Lawyerly

GR No. 203928

2015-07-22

LEONEN, J.

Petitioner argues that the Aichi ruling, which involved an administrative and judicial claim for refund simultaneously filed by the taxpayer, is not squarely applicable to its case.[20] Nonetheless, petitioner submits that Aichi should be revisited because there is nothing in Section 112 (c) of the Tax Code[21] stating that compliance by taxpayers with the one hundred twenty (120)- and thirty (30)-day periods is mandatory. On the other hand, unlike Section 112 (c), Section 229 of the Tax Code is allegedly explicit that compliance with the two-year period is mandatory for filing a judicial claim before the Court of Tax Appeals.[22]

GR No. 205055

2014-07-18

CIR v. TEAM SUAL CORPORATION

CARPIO, J.

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.[14]

GR No. 194105

2014-02-05

CIR v. TEAM SUAL CORPORATION

REYES, J.

In his Answer, the CIR claimed that TSC's claim for refund/tax credit should be denied, asserting that TSC failed to comply with the conditions precedent for claiming refund/tax credit of unutilized input VAT. The CIR pointed out that TSC failed to submit complete documents in support of its application for refund/tax credit contrary to Section 112 (C)[6] of the National Internal Revenue Code (NIRC).

GR No. 175356

2013-12-03

MANILA MEMORIAL PARK v. SECRETARY OF DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL WELFARE

DEL CASTILLO, J.

Petitioners also contend that the tax deduction scheme violates Article XV, Section 4[21] and Article XIII, Section 11[22] of the Constitution because it shifts the State's constitutional mandate or duty of improving the welfare of the elderly to the private sector.[23] Under the tax deduction scheme, the private sector shoulders 65% of the discount because only 35%[24] of it is actually returned by the government.[25] Consequently, the implementation of the tax deduction scheme prescribed under Section 4 of RA 9257 affects the businesses of petitioners.[26] Thus, there exists an actual case or controversy of transcendental importance which deserves judicious disposition on the merits by the highest court of the land.[27]

GR No. 142676

2011-06-06

EMERITA MUÑOZ v. ATTY. VICTORIANO R. YABUT

LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.

The prohibition in Section 19(g) of the Revised Rule on Summary Procedure is plain enough. Its further exposition is unnecessary verbiage. [62] The petition for certiorari of Samuel Go Chan and Atty. Yabut in Civil Case No. Q-94-20632 is clearly covered by the said prohibition, thus, it should have been dismissed outright by the RTC-Branch 88. While the circumstances involved in Muñoz's forcible entry case against Samuel Go Chan and Atty. Yabut are admittedly very peculiar, these are insufficient to except the petition for certiorari of Samuel Go Chan and Atty. Yabut in Civil Case No. Q-94-20632 from the prohibition. The liberality in the interpretation and application of the rules applies only in proper cases and under justifiable causes and circumstances. While it is true that litigation is not a game of technicalities, it is equally true that every case must be prosecuted in accordance with the prescribed procedure to insure an orderly and speedy administration of justice. [63]

GR No. 158885

2009-04-02

FORT BONIFACIO DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION v. CIR

TINGA, J.

(2) Public works contractors shall be allowed a presumptive input tax equivalent to one and one-half percent (1 1/2%) of the contract price with respect to government contracts only in lieu of actual input taxes therefrom.[8]

GR Nos. 141104 & 148763

2007-06-08

ATLAS CONSOLIDATED MINING v. CIR

CHICO-NAZARIO, J.

Such tax treatment of goods brought into the export processing zones are only consistent with the Destination Principle and Cross Border Doctrine to which the Philippine VAT system adheres. According to the Destination Principle,[22] goods and services are taxed only in the country where these are consumed. In connection with the said principle, the Cross Border Doctrine[23] mandates that no VAT shall be imposed to form part of the cost of the goods destined for consumption outside the territorial border of the taxing authority. Hence, actual export of goods and services from the Philippines to a foreign country must be free of VAT, while those destined for use or consumption within the Philippines shall be imposed with 10% VAT.[24] Export processing zones[25] are to be managed as a separate customs territory from the rest of the Philippines and, thus, for tax purposes, are effectively considered as foreign territory. For this reason, sales by persons from the Philippine customs territory to those inside the export processing zones are already taxed as exports.

GR Nos. 141104 & 148763

2007-06-08

ATLAS CONSOLIDATED MINING v. CIR

CHICO-NAZARIO, J.

(5) Those considered export sales under Articles 23 and 77 of Executive Order No. 226, otherwise known as the Omnibus Investments Code of 1987, and other special laws, e.g. Republic Act No. 7227, otherwise known as the Bases Conversion and Development Act of 1992. The Tax Code of 1997, as amended,[27] later adopted the foregoing definition of export sales, which are subject to 0% VAT.

GR No. 168056

2005-09-01

CONSTITUTIONALITY OF THE VALUE ADDED TAX LAW

AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.

The VAT is a tax on spending or consumption. It is levied on the sale, barter, exchange or lease of goods or properties and services.[8] Being an indirect tax on expenditure, the seller of goods or services may pass on the amount of tax paid to the buyer,[9] with the seller acting merely as a tax collector.[10] The burden of VAT is intended to fall on the immediate buyers and ultimately, the end-consumers.

GR No. 168056

2005-09-01

CONSTITUTIONALITY OF THE VALUE ADDED TAX LAW

AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.

It was only in 1987, when President Corazon C. Aquino issued Executive Order No. 273, that the VAT system was rationalized by imposing a multi-stage tax rate of 0% or 10% on all sales using the "tax credit method."[15]

	GR No. 203928 2015-07-22	CE CASECNAN WATER v. CIR LEONEN, J.
Petitioner argues that the Aichi ruling, which involved an administrative and judicial claim for refund simultaneously filed by the taxpayer, is not squarely applicable to its case.[20] Nonetheless, petitioner submits that Aichi should be revisited because there is nothing in Section 112 (c) of the Tax Code[21] stating that compliance by taxpayers with the one hundred twenty (120)- and thirty (30)-day periods is mandatory. On the other hand, unlike Section 112 (c), Section 229 of the Tax Code is allegedly explicit that compliance with the two-year period is mandatory for filing a judicial claim before the Court of Tax Appeals.[22]
	GR No. 205055 2014-07-18	CIR v. TEAM SUAL CORPORATION CARPIO, J.
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.[14]
	GR No. 194105 2014-02-05	CIR v. TEAM SUAL CORPORATION REYES, J.
In his Answer, the CIR claimed that TSC's claim for refund/tax credit should be denied, asserting that TSC failed to comply with the conditions precedent for claiming refund/tax credit of unutilized input VAT. The CIR pointed out that TSC failed to submit complete documents in support of its application for refund/tax credit contrary to Section 112 (C)[6] of the National Internal Revenue Code (NIRC).
	GR No. 175356 2013-12-03	MANILA MEMORIAL PARK v. SECRETARY OF DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL WELFARE DEL CASTILLO, J.
Petitioners also contend that the tax deduction scheme violates Article XV, Section 4[21] and Article XIII, Section 11[22] of the Constitution because it shifts the State's constitutional mandate or duty of improving the welfare of the elderly to the private sector.[23] Under the tax deduction scheme, the private sector shoulders 65% of the discount because only 35%[24] of it is actually returned by the government.[25] Consequently, the implementation of the tax deduction scheme prescribed under Section 4 of RA 9257 affects the businesses of petitioners.[26] Thus, there exists an actual case or controversy of transcendental importance which deserves judicious disposition on the merits by the highest court of the land.[27]
	GR No. 142676 2011-06-06	EMERITA MUÑOZ v. ATTY. VICTORIANO R. YABUT LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.
The prohibition in Section 19(g) of the Revised Rule on Summary Procedure is plain enough. Its further exposition is unnecessary verbiage. [62] The petition for certiorari of Samuel Go Chan and Atty. Yabut in Civil Case No. Q-94-20632 is clearly covered by the said prohibition, thus, it should have been dismissed outright by the RTC-Branch 88. While the circumstances involved in Muñoz's forcible entry case against Samuel Go Chan and Atty. Yabut are admittedly very peculiar, these are insufficient to except the petition for certiorari of Samuel Go Chan and Atty. Yabut in Civil Case No. Q-94-20632 from the prohibition. The liberality in the interpretation and application of the rules applies only in proper cases and under justifiable causes and circumstances. While it is true that litigation is not a game of technicalities, it is equally true that every case must be prosecuted in accordance with the prescribed procedure to insure an orderly and speedy administration of justice. [63]
	GR No. 158885 2009-04-02	FORT BONIFACIO DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION v. CIR TINGA, J.
(2) Public works contractors shall be allowed a presumptive input tax equivalent to one and one-half percent (1 1/2%) of the contract price with respect to government contracts only in lieu of actual input taxes therefrom.[8]
	GR Nos. 141104 & 148763 2007-06-08	ATLAS CONSOLIDATED MINING v. CIR CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
Such tax treatment of goods brought into the export processing zones are only consistent with the Destination Principle and Cross Border Doctrine to which the Philippine VAT system adheres. According to the Destination Principle,[22] goods and services are taxed only in the country where these are consumed. In connection with the said principle, the Cross Border Doctrine[23] mandates that no VAT shall be imposed to form part of the cost of the goods destined for consumption outside the territorial border of the taxing authority. Hence, actual export of goods and services from the Philippines to a foreign country must be free of VAT, while those destined for use or consumption within the Philippines shall be imposed with 10% VAT.[24] Export processing zones[25] are to be managed as a separate customs territory from the rest of the Philippines and, thus, for tax purposes, are effectively considered as foreign territory. For this reason, sales by persons from the Philippine customs territory to those inside the export processing zones are already taxed as exports.
	GR Nos. 141104 & 148763 2007-06-08	ATLAS CONSOLIDATED MINING v. CIR CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
(5) Those considered export sales under Articles 23 and 77 of Executive Order No. 226, otherwise known as the Omnibus Investments Code of 1987, and other special laws, e.g. Republic Act No. 7227, otherwise known as the Bases Conversion and Development Act of 1992. The Tax Code of 1997, as amended,[27] later adopted the foregoing definition of export sales, which are subject to 0% VAT.
	GR No. 168056 2005-09-01	CONSTITUTIONALITY OF THE VALUE ADDED TAX LAW AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.
The VAT is a tax on spending or consumption. It is levied on the sale, barter, exchange or lease of goods or properties and services.[8] Being an indirect tax on expenditure, the seller of goods or services may pass on the amount of tax paid to the buyer,[9] with the seller acting merely as a tax collector.[10] The burden of VAT is intended to fall on the immediate buyers and ultimately, the end-consumers.
	GR No. 168056 2005-09-01	CONSTITUTIONALITY OF THE VALUE ADDED TAX LAW AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.
It was only in 1987, when President Corazon C. Aquino issued Executive Order No. 273, that the VAT system was rationalized by imposing a multi-stage tax rate of 0% or 10% on all sales using the "tax credit method."[15]

BAYVIEW HOTEL v. CA