BIR Ruling No. 054-10

September 15, 2010 BIR RULING NO. 054-10 Section 3 of RA No. 9485; RMO No. 12-93 Mr. Danilo A. Lihaylihay 25 Kaunlaran Street, Batasan Hills Quezon City Sir : This has reference to your letter dated June 15, 2010 requesting the processing of the payment of your alleged informer's reward amounting to Php54,375,886.26 within ten (10) working days from receipt, pursuant to Republic Act (RA) No. 9485 and its implementing rules and regulations. Your claim stemmed from the compromise payments made by Bank of America (BA) on its internal revenue tax case for taxable year 1995 and prior years under Confidential Information (CI) No. 76-95. In reply, we regret to inform you that your request cannot be given due course. Please be informed that your reliance on the provisions of RA 9485 and its Implementing Rules and Regulations as to the processing of claim of informer's reward is misplaced. Section 3 of RA No. 9485 (otherwise known as the "Anti-Red Tape Act of 2007") particularly excludes those government offices which perform judicial, quasi-judicial and legislative functions. Section 3 provides: SEC. 3. Coverage. This Act shall apply to all government offices and agencies including local government units and government-owned or -controlled corporations that provide frontline services as defined in this Act. Those performing judicial, quasi-judicial and legislative functions are excluded from the coverage of this Act. (emphasis supplied) AHDacC In Midland Insurance Corporation vs. IAC (143 SCRA 458, 462 [1986]) , the Supreme Court has defined the function of a quasi-judicial body as "a term which applies to the action, discretion, etc., of public administrative officers or bodies, who are required to investigate facts, hold hearings, and draw conclusions from them, as a basis for their official actions and to exercise discretion of a judicial nature." It must be stressed that the Legal Service of the BIR and its divisions and sections are performing quasi-judicial functions, which removes them from the ambit of Section 2 (g) Rule II and Section 2 (4) Rule VI of the Implementing Rules and Regulations (IRR) of RA No. 9485, requiring the processing of requests within the period of ten (10) working days in the case of complex transactions from the time the request or application was received. Moreover, you have already been notified through a letter dated November 17, 2007 issued by the Assistant Commissioner, Legal Service that your claim could not be granted since the information was not instrumental in the collection of taxes and the supplemental denunciation did not comply with the requirements of Revenue Memorandum Order (RMO) No. 12-93, as it was not subscribed before the Law Division, this Bureau, which would entitle you to the corresponding reward. The afore-stated letter was issued based on Memorandum dated April 23, 2007 issued by Gregorio V. Cabantac, then Deputy Commissioner for Legal and Inspection Group. In view of the foregoing, your request for informer's reward cannot be granted. TDCAHE Please be guided accordingly. Very truly yours, (SGD.) KIM S. JACINTO-HENARES Commissioner of Internal Revenue