Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

PHILIPPINE PHOSPHATE FERTILIZER CORPORATION v. CIR

This case has been cited 5 times or more.

	GR No. 168856 2012-08-29	EASTERN TELECOMMUNICATIONS PHILIPPINES v. CIR MENDOZA, J.
ETPI should be reminded of the well-established rule that tax refunds, which are in the nature of tax exemptions, are construed strictly against the taxpayer and liberally in favor of the government. This is because taxes are the lifeblood of the nation. Thus, the burden of proof is upon the claimant of the tax refund to prove the factual basis of his claim.[26] Unfortunately, ETPI failed to discharge this burden.
	GR No. 178090 2010-02-08	PANASONIC COMMUNICATIONS IMAGING CORPORATION OF PHILIPPINES v. CIR ABAD, J.
This Court will not set aside lightly the conclusions reached by the CTA which, by the very nature of its functions, is dedicated exclusively to the resolution of tax problems and has accordingly developed an expertise on the subject, unless there has been an abuse or improvident exercise of authority.[17] Besides, statutes that grant tax exemptions are construed strictissimi juris against the taxpayer and liberally in favor of the taxing authority. Tax refunds in relation to the VAT are in the nature of such exemptions. The general rule is that claimants of tax refunds bear the burden of proving the factual basis of their claims. Taxes are the lifeblood of the nation. Therefore, statutes that allow exemptions are construed strictly against the grantee and liberally in favor of the government.[18]
	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. 167003 2006-10-23	PANFILO A. ABAIGAR v. JESUS A. ABAIGAR CARPIO-MORALES, J.
SEC.3. Effect of failure to comply with requirements. â"€ The failure of the petitioner to comply with any of the foregoing requirements regarding the payment of the docket and other lawful fees, the deposit for costs, proof of service of the petition, and the contents of and the documents which should accompany the petition shall be sufficient ground for the dismissal thereof. (Italics in the original; emphasis supplied) A certification by counsel and not by the principal party himself is no certification at all.[4] It is a defective certification which is tantamount to non-compliance with the requirement prescribed by the Rules of Court and constitutes a valid cause for the dismissal of the petition.[5] This is because it is the petitioner and not the counsel who is in the best position to know whether he actually filed or caused the filing of the petition.[6] The appellate court, strictly speaking, was, therefore, correct when it dismissed the petition in this case. There have been instances, however, that the Rule on the matter has been relaxed.
	GR NO. 168498 2006-06-16	RIZAL COMMERCIAL BANKING CORPORATION v. CIR YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.
Negligence to be "excusable" must be one which ordinary diligence and prudence could not have guarded against and by reason of which the rights of an aggrieved party have probably been impaired.[23] Petitioner's former counsel's omission could hardly be characterized as excusable, much less unavoidable.