Lawyerly

GR No. 206526

2015-01-28

MENDOZA, J.

If the excess tax credits of the preceding year were deducted, whether in whole or in part, from the estimated income tax liabilities of any of the taxable quarters of the succeeding taxable year, the total amount of the tax credits deducted for the entire taxable year should appear in the Annual ITR under the item "Prior Year's Excess Credits." Otherwise, or if the tax credits were carried over to the succeeding quarters and the corporation did not report it in the annual ITR, there would be a discrepancy in the amounts of combined income and tax credits carried over for all quarters and the corporation would end up shouldering a bigger tax payable. It must be remembered that taxes computed in the quarterly returns are mere estimates. It is the annual ITR which shows the aggregate amounts of income, deductions, and credits for all quarters of the taxable year. It is the final adjustment return which shows whether a corporation incurred a loss or gained a profit during the taxable quarter.[24] Thus, the presentation of the annual ITR would suffice in proving that prior year's excess credits were not utilized for the taxable year in order to make a final determination of the total tax due.

GR No. 176697

2014-09-10

CESAR V. AREZA v. EXPRESS SAVINGS BANK

PEREZ, J.

When petitioners deposited the check with the Bank, they were designating the latter as the collecting bank. This is in consonance with the rule that a negotiable instrument, such as a check, whether a manager's check or ordinary check, is not legal tender. As such, after receiving the deposit, under its own rules, the Bank shall credit the amount in petitioners' account or infuse value thereon only after the drawee bank shall have paid the amount of the check or the check has been cleared for deposit.[25]

GR Nos. 167274-75

2013-09-11

CIR v. FORTUNE TOBACCO CORPORATION

VELASCO JR., J.

For sure, the CTA cannot, as the Commissioner argues, be faulted for denying petitioner FTC's Motion for Additional Writ of Execution filed in CTA Case Nos. 6365, 6383 and 6612 and for denying petitioner's Motion for Reconsideration for it has no power nor authority to deviate from the wording of the dispositive portion of Our July 21, 2008 Decision in G.R. Nos. 167274-75. To reiterate, the CTA simply followed the all too familiar doctrine that "when there is a conflict between the dispositive portion of the decision and the body thereof, the dispositive portion controls irrespective of what appears in the body of the decision."[15] Veering away from the fallo might even be viewed as irregular and may give rise to a charge of breach of the Code of Judicial Conduct. Nevertheless, it behooves this Court for reasons articulated earlier to grant relief to petitioner FTC by way of clarifying Our July 21, 2008 Decision. This corrective step constitutes, in the final analysis, a continuation of the proceedings in G.R. Case Nos. 167274-75. And it is the right thing to do under the premises. If the BIR, or other government taxing agencies for that matter, expects taxpayers to observe fairness, honesty, transparency and accountability in paying their taxes, it must, to borrow from BPI Family Savings Bank, Inc. v Court of Appeals[16] hold itself against the same standard in refunding excess payments or illegal exactions. As a necessary corollary, when the taxpayer's entitlement to a refund stands undisputed, the State should not misuse technicalities and legalisms, however exalted, to keep money not belonging to it.[17] As we stressed in G.R. Nos. 167274-75, the government is not exempt from the application of solutio indebiti, a basic postulate proscribing one, including the State, from enriching himself or herself at the expense of another.[18] So it must be here.

GR No. 187485

2013-02-12

CIR v. SAN ROQUE POWER CORPORATION

CARPIO, J.

G.R. No. 197156 is a petition for review[11] assailing the Decision[12] promulgated on 3 December 2010 as well as the Resolution[13] promulgated on 17 May 2011 by the CTA EB in CTA EB No. 569. The CTA EB affirmed the 20 July 2009 Decision as well as the 10 November 2009 Resolution of the CTA Second Division in CTA Case No. 7687. The CTA Second Division denied, due to prescription, Philex Mining Corporation's (Philex) judicial claim for P23,956,732.44 tax refund or credit.

GR Nos. 179045-46

2010-08-25

CIR v. SMART COMMUNICATION

DEL CASTILLO, J.

Indeed, the government has no right to retain what does not belong to it. "No one, not even the State, should enrich oneself at the expense of another."[53]

GR No. 171956

2008-01-18

STATE LAND INVESTMENT CORPORATION v. CIR

SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ, J.

In order to show that it would have been impossible for petitioner to utilize the excess credit in taxable year 1999, it attached its 1999 and 2000 annual income tax returns in its motion for reconsideration filed with the CTA. These show that petitioner incurred losses in 1999 in the amount of P33,610,028.00. Clearly, petitioner has no tax liability in 1999 to which the 1997 excess tax credits could be applied or utilized. This Court has held that if a taxpayer suffered a net loss in a subsequent year, incurring no tax liability to which a previous year's tax credit could be applied, there is no reason for the BIR to withhold the tax refund which rightfully belongs to the taxpayer.[8]

GR NO. 154068

2007-08-03

CIR v. ROSEMARIE ACOSTA

QUISUMBING, J.

Along the same vein, respondent invokes the liberal application of technicalities in tax refund cases, conformably with our ruling in BPI-Family Savings Bank, Inc. v. Court of Appeals.[14] We are, however, unable to agree with respondent's submission on this score.

GR NO. 129130

2005-12-09

FAR EAST BANK v. CA

AZCUNA, J.

The findings of fact of the CTA, a special court exercising particular expertise on the subject of tax, are generally regarded as final, binding and conclusive[8] upon this Court, especially if these are substantially similar to the findings of the CA which is normally the final arbiter of questions of fact.[9] The findings shall not be reviewed nor disturbed on appeal[10] unless a party can show that these are not supported by evidence,[11] or when the judgment is premised on a misapprehension of facts, or when the lower courts failed to notice certain relevant facts which if considered would justify a different conclusion.[12]

GR NO. 141973

2005-06-28

PHILIPPINE PHOSPHATE FERTILIZER CORPORATION v. CIR

AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.

As we pronounced in BPI-Family Savings Bank, Inc. vs. Court of Appeals:[62]

GR NO. 151857

2005-04-28

CALAMBA STEEL CENTER v. CIR

PANGANIBAN, J.

Our Rules of Court apply "by analogy or in a suppletory[18] character and whenever practicable and convenient"[19] and "shall be liberally construed in order to promote their objective of securing a just, speedy and inexpensive disposition of every action and proceeding."[20] After all, "[t]he paramount consideration remains the ascertainment of truth."[21]

GR NO. 159647

2005-04-15

CIR v. CENTRAL LUZON DRUG CORPORATION

PANGANIBAN, J.

If a net loss is reported by, and no other taxes are currently due from, a business establishment, there will obviously be no tax liability against which any tax credit can be applied.[24] For the establishment to choose the immediate availment of a tax credit will be premature and impracticable. Nevertheless, the irrefutable fact remains that, under RA 7432, Congress has granted without conditions a tax credit benefit to all covered establishments.

GR No. 143276

2004-07-20

LANDBANK OF PHILIPPINES v. SPS. VICENTE BANAL AND LEONIDAS ARENAS-BANAL

SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ, J.

"PARC Resolution 94-24-1 of 25 October 1994, implemented by DAR AO 13, granted interest on the compensation at 6% compounded annually. The compounded interest on the 46 cavans for 26 years is 199.33 cavans. At P400.00 per cavan, the value of the compounded interest is P79,732.00."[23] (emphasis added) Well-settled is the rule that courts are not authorized to take judicial notice of the contents of the records of other cases even when said cases have been tried or are pending in the same court or before the same judge.[24] They may only do so "in the absence of objection" and "with the knowledge of the opposing party,"[25] which are not obtaining here.

GR No. 147372

2004-05-27

CAEZAR Z. LANUZA v. MA. CONSUELO MUÑOZ

QUISUMBING, J.

On the basis of the records on hand, we find no cogent reason to set aside the foregoing findings and conclusions of the Court of Appeals. As a rule, the factual findings of the appellate court are binding on the Supreme Court. [14] In the instant case, as explained by the appellate court, a careful perusal of the Complaint in Civil Case No. 3749 in its entirety would show that the plaintiff's asserted basis for the ejectment suit is the alleged withdrawal of tolerance of the Lanuzas' stay in the property by Muñoz, and not the failure by the Lanuzas to pay rentals to her, as there was no lease agreed to by the parties.

	GR No. 206526 2015-01-28	WINEBRENNER v. CIR MENDOZA, J.
If the excess tax credits of the preceding year were deducted, whether in whole or in part, from the estimated income tax liabilities of any of the taxable quarters of the succeeding taxable year, the total amount of the tax credits deducted for the entire taxable year should appear in the Annual ITR under the item "Prior Year's Excess Credits." Otherwise, or if the tax credits were carried over to the succeeding quarters and the corporation did not report it in the annual ITR, there would be a discrepancy in the amounts of combined income and tax credits carried over for all quarters and the corporation would end up shouldering a bigger tax payable. It must be remembered that taxes computed in the quarterly returns are mere estimates. It is the annual ITR which shows the aggregate amounts of income, deductions, and credits for all quarters of the taxable year. It is the final adjustment return which shows whether a corporation incurred a loss or gained a profit during the taxable quarter.[24] Thus, the presentation of the annual ITR would suffice in proving that prior year's excess credits were not utilized for the taxable year in order to make a final determination of the total tax due.
	GR No. 176697 2014-09-10	CESAR V. AREZA v. EXPRESS SAVINGS BANK PEREZ, J.
When petitioners deposited the check with the Bank, they were designating the latter as the collecting bank. This is in consonance with the rule that a negotiable instrument, such as a check, whether a manager's check or ordinary check, is not legal tender. As such, after receiving the deposit, under its own rules, the Bank shall credit the amount in petitioners' account or infuse value thereon only after the drawee bank shall have paid the amount of the check or the check has been cleared for deposit.[25]
	GR Nos. 167274-75 2013-09-11	CIR v. FORTUNE TOBACCO CORPORATION VELASCO JR., J.
For sure, the CTA cannot, as the Commissioner argues, be faulted for denying petitioner FTC's Motion for Additional Writ of Execution filed in CTA Case Nos. 6365, 6383 and 6612 and for denying petitioner's Motion for Reconsideration for it has no power nor authority to deviate from the wording of the dispositive portion of Our July 21, 2008 Decision in G.R. Nos. 167274-75. To reiterate, the CTA simply followed the all too familiar doctrine that "when there is a conflict between the dispositive portion of the decision and the body thereof, the dispositive portion controls irrespective of what appears in the body of the decision."[15] Veering away from the fallo might even be viewed as irregular and may give rise to a charge of breach of the Code of Judicial Conduct. Nevertheless, it behooves this Court for reasons articulated earlier to grant relief to petitioner FTC by way of clarifying Our July 21, 2008 Decision. This corrective step constitutes, in the final analysis, a continuation of the proceedings in G.R. Case Nos. 167274-75. And it is the right thing to do under the premises. If the BIR, or other government taxing agencies for that matter, expects taxpayers to observe fairness, honesty, transparency and accountability in paying their taxes, it must, to borrow from BPI Family Savings Bank, Inc. v Court of Appeals[16] hold itself against the same standard in refunding excess payments or illegal exactions. As a necessary corollary, when the taxpayer's entitlement to a refund stands undisputed, the State should not misuse technicalities and legalisms, however exalted, to keep money not belonging to it.[17] As we stressed in G.R. Nos. 167274-75, the government is not exempt from the application of solutio indebiti, a basic postulate proscribing one, including the State, from enriching himself or herself at the expense of another.[18] So it must be here.
	GR No. 187485 2013-02-12	CIR v. SAN ROQUE POWER CORPORATION CARPIO, J.
G.R. No. 197156 is a petition for review[11] assailing the Decision[12] promulgated on 3 December 2010 as well as the Resolution[13] promulgated on 17 May 2011 by the CTA EB in CTA EB No. 569. The CTA EB affirmed the 20 July 2009 Decision as well as the 10 November 2009 Resolution of the CTA Second Division in CTA Case No. 7687. The CTA Second Division denied, due to prescription, Philex Mining Corporation's (Philex) judicial claim for P23,956,732.44 tax refund or credit.
	GR Nos. 179045-46 2010-08-25	CIR v. SMART COMMUNICATION DEL CASTILLO, J.
Indeed, the government has no right to retain what does not belong to it. "No one, not even the State, should enrich oneself at the expense of another."[53]
	GR No. 171956 2008-01-18	STATE LAND INVESTMENT CORPORATION v. CIR SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ, J.
In order to show that it would have been impossible for petitioner to utilize the excess credit in taxable year 1999, it attached its 1999 and 2000 annual income tax returns in its motion for reconsideration filed with the CTA. These show that petitioner incurred losses in 1999 in the amount of P33,610,028.00. Clearly, petitioner has no tax liability in 1999 to which the 1997 excess tax credits could be applied or utilized. This Court has held that if a taxpayer suffered a net loss in a subsequent year, incurring no tax liability to which a previous year's tax credit could be applied, there is no reason for the BIR to withhold the tax refund which rightfully belongs to the taxpayer.[8]
	GR NO. 154068 2007-08-03	CIR v. ROSEMARIE ACOSTA QUISUMBING, J.
Along the same vein, respondent invokes the liberal application of technicalities in tax refund cases, conformably with our ruling in BPI-Family Savings Bank, Inc. v. Court of Appeals.[14] We are, however, unable to agree with respondent's submission on this score.
	GR NO. 129130 2005-12-09	FAR EAST BANK v. CA AZCUNA, J.
The findings of fact of the CTA, a special court exercising particular expertise on the subject of tax, are generally regarded as final, binding and conclusive[8] upon this Court, especially if these are substantially similar to the findings of the CA which is normally the final arbiter of questions of fact.[9] The findings shall not be reviewed nor disturbed on appeal[10] unless a party can show that these are not supported by evidence,[11] or when the judgment is premised on a misapprehension of facts, or when the lower courts failed to notice certain relevant facts which if considered would justify a different conclusion.[12]
	GR NO. 141973 2005-06-28	PHILIPPINE PHOSPHATE FERTILIZER CORPORATION v. CIR AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.
As we pronounced in BPI-Family Savings Bank, Inc. vs. Court of Appeals:[62]
	GR NO. 151857 2005-04-28	CALAMBA STEEL CENTER v. CIR PANGANIBAN, J.
Our Rules of Court apply "by analogy or in a suppletory[18] character and whenever practicable and convenient"[19] and "shall be liberally construed in order to promote their objective of securing a just, speedy and inexpensive disposition of every action and proceeding."[20] After all, "[t]he paramount consideration remains the ascertainment of truth."[21]
	GR NO. 159647 2005-04-15	CIR v. CENTRAL LUZON DRUG CORPORATION PANGANIBAN, J.
If a net loss is reported by, and no other taxes are currently due from, a business establishment, there will obviously be no tax liability against which any tax credit can be applied.[24] For the establishment to choose the immediate availment of a tax credit will be premature and impracticable. Nevertheless, the irrefutable fact remains that, under RA 7432, Congress has granted without conditions a tax credit benefit to all covered establishments.
	GR No. 143276 2004-07-20	LANDBANK OF PHILIPPINES v. SPS. VICENTE BANAL AND LEONIDAS ARENAS-BANAL SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ, J.
"PARC Resolution 94-24-1 of 25 October 1994, implemented by DAR AO 13, granted interest on the compensation at 6% compounded annually. The compounded interest on the 46 cavans for 26 years is 199.33 cavans. At P400.00 per cavan, the value of the compounded interest is P79,732.00."[23] (emphasis added) Well-settled is the rule that courts are not authorized to take judicial notice of the contents of the records of other cases even when said cases have been tried or are pending in the same court or before the same judge.[24] They may only do so "in the absence of objection" and "with the knowledge of the opposing party,"[25] which are not obtaining here.
	GR No. 147372 2004-05-27	CAEZAR Z. LANUZA v. MA. CONSUELO MUÑOZ QUISUMBING, J.
On the basis of the records on hand, we find no cogent reason to set aside the foregoing findings and conclusions of the Court of Appeals. As a rule, the factual findings of the appellate court are binding on the Supreme Court. [14] In the instant case, as explained by the appellate court, a careful perusal of the Complaint in Civil Case No. 3749 in its entirety would show that the plaintiff's asserted basis for the ejectment suit is the alleged withdrawal of tolerance of the Lanuzas' stay in the property by Muñoz, and not the failure by the Lanuzas to pay rentals to her, as there was no lease agreed to by the parties.

BPI-FAMILY SAVINGS BANK v. CA