and/or the conviction of the guilty party and/or the imposition of any fine or penalty shall be rewarded in a sum equivalent to twenty-five per centum of the revenues, surcharges or fees recovered and/or fine or penalty imposed and collected. The same amount of reward shall also be given to informer or informers where the violator has offered to compromise the violation of law committed by him and his offer has been accepted by the Commissioner of Internal Revenue or the Commissioner of Customs, as the case may be, and in such a case the twenty-five per centum reward fixed herein shall be based on the amount agreed in the compromise and collected from the violator: Provided, That should no revenue surcharges or fees be actually recovered or collected, such persons should not be entitled to a reward: Provided, further, That the information required herein shall not refer to a case already pending or previously investigated or examined by the Commissioner of Internal Revenue or the Commissioner of Customs, or any of their deputies, agents or examiners, as the case may be, or the Secretary of Finance or any of his deputies or agents: Provided, finally, That the reward provided herein shall be paid under regulations issued jointly by the Commissioners of Internal Revenue and Customs with the approval of the Secretary of Finance, and that the determination of the degree of relationship between the Internal Revenue or Customs official or employee and the informer shall be left not only to the Commissioner of Internal Revenue or the Commissioner of Customs, as the case may be, but should be jointly made by such official and the Solicitor General.
The reward herein authorized shall be paid out of revenues, surcharges. compromises, and penalties established by law, collected and accounted for as a result of the information furnished by the informer.
7 Id. at 31, Annex A-1 of the Petition.
8 Id. at 32-36, Annex B of the Petition.
9 Id. at 52, Annex E of the Petition.
10 Id. at 53, Annex F of the Petition.
11 Id. at 55, Annex H of the Petition.
12 Id. at 66-68, Annex K of the Petition.
13 Id. at 69-71, Annex L of the Petition.
14 Id. at 3-29.
15 Id. at 3.
16 Id. at 21-23.
17Philippine Coconut Authority v. Primex Coco Products, Inc., 528 Phil. 365 (2006) [Per J. Callejo, Sr., First Division].
18Lim Tay v. Court of Appeals, 355 Phil. 381 (1998) [Per J. Panganiban, First Division].
19 Id. at 384.
20 379 Phil. 468 (2000) [Per J. Bellosillo, Second Division].
21 Id. at 479.
22Sy Ha v. Galang, 117 Phil. 798 (1963) [Per J. Bautista-Angelo, En Banc].
23 117 Phil. 798 (1963) [Per J. Bautista-Angelo, En Banc].
24 Id. at 805, citing Blanco vs. Board of Medical Examiners, 46 Phil. 190 (1924) [Per J. Malcolm, Second Division]; Diokno vs. RFC, 91 Phil. 608 (1952) [Per J. Labrador, En Banc]; See also Inchausti & Co. vs. Wright, 47 Phil. 866 (1925) [Per J. Johns, First Division]; Marcelo Steel Corp. vs. The Import Control Board, 87 Phil. 374 (1950) [Per J. Bengzon, En Banc].
25 63 Phil. 198 (1936) [Per J. Recto, En Banc].
26 Id. at 203.
27 RULES OF COURT, Rule 65, sec. 3.
28 Rep. Act No. 2338 (1959), sec. 1.
29 DOF Dep. O. No. 46-66, sec. 1, as quoted in Rollo, p. 328.
30 As quoted in Rollo, p. 44:
Section 5. Persons to Whom Information may be Given. - Information may be given to any of the following officials:
a. Secretary of Finance, his deputies or authorized agents;
b. Presidential Assistant on Reforms and Government Operations, his deputies or authorized agents;
c. Commissioner of Customs, Collector of Customs, their deputies and authorized agents;
d. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, BIR Regional Directors, their deputies and authorized agents;
e. Chairman, Anti-Smuggling Action Center (ASAC);
f. All unit commanders of the Armed Forces of the Philippines;
g. Director, National Bureau of Investigation;
h. Chairman, Embroidery and Apparel Control and Inspection Board;
i. Other law-enforcement agencies.
31 As quoted in Rollo, p. 43:
Section 6. Form of Claim. - No claim for reward shall be entertained unless it is based on an information entered in the Registry Book. Claims for reward shall be in writing and sworn to by the informer-claimant in quintuplicates and shall state, among other things, the following material facts:
1. Name and/or pseudonym and address of the informer-claimant;
2. The agency to which the information was reported;
3. The time and date when the information was reported;
4. The time and date when the information was reported; (sic)
5. A summary of the information.
D.F. Informer's Claim Form No.3, attached hereto, should be substantially followed.
The claimant shall file his claim for reward with the agency to which he gave the information, which in turn shall forward it to the Chairman, Anti-Smuggling Action Center (ASAC), together with the sealed envelop[e] containing the original copy of the information. The claimant will retain a copy of the claim.
32 As quoted in Rollo, pp. 45-46 and pp. 330-331:
Section 8. Rewards payable from proceeds from sales of articles at public auction. - (a) The agency which effect confiscation, seizure or catch based on the information described in Section 6 shall immediately submit a report thereof, by the fastest available means (wire or telephone) to the AntiSmuggling Action Center (ASAC), Camp General Emilio Aguinaldo, Quezon City. He shall include a statement that such confiscation, seizure or catch was the direct result of an information (specify number), and that a claim for reward is being filed. He shall also notify the informant concerned to file a claim for reward in the form and manner described in Section 6 above.
(b) The [C]hairman, ASAC, shall forward all the claim papers with his recommendation to the Secretary of Finance.
(c) The Secretary of Finance approves or disapproves the claim. If his action is approval, he authorizes payment of the reward. In either case, he sends back the claim papers to ASAC.
(d) The Chairman, ASAC, shall take appropriate action on. the decision made by the Secretary of Finance -
1. If the claim is disapproved, he shall advise the claimant accordingly, furnishing copies to ASAC and to the agency to which the information was given.
2. If the claim is approved, he shall refer the claim papers to CADA for payment of reward as outlined in Section 10 below. He shall accordingly inform the ASAC and the agency which received the information.
33 Sections 1 and 2 of which, stated:
Section 1. The provisions of Section 1 of R.A. 2338, to the contrary notwithstanding, the reward authorized to be paid qualified informers shall be limited to the sum equivalent to five (5%) per centum of the realized revenues, surcharges, compromises and penalties established by law, collected and accounted for as a result of the information furnished.
Section 2. All laws, acts, decrees, orders, and regulations inconsistent herewith are considered repealed and/or modified accordingly.
34 Section 331. Reward to persons instrumental in the discovery and seizure of smuggled goods. - To encourage the public and law-enforcement personnel to extend full cooperation and do their utmost in stamping out smuggling, a cash reward equivalent to five per centum of the fair market value of the smuggled and confiscated goods shall be given to persons instrumental in the discovery and seizure of such smuggled goods in accordance with the rules and regulations to be issued by the Secretary of Finance.
The provisions of this section, and not those of Republic Act Numbered 2338, as amended by Presidential Decree No. 707, shall govern the giving of reward in cases covered by this section.
35 Section 35. Section 331 of the National Internal Revenue Code is hereby amended to read as follows: Sec. 331. Informer's reward to persons instrumental in the discovery of violations of the National Internal Revenue Code and in the discovery and seizure of smuggled goods. -
(1) For violations of the National Internal Revenue Code. - Any person, except an internal revenue official or employee, or other public official, or his relative within the sixth degree of consanguinity, who voluntarily gives definite and sworn information, not yet in the possession of the Bureau of Internal Revenue, leading to the discovery of frauds upon the internal revenue Jaws or violations of any of the provisions thereof, thereby resulting in the recovery of revenues, surcharges and fees and/or the conviction of the guilty party and/or the imposition of any fine or penalty, shall be rewarded in a sum equivalent to fifteen per centum of the revenues, surcharges or fees recovered and/or fine or penalty imposed and collected. The same amount of reward shall also be given to an informer where the offender has offered to compromise the violation of law committed by him and his offer has been accepted by the Commissioner and in such a case, the fifteen per centum reward fixed herein shall be based on the amount agreed upon in the compromise and collected from the offender: Provided, That should no revenue, surcharges or fees be actually recovered or collected, such person shall not be entitled to a reward: Provided, further, That the information mentioned herein shall not defer to a case already pending or previously investigated or examined by the Commissioner or any of his deputies, agents or examiners, or the Minister of Finance or any of his deputies or agents: Provided, finally, That the reward provided herein shall be paid under regulations issued by the Commissioner of Internal Revenue with the approval of the Minister of Finance.
(2) For discovery and seizure of smuggled goods. - To encourage the public and law-enforcement personnel to extend full cooperation in eradicating smuggling, a cash reward equivalent to fifteen per centum of the fair market value of the smuggled and confiscated goods shall be given to persons instrumental in the discovery and seizure of such smuggled goods.
36 Rep. Act. 8424 (1997), sec. 3, amending ch. 4, sec. 282 of the TAX CODE.
37 BIR Revenue Regulations No. 016-10 (2010), Guidelines, Rules and Procedures in the Filing of Confidential Information and the Investigation of Cases Arising Therefrom.
38 Rep. Act No. 8424 (1997), sec. 3 amending ch. 4, sec. 282 of the TAX CODE.
39Smart Communications, Inc. v. National Telecommunications Commission, 456 Phil. 145, 155 (2003) [Per J. Ynares-Santiago, First Division].
40Lim Tay v. Court of Appeals, 355 Phil. 381 (1998) [Per J. Panganiban, First Division].
41Sanson v. Barrios, 63 Phil. 203 (1936) [Per J. Recto, En Banc].
42 Rep. Act No. 2338 (1959). Cf. Rep. Act No. 2338 (1959) sec. 1, and Rep. Act. 8424 (1997), sec. 3 amending ch. 4, sec. 282 of the TAX CODE. While the former treats rewards for the discovery of violations of internal revenue laws and customs laws jointly, the latter, in its paragraphs (A) and (B) distinguished between rewards pertaining to the discovery of violations of internal revenue laws and rewards pertaining to the discovery and seizure of smuggled goods.
43Rollo, pp. 37-41.
44Presidential Commission on Good Government v. H. E. Heacock, Inc., 631 Phil. 147 (2010) [Per J. Carpio Morales, First Division].
45Rollo, p. 42.
46 Id. at 47.
47 Id. at 42-50.
48 Id. at 47.
49 Id. at 32.
50 Rep. Act No. 8424 (1997), sec. 3 amending ch. 4, sec. 282 of the TAX CODE.
51 PRIMITIVO MIJARES, THE CONJUGAL DICTATORSHIP OF FERDINAND AND IMELDA MARCOS, Union Square Publications, (First Printing, 1976), San Francisco.
52 Gerry Lirio, Marcos gold bars: fact or fiction?, ABS-CBN NEWS, September 21, 2017 <http://news.abs-cbn.com/focus/09/21/17/marcos-gold-bars-fact-or-fiction>.
53 RULES OF COURT, Rule 65, sec. 3.
54Teotico v. Baer, 523 Phil. 670, 676 (2006) [Per J. Corona, Second Division].
55Fabia v. Court of Appeals, 437 Phil. 389, 402-403 (2002) [Per J. Bellosillo, Second Division].
56Heirs of Hinog v. Melicor, 495 Phil. 422, 431-432 (2005) [Per J. Austia-Martinez, Second Division].
57Vergara, Sr. v. Suelto, 240 Phil. 719, 732-733 (1987) [Per J. Narvasa, First Division].
58Lihaylihay v. BIR, G.R. No. 202556, September 12, 2012 (Notice) [Second Division].
59 Peter Tabingo, COA junks BIR informer's P3-billion reward claim, MALAY A BUSINESS INSIGHT, August 22, 2016, <http://www.malaya.com.ph/business-news/news/coa-junks-birinformer%E2%80%99s-p3-billion-reward-claim>; and Rio Araja, 'Informer' loses bid for tax reward, MANILA STANDARD, August 22, 2016, .
60 Section 5. Certification against forum shopping. - The plaintiff or principal party shall certify under oath in the complaint or other initiatory pleading asserting a claim for relief, or in a sworn certification annexed thereto and simultaneously filed therewith: (a) that he has not theretofore commenced any action or filed any claim involving the same issues in any court, tribunal or quasi-judicial agency and, to the best of his knowledge, no such other action or claim is pending therein; (b) if there is such other pending action or claim, a complete statement of the present status thereof; and (c) if he should thereafter learn that the same or similar action or claim has been filed or is pending, he shall report that fact within five (5) days therefrom to the court wherein his aforesaid complaint or initiatory pleading has been filed.
Failure to comply with the foregoing requirements shall not be curable by mere amendment of the complaint or other initiatory pleading but shall be cause for the dismissal of the case without prejudice, unless otherwise provided, upon motion and after hearing. The submission of a false certification or non-compliance with any of the undertakings therein shall constitute indirect contempt of court, without prejudice to the corresponding administrative and criminal actions. If the acts of the party or his counsel clearly constitute willful and deliberate forum shopping, the same shall be ground for summary dismissal with prejudice and shall constitute direct contempt, as well as a cause for administrative sanctions.