Lawyerly

GR No. 197515

2014-07-02

PERALTA, J.

While we concur with petitioner that the CTA is not governed strictly by technical rules of evidence, as rules of procedure are not ends in themselves but are primarily intended as tools in the administration of justice,[36] the presentation of PANs as evidence of the taxpayer's liability is not mere procedural technicality. It is a means by which a taxpayer is informed of his liability for deficiency taxes. It serves as basis for the taxpayer to answer the notices, present his case and adduce supporting evidence.[37] More so, the same is the only means by which the CTA may ascertain and verify the truth of respondent's claims. We are, therefore, constrained to apply our ruling in Heirs of Pedro Pasag v. Spouses Parocha,[38] viz.: x x x. A formal offer is necessary because judges are mandated to rest their findings of facts and their judgment only and strictly upon the evidence offered by the parties at the trial. Its function is to enable the trial judge to know the purpose or purposes for which the proponent is presenting the evidence. On the other hand, this allows opposing parties to examine the evidence and object to its admissibility. Moreover, it facilitates review as the appellate court will not be required to review documents not previously scrutinized by the trial court.

GR No. 190818

2013-06-05

METRO MANILA SHOPPING MECCA CORP. v. MS. LIBERTY M. TOLEDO

PERLAS-BERNABE, J.

The exception to this rule is when the party to whom such request for admission is served had already controverted the matters subject of such request in an earlier pleading. Otherwise stated, if the matters in a request for admission have already been admitted or denied in previous pleadings by the requested party, the latter cannot be compelled to admit or deny them anew. In turn, the requesting party cannot reasonably expect a response to the request and thereafter, assume or even demand the application of the implied admission rule in Section 2, Rule 26.45 The rationale behind this exception had been discussed in the case of CIR v. Manila Mining Corporation,[46] citing Concrete Aggregates Corporation v. CA,[47] where the Court held as follows: As Concrete Aggregates Corporation v. Court of Appeals holds, admissions by an adverse party as a mode of discovery contemplates of interrogatories that would clarify and tend to shed light on the truth or falsity of the allegations in a pleading, and does not refer to a mere reiteration of what has already been alleged in the pleadings; otherwise, it constitutes an utter redundancy and will be a useless, pointless process which petitioner should not be subjected to.

GR No. 157549

2011-05-30

DONNINA C. HALLEY v. PRINTWELL

BERSAMIN, J.

A receipt is the written acknowledgment of the fact of payment in money or other settlement between the seller and the buyer of goods, the debtor or the creditor, or the person rendering services, and the client or the customer.[43] Although a receipt is the best evidence of the fact of payment, it isnot conclusive, but merely presumptive; nor is it exclusive evidence, considering that parole evidence may also establish the fact of payment.[44]

GR No. 181858

2010-11-24

KEPCO PHILIPPINES CORPORATION v. CIR

MENDOZA, J.

In other words, the VAT invoice is the seller's best proof of the sale of the goods or services to the buyer while the VAT receipt is the buyer's best evidence of the payment of goods or services received from the seller. Even though VAT invoices and receipts are normally issued by the supplier/seller alone, the said invoices and receipts, taken collectively, are necessary to substantiate the actual amount or quantity of goods sold and their selling price (proof of transaction), and the best means to prove the input VAT payments (proof of payment).[46] Hence, VAT invoice and VAT receipt should not be confused as referring to one and the same thing. Certainly, neither does the law intend the two to be used alternatively.

GR No. 174212

2010-10-20

HITACHI GLOBAL STORAGE TECHNOLOGIES PHILIPPINES CORP. v. CIR

CARPIO, J.

Being a specialized court, the CTA has necessarily developed an expertise in the subject of taxation that this Court has recognized time and again.[14] For this reason, the findings of fact of the CTA are generally conclusive on this Court absent grave abuse of discretion or palpable error, which are not present in this case.[15]

GR No. 179356

2009-12-14

KEPCO PHILIPPINES CORPORATION v. CIR

CARPIO MORALES, J.

It is settled that tax refunds are in the nature of tax exemptions. Laws granting exemptions are construed strictissimi juris against the taxpayer and liberally in favor of the taxing authority.[5] Where the taxpayer claims a refund, the CTA as a court of record is required to conduct a formal trial (trial de novo) to prove every minute aspect of the claim.[6]

GR No. 158621

2008-12-10

ROYAL CARGO CORPORATION v. DFS SPORTS UNLIMITED

AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.

In Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Manila Mining Corporation,[40] "sales or commercial invoice" is defined as a written account of goods sold or services rendered indicating the prices charged therefor or a list by whatever name it is known which is used in the ordinary course of business evidencing sale and transfer or agreement to sell or transfer goods and services. On the other hand, the same case defines "receipt" as a written acknowledgment of the fact of payment in money or other settlement between seller and buyer of goods, debtor or creditor, or person rendering services, and client or customer.[41]

GR No. 146221

2007-09-25

ATLAS CONSOLIDATED MINING v. CIR

CARPIO, J.

Thus, in Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Manila Mining Corporation,[6] the Court held:There is nothing, however, in CTA Circular No. 1-95, as amended by CTA Circular No. 10-97, which either expressly or impliedly suggests that summaries and schedules of input VAT payments, even if certified by an independent CPA, suffice as evidence of input VAT payments.

GR Nos. 141104 & 148763

2007-06-08

ATLAS CONSOLIDATED MINING v. CIR

CHICO-NAZARIO, J.

In Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Manila Mining Corporation,[35] this Court denied the claim of therein respondent, Manila Mining Corporation, for refund of the input VAT on its supposed zero-rated sales of gold to the CBP because it was unable to substantiate its claim. In the same case, this Court emphasized the importance of complying with the substantiation requirements for claiming refund/credit of input VAT on zero-rated sales, to wit For a judicial claim for refund to prosper, however, respondent must not only prove that it is a VAT registered entity and that it filed its claims within the prescriptive period. It must substantiate the input VAT paid by purchase invoices or official receipts.

GR NO. 145526

2007-03-16

ATLAS CONSOLIDATED MINING v. CIR

CORONA, J.

Petitioner's second proposition must be rejected as well. In Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Manila Mining Corporation,[16] we ruled on a similar argument:There is nothing in CTA Circular No. 1-95, as amended by CTA Circular No. 10-97, which either expressly or impliedly suggests that summaries and schedules of input VAT payments, even if certified by an independent CPA, suffice as evidence of input VAT payments.

GR No. 147806

2002-11-12

NERISSA BUENVIAJE v. CA

PUNO, J.

reinstatement. Again, private respondents' reinstatement is no longer possible because of the supervening event which is their valid termination. The deliberate failure to report for work after notice to return bars reinstatement. It would be unjust and inequitable then to require petitioner to pay private respondents their backwages even after the latter were validly terminated when in fact petitioner dutifully complied with the reinstatement aspect of the decision. Thus, the period within which the monetary award of private respondents should be based is limited up to the time of private respondents' receipt of the respective notices of termination on August 27, 1998."[17] The Court of Appeals denied petitioners' motion for reconsideration in a Resolution issued on February 13, 2001.[18]

	GR No. 197515 2014-07-02	CIR v. UNITED SALVAGE PERALTA, J.
While we concur with petitioner that the CTA is not governed strictly by technical rules of evidence, as rules of procedure are not ends in themselves but are primarily intended as tools in the administration of justice,[36] the presentation of PANs as evidence of the taxpayer's liability is not mere procedural technicality. It is a means by which a taxpayer is informed of his liability for deficiency taxes. It serves as basis for the taxpayer to answer the notices, present his case and adduce supporting evidence.[37] More so, the same is the only means by which the CTA may ascertain and verify the truth of respondent's claims. We are, therefore, constrained to apply our ruling in Heirs of Pedro Pasag v. Spouses Parocha,[38] viz.: x x x. A formal offer is necessary because judges are mandated to rest their findings of facts and their judgment only and strictly upon the evidence offered by the parties at the trial. Its function is to enable the trial judge to know the purpose or purposes for which the proponent is presenting the evidence. On the other hand, this allows opposing parties to examine the evidence and object to its admissibility. Moreover, it facilitates review as the appellate court will not be required to review documents not previously scrutinized by the trial court.
	GR No. 190818 2013-06-05	METRO MANILA SHOPPING MECCA CORP. v. MS. LIBERTY M. TOLEDO PERLAS-BERNABE, J.
The exception to this rule is when the party to whom such request for admission is served had already controverted the matters subject of such request in an earlier pleading. Otherwise stated, if the matters in a request for admission have already been admitted or denied in previous pleadings by the requested party, the latter cannot be compelled to admit or deny them anew. In turn, the requesting party cannot reasonably expect a response to the request and thereafter, assume or even demand the application of the implied admission rule in Section 2, Rule 26.45 The rationale behind this exception had been discussed in the case of CIR v. Manila Mining Corporation,[46] citing Concrete Aggregates Corporation v. CA,[47] where the Court held as follows: As Concrete Aggregates Corporation v. Court of Appeals holds, admissions by an adverse party as a mode of discovery contemplates of interrogatories that would clarify and tend to shed light on the truth or falsity of the allegations in a pleading, and does not refer to a mere reiteration of what has already been alleged in the pleadings; otherwise, it constitutes an utter redundancy and will be a useless, pointless process which petitioner should not be subjected to.
	GR No. 157549 2011-05-30	DONNINA C. HALLEY v. PRINTWELL BERSAMIN, J.
A receipt is the written acknowledgment of the fact of payment in money or other settlement between the seller and the buyer of goods, the debtor or the creditor, or the person rendering services, and the client or the customer.[43] Although a receipt is the best evidence of the fact of payment, it isnot conclusive, but merely presumptive; nor is it exclusive evidence, considering that parole evidence may also establish the fact of payment.[44]
	GR No. 181858 2010-11-24	KEPCO PHILIPPINES CORPORATION v. CIR MENDOZA, J.
In other words, the VAT invoice is the seller's best proof of the sale of the goods or services to the buyer while the VAT receipt is the buyer's best evidence of the payment of goods or services received from the seller. Even though VAT invoices and receipts are normally issued by the supplier/seller alone, the said invoices and receipts, taken collectively, are necessary to substantiate the actual amount or quantity of goods sold and their selling price (proof of transaction), and the best means to prove the input VAT payments (proof of payment).[46] Hence, VAT invoice and VAT receipt should not be confused as referring to one and the same thing. Certainly, neither does the law intend the two to be used alternatively.
	GR No. 174212 2010-10-20	HITACHI GLOBAL STORAGE TECHNOLOGIES PHILIPPINES CORP. v. CIR CARPIO, J.
Being a specialized court, the CTA has necessarily developed an expertise in the subject of taxation that this Court has recognized time and again.[14] For this reason, the findings of fact of the CTA are generally conclusive on this Court absent grave abuse of discretion or palpable error, which are not present in this case.[15]
	GR No. 179356 2009-12-14	KEPCO PHILIPPINES CORPORATION v. CIR CARPIO MORALES, J.
It is settled that tax refunds are in the nature of tax exemptions. Laws granting exemptions are construed strictissimi juris against the taxpayer and liberally in favor of the taxing authority.[5] Where the taxpayer claims a refund, the CTA as a court of record is required to conduct a formal trial (trial de novo) to prove every minute aspect of the claim.[6]
	GR No. 158621 2008-12-10	ROYAL CARGO CORPORATION v. DFS SPORTS UNLIMITED AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.
In Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Manila Mining Corporation,[40] "sales or commercial invoice" is defined as a written account of goods sold or services rendered indicating the prices charged therefor or a list by whatever name it is known which is used in the ordinary course of business evidencing sale and transfer or agreement to sell or transfer goods and services. On the other hand, the same case defines "receipt" as a written acknowledgment of the fact of payment in money or other settlement between seller and buyer of goods, debtor or creditor, or person rendering services, and client or customer.[41]
	GR No. 146221 2007-09-25	ATLAS CONSOLIDATED MINING v. CIR CARPIO, J.
Thus, in Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Manila Mining Corporation,[6] the Court held:There is nothing, however, in CTA Circular No. 1-95, as amended by CTA Circular No. 10-97, which either expressly or impliedly suggests that summaries and schedules of input VAT payments, even if certified by an independent CPA, suffice as evidence of input VAT payments.
	GR Nos. 141104 & 148763 2007-06-08	ATLAS CONSOLIDATED MINING v. CIR CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
In Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Manila Mining Corporation,[35] this Court denied the claim of therein respondent, Manila Mining Corporation, for refund of the input VAT on its supposed zero-rated sales of gold to the CBP because it was unable to substantiate its claim. In the same case, this Court emphasized the importance of complying with the substantiation requirements for claiming refund/credit of input VAT on zero-rated sales, to wit For a judicial claim for refund to prosper, however, respondent must not only prove that it is a VAT registered entity and that it filed its claims within the prescriptive period. It must substantiate the input VAT paid by purchase invoices or official receipts.
	GR NO. 145526 2007-03-16	ATLAS CONSOLIDATED MINING v. CIR CORONA, J.
Petitioner's second proposition must be rejected as well. In Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Manila Mining Corporation,[16] we ruled on a similar argument:There is nothing in CTA Circular No. 1-95, as amended by CTA Circular No. 10-97, which either expressly or impliedly suggests that summaries and schedules of input VAT payments, even if certified by an independent CPA, suffice as evidence of input VAT payments.
	GR No. 147806 2002-11-12	NERISSA BUENVIAJE v. CA PUNO, J.
reinstatement. Again, private respondents' reinstatement is no longer possible because of the supervening event which is their valid termination. The deliberate failure to report for work after notice to return bars reinstatement. It would be unjust and inequitable then to require petitioner to pay private respondents their backwages even after the latter were validly terminated when in fact petitioner dutifully complied with the reinstatement aspect of the decision. Thus, the period within which the monetary award of private respondents should be based is limited up to the time of private respondents' receipt of the respective notices of termination on August 27, 1998."[17] The Court of Appeals denied petitioners' motion for reconsideration in a Resolution issued on February 13, 2001.[18]

CIR v. MANILA MINING CORPORATION