Lafarge Holdings (Philippines), Inc. v. City of Taguig

THIRD DIVISION [C.T.A. AC NO. 227. July 24, 2020.] (Civil Case No. 446) LAFARGE HOLDINGS (PHILIPPINES), INC. , petitioner , vs . THE CITY OF TAGUIG AND ATTY. J. VOLTAIRE L. ENRIQUEZ, IN HIS CAPACITY AS THE CITY TREASURER OF THE CITY OF TAGUIG , respondents . DECISION RINGPIS-LIBAN , J p : The Case The instant Petition for Review 1 seeks to reverse and set aside the Orders dated May 10, 2019 2 and July 22, 2019 3 ("Assailed Orders"), both rendered by Regional Trial Court ("RTC") of Taguig-Branch 153 in Civil Case No. 446, entitled " Lafarge Holdings (Philippines), Inc., Petitioner, versus The City of Taguig and Atty. J. Voltaire L. Enriquez, in his capacity as the City Treasurer of the City of Taguig, Respondents ," the dispositive portions of which respectively read: HTcADC Order dated May 10, 2019 : "WHEREFORE, foregoing considered, [Respondents'] Motion to Dismiss is GRANTED. Accordingly, the instant case is hereby DISMISSED . SO ORDERED." Order dated July 22, 2019 : "WHEREFORE, foregoing considered, [Petitioner's] Motion for Reconsideration is hereby Denied. [sic] SO ORDERED." The Facts Petitioner Lafarge Holdings Philippines, Inc. is a domestic corporation organized and existing under the laws of the Philippines, with principal office located at Net Lima, Unit 10-A, The Net Metropolis, 5th Avenue corner 26th Street, E-Square Crescent Park West, Bonifacio Global City, Taguig City. 4 On the other hand, Respondent Taguig City is a local government unit created by law, 5 with address at Taguig City Hall, General Antonio Luna St., Taguig City, Metro Manila. Respondent Atty. J. Voltaire L. Enriquez is the incumbent Acting City Treasurer of Taguig City empowered to perform the duties of said office, including inter alia , the collection of all local taxes, fees and charges. He holds office at the City Treasurer's Office, Taguig City Hall, General Antonio Luna St., Taguig City, Metro Manila. 6 On April 04, 2018, in connection with Petitioner's renewal of its business permit and licenses for calendar year 2018. Respondent Taguig City, through its Business Permit and Licensing Office ("BPLO"), issued a Billing Statement 7 assessing Petitioner of local business taxes ("LBT") amounting to Php1,030,846.84, based on a "2nd Quarter Gross" income of Php8,246,773,092.00 ("Second Quarter LBT"). 8 Petitioner paid the same on April 19, 2018, as evidenced by Official Receipt No. A-3919873 9 issued by Respondent City Treasurer. 10 On May 30, 2018, Petitioner filed an administrative claim 11 for refund with Respondent City Treasurer for the Second Quarter LBT. 12 On June 11, 2018, Respondent Taguig City, through its BPLO, issued another Billing Statement 13 for Third Quarter LBT amounting to Php1,030,846.84; based on a "3rd Quarter Gross" income of Php8,246,773,092.00 ("Third Quarter LBT"). 14 Petitioner paid the same on July 13, 2018, as evidenced by Official Receipt No. A-4001846 15 issued by Respondent City Treasurer. 16 On August 03, 2018, Petitioner filed another administrative claim 17 for refund with Respondent City Treasurer to contest the Third Quarter LBT. 18 On November 08, 2018, Petitioner filed before the RTC a "Petition for Refund" 19 for the Second Quarter LBT and Third Quarter LBT, amounting to a total of Php2,061,693.28, 20 which was raffled to RTC of Taguig-Branch 153, and was docketed as Civil Case No. 446. On February 08, 2019, Respondents filed their "Motion to Dismiss," 21 praying that the "Petition for Refund" be dismissed for the following grounds: (1) Petitioner failed to satisfy the twin requirements imposed in City of Manila, et al. v. Cosmos Bottling Corporation 22 ("Cosmos Bottling") failure to assail within sixty (60) days the assessment before the local treasurer and to bring an action in court within thirty (30) days from decision or inaction of the local treasurer; (2) the petition has no cause of action; and (3) the claim set forth in the petition has been extinguished or abandoned. CAIHTE Petitioner filed its "Comment/Opposition (Re: Respondents' Motion to Dismiss dated February 5, 2019)" 23 on February 22, 2019, arguing that the periods provided for under Section 195 24 of the Local Government Code ("LGC") of 1991 only apply in cases where there is an assessment made by the City Treasurer; that in the instant case, there was no assessment made or issued, but only billing statements which is not the "assessment" contemplated of under the law; that Section 196 is applicable in the instant claim for refund of erroneously paid LBT; and that Respondents may not lawfully levy LBT on the income of Petitioner, including dividend income, of entities which are not banks or financial institutions. Respondents then filed a "Reply Re: Comment to Motion to Dismiss" 25 on March 08, 2019. On May 10, 2019, RTC of Taguig-Branch 153 rendered the assailed Order granting Respondents' "Motion to Dismiss." The court stated that for failure to pay the assessments within the six (6)-day period from their receipt, the assessments already became final and executory and it may no longer be disputed. Not satisfied with the Order, Petitioner filed a "Motion for Reconsideration (Order dated May 10, 2019)" 26 ("Motion for Reconsideration") on June 10, 2019. Respondents filed their "Comment Re: Motion for Reconsideration" 27 on July 08, 2019, while Petitioner filed its "Reply (Re: Comment dated July 1, 2019)" 28 on July 22, 2019. In the assailed Order dated July 22, 2019, the Court a quo denied Petitioner's Motion for Reconsideration for lack of merit. The court ruled that the grant of "Motion to Dismiss" was proper. Petitioner's judicial claim was filed out of time, that is, beyond the thirty (30)-day period from inaction of the local treasurer. Undeterred, Petitioner filed the instant "Petition for Review" 29 with this Court on September 05, 2019, praying for: (1) reversal of the Orders dated May 10, 2019 and July 22, 2019, and (2) granting Petitioner's claim for refund of erroneously paid alleged deficiency LBT in the total amount of Php2,061,693.28. Without necessarily giving due course to the said Petition, Respondents were directed by this Court to file their comment thereon, per Resolution dated September 25, 2019. 30 In the same Resolution, the Branch Clerk of Court of RTC of Taguig-Branch 153 was directed to elevate the entire original records of Civil Case No. 446. The Branch Clerk of Court of RTC of Taguig-Branch 153 transmitted the original records of the case on October 24, 2019, 31 while Respondents filed their "Comment" on November 13, 2019. 32 On November 15, 2019, the instant case was submitted for decision. 33 The Issues The following issues 34 were raised by Petitioner for this Court's resolution: 1. Whether or not RTC of Taguig-Branch 153 gravely erred when it dismissed the "Petition for Refund" on the basis of a non-existent "six-day period" rule and Section 195; 2. Whether or not RTC of Taguig-Branch 153 gravely erred when it held that Petitioner's remedy is to file a claim pursuant to Section 195, instead of claiming for refund or tax credit under Section 196; and 3. Whether or not RTC of Taguig-Branch 153 erred when it dismissed Petitioner's "Petition for Refund" in the amount of Php2,061,693.28. Petitioner's Arguments Petitioner contends that there was no valid and legal basis for the dismissal of its "Petition for Refund." There was no assessment to speak of that would be subject to the procedure under Section 195. Since the Billing Statements for the Second Quarter LBT and Third Quarter LBT are not valid assessments, the applicable law in resolving its petition with the Court a quo is Section 196. Petitioner stresses that it sufficiently complied the provisions of the law, and that its judicial claim was well-within the mandated two-year period. Petitioner likewise asserts the Second Quarter LBT and Third Quarter LBT are invalid because they are not based on Petitioner's actual gross receipts for the preceding calendar year, which is the proper tax base for LBT under Section 143 in relation to Section 151 of the LGC of 1991. aScITE Petitioner further argues that it is not a holding company; hence, it should not be taxed under Section 75 (o) in relation to Section 75 (e) and (j) of the Revenue Code of Taguig, as amended ("RCT"). It is also not a bank or financial institution; thus, its income should not be taxed under Section 143 (f) of the LGC of 1991. Petitioner adds that prior decisions of this Court sitting in Division and En Banc , as well Opinions issued by the Bureau of Local Government Finance ("BLGF") have categorically stated that income received by non-bank and non-financial entities is not subject to LBT. Respondents' Counter-arguments Respondents, on the other hand, counter-argue that Petitioner has already admitted the correctness of the Second Quarter LBT and Third Quarter LBT, since it religiously paid the first quarter LBT for 2018 which is the same amount, and used the same tax base as that found in the Second Quarter LBT and Third Quarter LBT. For failure by Petitioner to file a refund for the first quarter of 2018, the assessments for 2018 (equally spread per quarter in equal installments) had already become conclusive and unappealable following the periods laid down in Section 195. Discussion/Ruling For an orderly disposition of this case, the Court shall determine first the timeliness of the filing of the instant "Petition for Review." The Court of Tax Appeals ("CTA") is a court of special jurisdiction and can only take cognizance of such matters as are clearly within its jurisdiction. 35 The jurisdiction of the CTA as regards to local tax cases is provided under Section 7 (a) (3) of Republic Act ("RA") No. 1125, 36 as amended by RA No. 9282, 37 which provides: "SEC. 7. Jurisdiction. The CTA shall exercise: (a) Exclusive appellate jurisdiction to review by appeal, as herein provided: xxx xxx xxx (3) Decisions, orders or resolutions of the Regional Trial Courts in local tax cases originally decided or resolved by them in the exercise of their original or appellate jurisdiction;" 38 Similarly, Section 3 (a) (3) of Rule 4 of the Revised Rules of the Court of Tax Appeals 39 (RRCTA) states: "SEC. 3. Cases within the jurisdiction of the Court in Division . The Court in Division shall exercise: (a) Exclusive original over or appellate jurisdiction to review by appeal the following: xxx xxx xxx (3) Decisions, resolutions or orders of the Regional Trial Courts in local tax cases decided or resolved by them in the exercise of their original jurisdiction;" Under Section 11 of RA No. 1125, as amended by RA No. 9282, a party aggrieved by a decision or ruling of the RTC may file an appeal with the CTA within thirty (30) days from its receipt of said decision or ruling: "SEC. 11. Who May Appeal; Mode of Appeal; Effect of Appeal. Any party adversely affected by a decision, ruling or inaction of the Commissioner of Internal Revenue, the Commissioner of Customs, the Secretary of Finance, the Secretary of Trade and Industry or the Secretary of Agriculture or the Central Board of Assessment Appeals or the Regional Trial Courts may file an appeal with the CTA within thirty (30) days after the receipt of such decision or ruling or after the expiration of the period fixed by law for action as referred to in Section 7(a)(2) herein." 40 On July 22, 2019, an Order was promulgated by RTC of Taguig-Branch 153 denying Petitioner's Motion for Reconsideration (assailing the Order dated May 10, 2019), which was received by Petitioner on August 06, 2019. 41 Thereafter, within thirty (30) days therefrom or on September 05, 2019, Petitioner elevated said denial via the filing of a "Petition for Review" with this Court. Hence, the instant Petition is clearly filed within the period mandated by law, thereby giving this Court jurisdiction over the present case. We shall now discuss the issues raised by Petitioner. To begin with, it is necessary to emphasize that the proceedings in the Court a quo have not yet reached the pre-trial stage and Petitioner has yet to present its evidence in support of its refund claim. For this reason, this Court is limited in its perusal whether RTC of Taguig-Branch 153 erred in issuing the Assailed Orders granting Respondents' "Motion to Dismiss," based on the face of Petitioner's "Petition for Refund" and its annexes without any denial from Respondents. In the Assailed Orders, RTC of Taguig-Branch 153 dismissed Petitioner's "Petition for Refund" on account of its belated filing. DETACa Petitioner on the other hand points out that it filed an administrative claim for refund of overpaid taxes, pursuant to Section 196, and not a protest to an erroneous assessment, pursuant to Section 195. As such, its judicial claim was timely filed in accordance with the periods provided for in Section 196. We analyze. Sections 195 and 196 of the LGC of 1991 provide: "SEC. 195. Protest of Assessment. When the local treasurer or his duly authorized representative finds that correct taxes, fees, or charges have not been paid, he shall issue a notice of assessment stating the nature of the tax, fee or charge, the amount of deficiency, the surcharges, interests and penalties. Within sixty (60) days from the receipt of the notice of assessment, the taxpayer may file a written protest with the local treasurer contesting the assessment; otherwise, the assessment shall become final and executory. The local treasurer shall decide the protest within sixty (60) days from the time of its filing. If the local treasurer finds the protest to be wholly or partly meritorious, he shall issue a notice canceling wholly or partially the assessment. However, if the local treasurer finds the assessment to be wholly or partly correct, he shall deny the protest wholly or partly with notice to the taxpayer. The taxpayer shall have thirty (30) days from the receipt of the denial of the protest or from the lapse of the sixty (60)-day period prescribed herein within which to appeal with the court of competent jurisdiction otherwise the assessment becomes conclusive and unappealable." 42 "SEC. 196. Claim for Refund of Tax Credit. No case or proceeding shall be maintained in any court for the recovery of any tax, fee, or charge erroneously or illegally collected until a written claim for refund or credit has been filed with the local treasurer. No case or proceeding shall be entertained in any court after the expiration of two (2) years from the date of the payment of such tax, fee, or charge, or from the date the taxpayer is entitled to a refund or credit. " 43 Section 195 refers to the procedure of protesting an assessment of LBT, while Section 196 pertains to the rule in claiming LBT refund. Notably, the application of Section 195 is triggered by a notice of assessment made by the local treasurer or his duly authorized representative. Whereas, Section 196 does not depend upon the existence of an assessment notice. The April 04, 2018 Billing Statement for Second Quarter LBT and June 11, 2018 Billing Statement for Third Quarter LBT were issued pursuant to Petitioner's application for renewal of business permit in 2018. A careful examination of the documents attached to the "Petition for Refund" show that the Billing Statements were issued and prepared by the Taguig City Business Permit and Licensing Office. Consequently, the same cannot be considered as the notice of assessment required under Section 195, for they were not issued by the Office of the City Treasurer nor were they signed by Respondent City Treasurer. More importantly, as explicitly stated in Section 195, a notice of assessment is issued only after "finding that the correct taxes, fees, or charges have not been paid" and it must state "the nature of the tax, fee, or charge, the amount of deficiency, the surcharges, interests and penalties." Simply put, the assessment contemplated under the law is premised on the local treasurer making a finding that the correct taxes, fees or charges were not paid after examination, and that the local treasurer issue a statement containing the amount of deficiency, surcharges, interests, and penalties due from the taxpayer. This is not what happened in the case at hand. Similar to the present case, this Court En Banc had ruled in City Treasurer of Manila v. Philippine Beverage Partners, Inc. 44 that a statement of account issued by a local government in connection with a taxpayer's application for business permit renewal cannot be considered as the notice of assessment under Section 195, viz. : "The claim involved in the present case arose from the SOA issued by petitioner in favor of PBPI. True, a 'protest' was filed by PBPI to question petitioner's computation as stated in the SOA. However, this does not detract from the fact that the SOA was issued in connection with PBPI's renewal of business permits and licenses for CY 2007. The SOA cannot be considered the notice of assessment required under Section 195 of the 1991 LGC as the notice of assessment contemplates a computation based on deficiency taxes, fees, and charges when the local treasurer finds that the correct taxes, fees, or charges were not paid. Accordingly, in the present case, the payment made by PBPI after petitioner denied its 'protest' is the proper subject of a claim for refund for erroneously or illegally collected tax, fee, or charge in accordance with Section 196 of the 1991 LGC." HEITAD The assessment of business tax is an inherent function of local treasurers, pursuant to the LGC of 1991 and its Implementing Rules and Regulations (IRR). Unless there are express and explicit provisions of the law to the contrary, specifically stating that the assessment of business taxes shall be conducted by the Business Permit and Licensing Office of a city, such function shall remain to be exercised by the Office of the City Treasurer. 45 Since it is only the local treasurer who is empowered under the law to issue an assessment, and the Billing Statements in the instant case were not issued by Respondent City Treasurer, there was no assessment to speak of that became final and unappealable. Petitioner need not file its judicial claim within thirty (30) days from the local treasurer's inaction of its protest, for its remedy is not governed by Section 195. Instead, the present case falls under the subject of refund under Section 196. Assuming arguendo that the Billing Assessment Forms are the notice of assessment pertained to under Section 195, Petitioner cannot be faulted for availing the remedy under Section 196. In Philippine Bank of Communications v. Hon. Court of Appeals , 46 the Supreme Court pronounced that the broader interest of justice prevails over a wrong mode of appeal. The Court recognized that under exceptional circumstances, as when stringent application of the rules will result in manifest injustice, it may set aside technicalities and proceed with the appeal. The Supreme Court in La Sallian Educational Innovators Foundation, Inc. v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue 47 reiterated the same doctrine and decided to set aside the denial by the Court of Tax Appeals En Banc of the petition solely based on technicalities, viz. : " This Court has ruled in the past that if a rigid application of the rules of procedure will tend to obstruct rather than serve the broader interests of justice and depending on the prevailing circumstances of the case, such as where strong considerations of substantive justice are manifest in the petition, the Court may relax the strict application of the rules of procedure in the exercise of its equity jurisdiction. xxx xxx xxx Otherwise stated, procedural rules are important tools designed to facilitate the dispensation of justice, but legal technicalities may be excused when strict adherence thereto will impede the achievement of justice it seeks to serve. xxx xxx xxx It is worthy to note that this kind of lenient application of the rules of procedure for exceptionally persuasive and meritorious reasons is not novel. In fact, in the case of Tanenglian v. Lorenzo, et al. , this Court gave due course to the appeal which was not only made through a wrong mode but was even filed beyond the reglementary period . This Court recognized the broader interest of justice . . ." 48 Indeed, the Supreme Court pronounced in Cosmos Bottling and International Container Terminal Services, Inc. v. The City of Manila 49 ("ICTSI, Inc.") that whenever there is an assessment by the local treasurer, Section 195 applies, whether or not the taxpayer opts to pay the assessed tax. Yet, it must be emphasized that these cases were only promulgated in June 27, 2018 and October 17, 2018, respectively. aDSIHc Previously, the prevailing doctrine is that the taxpayer is free to choose which remedy ( i.e. , Section 195 or Section 196) to enforce. Thus, in City Treasurer of City of Caloocan v. Tigerway Facilities and Resources, Inc. , 50 this Court En Banc held: " A taxpayer assessed by the local treasurer for deficiency taxes, fees or charges has generally two (2) remedies to question the local treasurer's assessment, protest such assessment under Section 195 of the LGC or pay the tax under protest and, thereafter, file a claim for refund under Section 196 of the LGC. In the case of City of Manila and City Treasurer of the City of Manila vs. Rizal Commercial Banking Corporation , the First Division of this Court categorically stated that the taxpayer is free to choose which remedy to enforce ." 51 Verily, the interpretation or construction of a law by courts constitutes a part of the law as of the date the statute is enacted. Even so, when a prior ruling is overruled and a different view is adopted, the new doctrine may have to be applied prospectively in favor of parties who have relied on the old doctrine and have acted in good faith in doing so. 52 In the case at bar, the subject taxes were paid in April 19, 2018 for the Second Quarter LBT and July 13, 2018 for the Third Quarter LBT. Petitioner's resort to the remedy under Section 196, in good faith, at the time Cosmos Bottling was newly promulgated and ICTSI, Inc. was not yet penned, should not therefore be taken against it. From all the foregoing, We rule that RTC of Taguig-Branch 153 incorrectly dismissed Civil Case No. 446. WHEREFORE , premises considered, the instant Petition for Review is GRANTED . The Orders dated May 10, 2019 and July 22, 2019 in Civil Case No. 446 are REVERSED and SET ASIDE . Let this case be REMANDED to Regional Trial Court of Taguig-Branch 153 for further proceedings on the merits of the refund claim. SO ORDERED . (SGD.) MA. BELEN M. RINGPIS-LIBAN Associate Justice Erlinda P. Uy and Maria Rowena Modesto-San Pedro, JJ. , concur. Footnotes 1. Docket, pp. 5-35. 2. Docket, pp. 36-40; RTC Docket (Civil Case No. 227), pp. 87-91. 3. Docket, pp. 41-44; RTC Docket (Civil Case No. 227), pp. 112-115. 4. RTC Docket (Civil Case No. 227), Petition for Refund, The Parties, par. 3, p. 2. 5. RTC Docket (Civil Case No. 227), Petition for Refund, The Parties, par. 4, p. 2. 6. RTC Docket (Civil Case No. 227), Petition for Refund, The Parties, par. 5, p. 2. 7. RTC Docket (Civil Case No. 227), Annex "B" attached to the Petition for Refund, p. 24. 8. RTC Docket (Civil Case No. 227), Petition for Refund, Statement of Facts, par. 8, p. 3. 9. RTC Docket (Civil Case No. 227), Annex "D" attached to the Petition for Refund, p. 39. 10. RTC Docket (Civil Case No. 227), Petition for Refund, Statement of Facts, par. 19, p. 5. 11. RTC Docket (Civil Case No. 227), Annex "E" attached to the Petition for Refund, pp. 40-43. 12. RTC Docket (Civil Case No. 227), Petition for Refund, Statement of Facts, par. 20, p. 5. 13. RTC Docket (Civil Case No. 227), Annex "F" attached to the Petition for Refund, p. 47. 14. RTC Docket (Civil Case No. 227), Petition for Refund, Statement of Facts, par. 22, p. 5. 15. RTC Docket (Civil Case No. 227), Annex "G" attached to the Petition for Refund, p. 48. 16. RTC Docket (Civil Case No. 227), Petition for Refund, Statement of Facts, par. 26, p. 6. 17. RTC Docket (Civil Case No. 227), Annex "H" attached to the Petition for Refund, pp. 49-53. 18. RTC Docket (Civil Case No. 227), Petition for Refund, Statement of Facts, par. 27, p. 6. 19. RTC Docket (Civil Case No. 227), pp. 6-22. 20. RTC Docket (Civil Case No. 227), Petition for Refund, Statement of Facts, par. 29, p. 6. 21. RTC Docket (Civil Case No. 227), pp. 66-71. 22. G.R. No. 196681, June 27, 2018. 23. RTC Docket (Civil Case No. 227), pp. 74-83. 24. All provisions shall pertain to the Local Government Code of 1991, unless specified otherwise. 25. RTC Docket (Civil Case No. 227), pp. 84-86. 26. RTC Docket (Civil Case No. 227), pp. 92-100. 27. RTC Docket (Civil Case No. 227), pp. 103-108. 28. RTC Docket (Civil Case No. 227), pp. 109-111. 29. Docket, pp. 5-35. 30. Id. , pp. 96-97. 31. Id. , pp. 98-99. 32. Id. , pp. 113-124. 33. Id. , p. 126. 34. Id. , p. 13. 35. Rizal Commercial Banking Corporation v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue , G.R. No. 168498, April 24, 2007. 36. An Act Creating the Court of Tax Appeals, June 16, 1954. 37. An Act Expanding the Jurisdiction of the Court of Tax Appeals (CTA), Elevating Its Rank to the Level of a Collegiate Court with Special Jurisdiction and Enlarging Its Membership, Amending for the Purpose Certain Sections or Republic Act No. 1125, as Amended, Otherwise Known as the Law Creating the Court of Tax Appeals, and for Other Purposes, March 30, 2004. 38. Emphasis and underscoring supplied . 39. A.M. No. 05-11-07-CTA, November 22, 2005. 40. Emphasis and underscoring supplied. 41. Docket, p. 6. 42. Emphasis and underscoring supplied . 43. Emphasis and underscoring supplied . 44. CTA EB Case No. 1342 (CTA AC No. 122), December 22, 2016; Penned by Associate Justice Lovell R. Bautista, with Presiding Justice Roman G. del Rosario and Associate Justices Juanito C. Castaeda, Jr., Erlinda P. Uy, Caesar A. Casanova, Esperanza R. Fabon-Victorino and Cielito N. Mindaro-Grulla concurring. Associate Justice Ma. Belen M. Ringpis-Liban is on leave. 45. Bureau of Local Government Finance Opinion dated March 15, 2017; Bureau of Local Government Finance Opinion No. 033-2016 dated September 19, 2016. 46. G.R. No. 218901, February 15, 2017. 47. G.R. No. 202792, February 27, 2019. 48. Emphasis and underscoring supplied . 49. G.R. No. 185622, October 17, 2018. 50. C.T.A. EB Case No. 1605, C.T.A. AC No. 127, July 25, 2018. Penned by Associate Justice Caesar A. Casanova and concurred in by all other Justices. 51. Emphasis and underscoring supplied . 52. Visayas Geothermal Power Company v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue , G.R. No. 197525, June 04, 2014; Jocelyn M. Suazo v. Angelito Suazo and Republic of the Philippines , G.R. No. 164493, March 10, 2010; Benjamin G. Ting v. Carmen M. Velez-Ting , G.R. No. 166562, March 31, 2009; Rosa Yap Paras v. Justo J. Paras , G.R. No. 147824, August 02, 2007; Lorna Guillen Pesca v. Zosimo A. Pesca , G.R. No. 136921, April 17, 2001.