Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

CIR v. LEONARDO S. VILLA

This case has been cited 6 times or more.

	GR No. 185666 2015-02-04	NIPPON EXPRESS CORP. v. CIR PEREZ, J.
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,[33] 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.[34] 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.[35]
	GR No. 185969 2014-11-19	AT&T COMMUNICATIONS SERVICES PHILIPPINES v. CIR PEREZ, J.
At this juncture, it bears emphasis that jurisdiction over the subject matter or nature of an action is fundamental for a court to act on a given controversy,[18] 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.[19] 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.[20] Needless to state, to obviate the possibility that its decision may be rendered void, the Court can, by its own initiative, raise the question of jurisdiction, although not raised by the parties.[21] 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.[22] Therefore, even if there was no jurisdictional issue raised by any party, the Court may look into it at anytime of the proceedings, even during this appeal.
	GR No. 187485 2013-02-12	CIR v. SAN ROQUE POWER CORPORATION CARPIO, J.
The charter of the CTA expressly provides that its jurisdiction is to review on appeal "decisions of the Commissioner of Internal Revenue in cases involving x x x refunds of internal revenue taxes."[47] When a taxpayer prematurely files a judicial claim for tax refund or credit with the CTA without waiting for the decision of the Commissioner, there is no "decision" of the Commissioner to review and thus the CTA as a court of special jurisdiction has no jurisdiction over the appeal. The charter of the CTA also expressly provides that if the Commissioner fails to decide within "a specific period" required by law, such "inaction shall be deemed a denial"[48] of the application for tax refund or credit. It is the Commissioner's decision, or inaction "deemed a denial," that the taxpayer can take to the CTA for review. Without a decision or an "inaction x x x deemed a denial" of the Commissioner, the CTA has no jurisdiction over a petition for review.[49]
	GR No. 175097 2010-02-05	ALLIED BANKING CORPORATION v. CIR DEL CASTILLO, J.
The word "decisions" in the above quoted provision of RA 9282 has been interpreted to mean the decisions of the CIR on the protest of the taxpayer against the assessments.[22] Corollary thereto, Section 228 of the National Internal Revenue Code (NIRC) provides for the procedure for protesting an assessment. It states: SECTION 228. Protesting of Assessment. - When the Commissioner or his duly authorized representative finds that proper taxes should be assessed, he shall first notify the taxpayer of his findings: Provided, however, That a preassessment notice shall not be required in the following cases:
	GR NO. 152532 2005-08-16	PEOPLE v. SANDIGANBAYAN PANGANIBAN, J.
Third, after SMC's request for reinvestigation, no other issuance emanated from the BIR that could be considered a decision. Therefore, no appeal to the Tax Court[15] could have been made under Section 229 of the NIRC, since the protest filed with the BIR had not been acted upon. Appealable to the Tax Court is a decision that refers not to the assessment itself, but to one made on the protest against such assessment.[16] The commissioner of internal revenue's action in response to a taxpayer's request for reconsideration or reinvestigation of the assessment constitutes the decision, the receipt of which will start the 30-day period for appeal.[17]