J.A.B. Bulao & Associates

CASE 2014-0015: PROCTER & GAMBLE ASIA PTE LTD., Petitioner, – versus – COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent (G.R. No. 202071, 19 FEBRUARY 2014, SERENO, CJ.) (BRIEF TITLE: PROCTER & GAMBLE VS. CIR).

DISPOSITIVE:

“WHEREFORE, the petition is GRANTED. The Decision and Resolution of the Court of Tax Appeals En Banc in CTA EB No. 746 are REVERSED and SET ASIDE. This case is hereby REMANDED to the CTA  First Division for further proceedings and a determination of whether the claims of petitioner for refund or tax credit of unutilized input value- added tax are valid.

SO ORDERED.”

SUBJECTS/DOCTRINES:

“On 3 June 2013, we required 12 respondent to submit its Comment, which it filed on 4 December 2013. Citing the recent case CIR v. San Roque Power Corporation, respondent counters that the 120-day period to file judicial claims for a refund or tax credit is mandatory and jurisdictional. Failure to comply with the waiting period violates the doctrine of exhaustion of administrative remedies, rendering the judicial claim premature. Thus, the CTA does not acquire jurisdiction over the judicial claim.

Respondent is correct on this score. However, it fails to mention that San Roque also recognized the validity of BIR Ruling No. DA-489-03. The ruling expressly states that the “taxpayer-claimant need not wait for the lapse of the 120-day period before it could seek judicial relief with the CTA by way of Petition for Review.

The Court, in San Roque, ruled that equitable estoppel had set in when respondent issued BIR Ruling No. DA-489-03. This was a general interpretative rule, which effectively misled all taxpayers into filing premature judicial claims with the CTA. Thus, taxpayers could rely on the ruling from its issuance on 10 December 2003 up to its reversal on 6 October 2010, when CIR v. Aichi Forging Company of Asia, lnc. 16 was promulgated.”

TO READ THE DECISION, JUST CLICK/DOWNLOAD THE FILE BELOW.

SCD-2014-0015-FEB 2014-PROCTER & GAMBLE

CASE 2014-0014: SILICON PHILIPPINES, INC., (formerly Intel Philippines Manufacturing, Inc.), Petitioner,  – versus – COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent (G.R. No.184360 & 184361); COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Petitioner, – versus – SILICON PHILIPPINES, INC.,  (G .R. No. 184384) ( 19 FEBRUARY2014, VILLARAMA, JR., J.) (BRIEF TITLE: SILICON PHILIPPINES VS. CIR)

DISPOSITIVE:

“WHEREFORE, the assailed February 18, 2008 Decision and September 2, 2008 Resolution of the Court of Tax Appeals En Banc in CTA E.B. No. 219 and the assailed February 20, 2008 Decision and September 2, 2008 Resolution of the Court of Tax Appe~ls En Banc in CTA E.B. No. 209 are REVERSED and SET ASIDE. Silicon’s judicial claims for refund for the 1st quarter of 1999 and the 2nd quarter of 2000 through its petitions for review docketed as CTA  Case Nos. 6263 and 6493 filed with the Court of Tax Appeals are hereby DISMISSED for having been filed out of time.

No pronouncement as to costs.

SO ORDERED.”

TO READ THE DECISION, JUST CLICK/DOWNLOAD THE FILE BELOW.

SCD-2014-0014-FEB 2014-SILICON

CASE 2014-0013: EMILIO A. GONZALES III, , Petitioner, -versus- OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE PHILIPPINES, ACTING THROUGH AND REPRESENTED BY EXECUTIVE SECRETARY PAQUITO N. OCHOA, JR., SENIOR DEPUTY EXECUTIVE SECRETARY JOSE AMOR M. AMORANDO, OFFICER-IN-CHARGE – OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY EXECUTIVE SECRETARY FOR LEGAL AFFAIRS, ATTY. RONALDO A. GERON, DIR. ROWENA TURIN GAN-SANCHEZ, AND ATTY. CARLITO D. CATA YONG, Respondents. (G.R. NO. 196231);WENDELL BARRERAS-SULIT Petitioner, -versus- ATTY. PAQUITO N. OCHOA, JR., IN HIS CAPACITY AS EXECUTIVE SECRETARY, OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT, ATTY. DENNIS F. ORTIZ, ATTY. CARLO D. SULAY AND ATTY. FROILAND. MONTALBAN, JR., IN THEIR CAPACITIES AS CHAIRMAN AND MEMBERS OF OFFICE OF MALACANANG LEGAL AFFAIRS, Respondents (G.R. NO. 196232) ( 28 JANUARY 2014, BRION, J.)

DISPOSITIVE:

“III. SUMMARY OF VOTING

In the voting held on January 28, 2014, by a vote of 8-7, 108 the Court resolved to reverse its September 4, 2012 Decision insofar as petitioner Gonzales is concerned (G.R. No. 196231). We declared Section 8(2) of RA No. 6770 unconstitutional by granting disciplinary jurisdiction to the President over a Deputy Ombudsman, in violation of the independence of the Office of the Ombudsman.

However, by another vote of 8-7, 109 the Court resolved to maintain the validity of Section 8(2) of RA No. 6770 insofar as Sulit is concerned. The Court did not consider the Office of the Special Prosecutor to be constitutionally within the Office of the Ombudsman and is, hence, not entitled to the independence the latter enjoys under the Constitution.

WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Court resolves to declare Section 8(2) UNCONSTITUTIONAL. This ruling renders any further ruling on the dismissal of Deputy Ombudsman Emilio Gonzales III unnecessary, but is without prejudice to the power of the Ombudsman to conduct an administrative investigation, if warranted, into the possible administrative liability of Deputy Ombudsman Emilio Gonzales III under pertinent Civil Service laws, rules and regulations.

SO ORDERED.”

TO READ THE DECISION, JUST CLICK/DOWNLOAD THE FILE BELOW.

SCD-2014-0013-JAN 2014-TRO-EMILIO GONZALES AND WENDELL SULIT