Reitoh Cold Storage, Inc. v. Bureau of Internal Revenue

SPECIAL SECOND DIVISION [C.T.A. CASE NO. 10420. April 19, 2023.] REITOH COLD STORAGE, INC., WE LEAD GROUP HOLDINGS, INC., ELENCE MARINE AND INDUSTRIAL CORPORATION, MBPS CABLING CORPORATION, GARUDA CONSTRUCTION CORPORATION, BCP DERMATOLOGICAL CORPORATION, AUDIO VIDEO SOLUTIONS CORPORATION, DUNAMIS IMPORT-EXPORT PHILS., INC., ALEN V DRAGON CORPORATION, MEDEV MEDICAL DEVICES CORPORATION, CHRYSALIS CONSTRUCTION AND TRADING CORPORATION, PAPISSS, INC., ICON REEFER CORPORATION, JRT CONSTRUCTION AND TRADING CORPORATION, DATALINK SOLUTIONS TECHNOLOGY AND CONSULTANCY, INC., ABBE TECHNOLOGY SOLUTIONS, INC., EXEQUIEL BALANLAY ADORA, KEN N RIE TRANSPORT, INC., R2B2 REALTY & DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, G2K CORPORATION, MAXX ENERGIE VENTURES CORP., and POWERSOURCE PHILIPPINES, INC. , petitioners , vs. BUREAU OF INTERNAL REVENUE , respondent . DECISION CUI-DAVID , J p : Before the Court is a Petition for Review 1 filed by petitioners by way of Mandamus 2 under Rule 65 of the Revised Rules of Court, as amended, praying that the Court "mandate respondent to issue the Certificate of Tax Delinquencies/Tax Liabilities (CTD) and Acceptance Payment Form (APF) in favor of petitioners so that they may be deemed to have fully complied with all the conditions set forth in the Tax Amnesty Act, including the payment of their amnesty tax, their tax delinquency may be considered settled, and the tax amnesty granted becomes final and irrevocable." HTcADC THE PARTIES Petitioner Exequiel Balanlay Adora is a sole proprietor with office address at 3F Room 303-305 Caroline Building, Brgy. 178 Kiko Camarin, Caloocan City. 3 He is represented by Maureen Braza, 4 with office address at Unit 203 STG Corporate Centre Building, No. 76 Timog Avenue, Quezon City. 5 The other petitioners are domestic corporations with the following addresses and authorized representatives: CAIHTE Taxpayer Address Authorized Representative 1 Reitoh Cold Storage, Inc. Km 30 National Highway, Amante Street, Bo. Poblacion, San Pedro, Laguna Maureen Braza 6 2 We Lead Group Holdings, Inc. Unit 2102 Robinsons Galleria Corporate Center Ortigas Avenue, Edsa cor. Quezon City Maureen Braza 7 3 Elence Marine and Industrial Corporation Bldg. 9 Unit 315 Urban Deca Homes Vitas Street, Tondo, Manila Maureen Braza 8 4 MBPS Cabling Corporation 2156-D P. Florentino Street, Sampaloc, Manila Maureen Braza 9 5 Garuda Construction Corporation 8760 Santol Street, San Antonio Village, Makati City Maureen Braza 10 6 BCP Dermatological Corporation Dela Paz Building, 1570 Dapitan Street, Zone 047, Brgy. 481 Sampaloc, Manila Maureen Braza 11 7 Audio-Video Solutions Corporation Unit 3301 Atlanta Center, 31 Annapolis St., Greenhills, San Juan City Gina Mandigma 12 8 Dunamis Import-Export Philippines, Incorporated Room 202 Esna Bldg., No. 30 Timog Avenue, Brgy. Laging Handa, Quezon City Maureen Braza 13 9 Alen V. Dragon Corporation 51 Maharlika Hi-Way Sta. Anastacia, Sto. Tomas, Batangas Maureen Braza 14 10 Medev Medical Devices Corporation Red Flower MJ46 Compound, Sta. Ana Drive Sun Valley, Paraaque Maureen Braza 15 11 Chrysalis Construction and Trading Corporation 2404 Tenorio Street, San Andres Bukid, Manila Maureen Braza 16 12 Papisss, Inc. Villa Mariquita Subdivision, Lumbangan, Nasugbu, Batangas Maureen Braza 17 13 Icon Reefer Corporation Unit 3QC, ODC International Plaza, 219 Salcedo Street, Legaspi Village, Makati City (formerly 11/F Vernida IV Bldg., 128 Alfaro Street, Salcedo Village, Makati City) Gina Mandigma 18 14 JRT Const. and Trading Corporation 082 Sta. Cruz Street, Ilawod Poblacion, Bato, Catanduanes Gina Mandigma 19 15 DATALINK Solutions Technology and Consultancy, Inc. Sticra Signal Village, Katuparan, Taguig City c/o Philippine Korea Technological Center, Taguig City Maureen Braza 20 16 ABBE Technology Solutions, Inc. UG-29 Cityland Pioneer Condominium, 128 Pioneer Street, Highway Hills, Mandaluyong City Maureen Braza 21 17 KEN N RIE Transport, Inc. Brgy. San Pioquinto, Malvar, Batangas Maureen Braza 22 18 R2B2 Realty & Development Corporation Penthouse, R&L Center, 1695 Baler Street, Makati City Maureen Braza 23 19 G2K Corporation Unit 3301 Atlanta Center, 31 Annapolis Street, Greenhills, San Juan City Gina Mandigma 24 20 Maxx Energie Ventures Corporation Unit 3301 Atlanta Center, 31 Annapolis Street, Greenhills, San Juan City Gina Mandigma 25 21 Powersource Philippines, Inc. 10F The Athenaeum Bldg., 160 L.P. Leviste Street, Salcedo Village, Makati City Maureen Braza 26 Respondent Bureau of Internal Revenue (BIR) is the government agency charged with, among other powers and duties, the collection of all national internal revenue taxes. It has the power to decide disputed assessments, refunds of internal revenue taxes, fees or other charges, penalties imposed in relation thereto, or other matters arising under the 1997 National Internal Revenue Code (NIRC), as amended (Tax Code), and other laws administered by it, with office address at BIR National Office Building, BIR Road, Diliman, Quezon City. aScITE THE FACTS On February 14, 2019, Republic Act (RA) No. 11213 or the Tax Amnesty Act (TAA), was approved and became effective on April 24, 2019. It covered all unpaid internal revenue taxes for the taxable year 2017 and prior years concerning (1) estate tax and (2) tax on delinquencies. On April 24, 2019, Revenue Regulations (RR) No. 4-2019 27 came into effect to implement the TAA and provide guidelines on the processing of tax amnesty applications on tax delinquencies. Petitioners received from respondent the following notices: DETACa Taxpayer BIR Notices Issued Issuing BIR Office Issuing BIR Officer 1 Reitoh Cold Storage, Inc. Notice for Informal Conference dated March 13, 2019 28 Revenue District Office (RDO) No. 57-Bian City, Laguna Revenue District Officer Antonino L. Ilagan 2 We Lead Group Holdings, Inc. Formal Letter of Demand and Assessment Notice dated October 25, 2019 29 Revenue Region (RR) No. 7A-Quezon City OIC-Regional Director Albino M. Galanza 3 Elence Marine and Industrial Corporation Notice for Informal Conference (undated) 30 RDO No. 29-Tondo/San Nicolas, Manila Revenue District Officer Teresita Y. Lumayag 4 MBPS Cabling Corporation Notice for Informal Conference dated January 7, 2020 31 RDO No. 32-Quiapo, Sampaloc, San Miguel, Sta. Mesa, Manila Revenue District Officer Jose G. Luna 5 Garuda Construction Corporation Preliminary Assessment Notice dated July 2, 2018 32 RDO No. 49-North Makati Regional Director Glen A. Geraldino 6 BCP Dermatological Corporation Notice for Informal Conference dated December 26, 2019 33 RDO No. 32-Quiapo, Sampaloc, San Miguel, Sta. Mesa, Manila Revenue District Officer Jose G. Luna 7 Audio-Video Solutions Corporation Formal Letter of Demand dated January 10, 2019 34 Revenue Region (RR) No. 7-Quezon City Assistant Regional Director Albino M. Galanza 8 Dunamis Import-Export Philippines, Incorporated Notice for Informal Conference dated March 9, 2020 35 RDO No. 39-South, Quezon City Revenue District Officer Arnulfo A. Galapia 9 Alen V. Dragon Corporation Formal Letter of Demand dated October 2, 2019 36 Revenue Region (RR) No. 9A-CaBaMiRo Regional Director Gerry O. Dumayas 10 Medev Medical Devices Corporation Notice for Informal Conference dated May 31, 2019 37 RDO No. 52-Paraaque City Revenue District Officer Antonio J. Mangubat, Jr. 11 Chrysalis Construction and Trading Corporation Notice for Informal Conference dated July 19, 2018 38 RDO No. 34-Paco-Pandacan-Sta. Ana-San Andres, Manila Revenue District Officer Atty. Helen D. Vista 12 Papisss, Inc. Notice for Informal Conference dated May 24, 2019 39 RDO No. 58-West, Batangas Revenue District Officer Atty. Elmer F. Carolino 13 Icon Reefer Corporation Formal Letter of Demand dated November 28, 2019 40 RR No. 8A-Makati Regional Director Maridur V. Rosario 14 JRT Const. and Trading Corporation Notice for Informal Conference dated September 23, 2019 41 RDO No. 69-Virac, Catanduanes Revenue District Officer Princini B. Parco 15 DATALINK Solutions Technology and Consultancy, Inc. None 42 16 ABBE Technology Solutions, Inc. Notice for Informal Conference dated October 11, 2019 43 RDO No. 41-Mandaluyong City Revenue District Officer Atty. Deogracias T. Villar, Jr. 17 Exequiel Balanlay Adora Request for Lease Contract re: Penalty Assessment (undated) 44 RDO No. 27-Caloocan City Revenue Officer Jolina Suwalawan 18 KEN N RIE Transport, Inc. None 45 19 R2B2 Realty & Development Corporation Letter dated January 16, 2020 re: request for computation of penalty for unpaid fringe benefits taxes 46 RDO No. 49-North Makati Revenue District Officer Frederico Q. Pilarca 20 G2K Corporation Final Decision on Disputed Assessment dated March 25, 2020 47 RR No. 7B-East NCR Regional Director Romulo Aguila, Jr. 21 Maxx Energie Ventures Corporation Formal Letter of Demand dated January 12, 2016 48 RR 7-Quezon City 22 Powersource Philippines, Inc. Notice for Informal Conference dated May 18, 2020 49 RDO No. 47-East Makati Revenue District Officer Renato L. Ruiz To avail of the benefits of the TAA, petitioners accomplished their Tax Amnesty Returns on Delinquencies (TAR or BIR Form 2118-DA), APFs (BIR Form 0621-DA), and bank deposit slips. 50 HEITAD Petitioners followed up with respondent regarding the issuance of their respective CTDs and duly endorsed APFs. Respondent acted upon petitioners' requests in the following manner: Taxpayer BIR Action Issuing BIR Office Issuing BIR Officer Taxpayer's Receipt Date Reitoh Cold Storage, Inc. Denial Letters dated August 9, 2019 51 and September 17, 2019: 52 assessment is not yet considered delinquent RDO No. 57-West Laguna (Bian) Revenue District Officer Atty. Timm B. Renomeron August 9, 2019 53 September 7, 2019 54 We Lead Group Holdings, Inc. Denial Letters dated December 27, 2019, 55 and February 13, 2020: 56 not qualified pursuant to Revenue Memorandum Circular (RMC) No. 57-2019, Q1. RR No. 7A-Quezon City Regional Director Albino M. Galanza December 27, 2019 58 February 13, 2020 59 Denial Letter dated February 3, 2020: 57 not yet a delinquent account RDO No. 40-Cubao Revenue District Officer Corazon R. Balinas Elence Marine and Industrial Corporation None MBPS Cabling Corporation Denial Letters dated July 28, 2020, 60 September 22, 2020 61 and October 16, 2020: 62 not considered a delinquent account; no records of tax delinquency/ deficiency/liability; and not a case of "withholding tax liabilities arising from failure to remit taxes withheld" RR No. 6-Manila Regional Director Atty. Jethro M. Sabariaga July 28, 2020 63 September 22, 2020 64 Garuda Construction Corporation Denial Letter dated September 30, 2020: 65 "subject taxes" not covered by the TAA RDO No. 49-North Makati City Revenue District Officer Frederico Q. Pilarca September 30, 2020 66 BCP Dermatological Corporation Denial Letter dated August 3, 2020: 67 subject withholding taxes not covered by the TAA RR No. 6-Manila August 3, 2020 68 Audio-Video Solutions Corporation None Dunamis Import-Export Philippines, Incorporated Letter dated October 12, 2020: 69 request for APF-Signature and demand to sign/follow up on tax amnesty request for approval are forwarded to Legal Division of RR No. 7A-Quezon City RDO No. 39-South, Quezon City Revenue District Officer Arnulfo A. Galapia October 12, 2020 70 Alen V. Dragon Corporation None Medev Medical Devices Corporation Denial Letter dated December 5, 2019: 71 subject EWT not covered by the TAA RR No. 8B-South NCR December 5, 2019 72 Chrysalis Construction and Trading Corporation Denial Letters dated October 7, 2019 73 and October 18, 2019: 74 assessment has not yet attained finality since it was able to file timely protest/request for reinvestigation RR No. 6-Manila Regional Director Atty. Jethro M. Sabariaga October 23, 2019 76 Letter dated October 22, 2019: 75 not qualified to avail of the TAA RDO No. 34-Paco-Pandacan-Sta. Ana-San Andres OIC-Revenue District Officer Caroline M. Takata Papisss, Inc. None Icon Reefer Corporation None JRT Const. and Trading Corporation None DATALINK Solutions Technology and Consultancy, Inc. None ABBE Technology Solutions, Inc. Letter dated January 21, 2020: 77 forwarded to the CIR for appropriate action RR No. 7B-East NCR Chief, Collection Division Ceferina M. Ong January 31, 2020 78 Exequiel Balanlay Adora Denial Letter dated December 11, 2019: 79 penalties arising from the non-filing of returns/open cases, self-assessed taxes and electronic Filing and Payment cases are not included in the TAA 80 RR No. 5-Caloocan City December 11, 2020 81 KEN N RIE Transport, Inc. None R2B2 Realty & Development Corporation Denial Letters dated June 2, 2020: 82 failed to provide an entitlement for the issuance of Notice of Issuance of Authority to Cancel Assessment (NIATCA) under Section 6 of RR No. 4-2019, in relation to III (1) E of RMO No. 33-2018; endorsed to the Legal Division for appropriate action RR No. 8A-Makati OIC-Chief, Collection Division Benilda M. Nicosia July 1, 2020 84 Letter dated July 1, 2020: 83 stop-filer cases are not considered delinquent account RDO No. 49-North Makati Revenue District Officer Federico Q. Pilarca G2K Corporation None Maxx Energie Ventures Corporation None Powersource Philippines, Inc. None On December 14, 2020, petitioners filed a Petition for Review dated December 8, 2020. aDSIHc On December 21, 2020, the Court issued Summons 85 ordering respondent to submit an Answer within thirty (30) days from service. On January 5, 2021, respondent received the Summons. In the Motion for Extension of Time to File Answer 86 and Final Motion for Extension of Time to File Answer , 87 respondent requested an additional period of thirty (30) days from February 4, 2021, or until March 6, 2021, and thereafter, a further extension of fifteen (15) days from March 6, 2021, or until March 21, 2021, to file an Answer. The Court granted both Motions in its Orders dated February 8, 2021, 88 and March 18, 2021, 89 respectively. On May 19, 2021, the Court received respondent's Answer 90 filed via registered mail on March 19, 2021, with the following special and affirmative defenses: a. The Court has no jurisdiction over the instant petition; b. A collateral attack on presumably valid administrative issuance is not allowed; and c. The approval of the application for tax amnesty should be in accordance with RA No. 11213; thus, mandamus is not tenable. On May 20, 2021, the Court issued a Notice of Pre-Trial Conference 91 and set the case for pre-trial on June 14, 2021. In compliance with the Court's order, respondent filed a Pre-Trial Brief 92 on June 8, 2021, while petitioners filed a Motion to Admit Petitioners' Pre-Trial Brief 93 with the attached Pre-Trial Brief 94 on June 14, 2021. On May 24, 2021, the Court received petitioners' Motion 1. To Declare Respondent in Default 2. For Judgment on the Pleadings 95 filed through registered mail on April 20, 2021, to which respondent posted a Comment/Opposition 96 on May 25, 2021, and received by the Court on May 26, 2021. On June 14, 2021, the Court issued a Resolution 97 denying petitioners' Motion 1. To Declare Respondent in Default 2. For Judgment on the Pleadings for lack of merit and noted petitioners' counsel's change of address. During the pre-trial conference, the Court granted petitioners' Motion to Admit Petitioners' Pre-Trial Brief with the attached Pre-Trial Brief in the interest of justice. It referred the case to the Philippine Mediation Center-Court of Tax Appeals (PMC-CTA) for mediation on July 7, 2021. 98 On July 7, 2021, petitioners filed a Manifestation 99 stating that there is no need to proceed with the mediation proceedings considering that the issues, in this case, are purely a question of law. On even date, the Court received the PMC-CTA's "Back to Court" report 100 since petitioners refused mediation. On July 28, 2021, the Court issued a Resolution 101 noting petitioners' Manifestation and set the pre-trial conference on September 29, 2021. Still, it was cancelled and reset to January 17, 2022, given the physical closure of the Court under Supreme Court Administrative Circular No. 56-2021. 102 The pre-trial set on January 17, 2022, was again cancelled and reset to March 9, 2022, due to the court's physical closure brought about by rising COVID-19 cases. 103 ATICcS On February 21, 2022, petitioners filed a Motion to Submit Memorandum 104 praying that the Court directs the parties to file their respective memoranda alleging that the only issue, in this case, involves a question of law. On March 1, 2022, the Court promulgated a Resolution 105 ordering respondent to file a comment/opposition within five (5) days from receipt. On March 8, 2022, respondent filed a Comment 106 interposing no objection to petitioners' Motion to Submit Memorandum . In its Resolution 107 dated March 25, 2022, the Court granted petitioners' Motion to Submit Memorandum and ordered the parties to submit their respective memoranda within fifteen (15) days from receipt. Respondent's Memorandum 108 was filed on April 11, 2022, while the Memorandum for Petitioners 109 was filed on April 18, 2022. In the Resolution dated April 26, 2022, 110 the Court submitted the present case for decision. Hence, this Decision. ISSUES Petitioners put forth the following issues 111 for the Court's resolution, to wit: I Whether or not a Petition for Certiorari under the Rules of Court, Rule 65, Section 1 filed with the Court of Tax Appeals is the correct remedy. II Whether or not respondent has the ministerial duty to issue a Certificate of Tax Delinquency and Acceptance Payment Form in favor of petitioners for taxable year 2017 and prior years even if the assessment notices or similar documents are issued after the effectivity of the implementing rules and regulations. III Whether or not petitioners are entitled to avail themselves of the benefits of the Tax Amnesty Law, even if respondent refused to sign their Certificate of Tax Delinquency and Acceptance Payment Form, as it is respondent's ministerial duty to issue a Notice of Issuance of Authority to Cancel Assessment (NIATCA) in petitioners' favor after they filed their TARs and APFs as well as paid the amnesty taxes. IV Whether or not petitioners have no other plain, speedy and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law. ETHIDa The issues may be summed up into whether or not respondent BIR may be compelled by mandamus to issue in favor of petitioners the Certificates of Tax Delinquencies/Tax Liabilities and Acceptance Payment Forms under RA No. 11213 or the Tax Amnesty Act. Petitioners' arguments: Petitioners argue that it is the ministerial duty of the BIR to issue a CTD and APF in their favor for the taxable year (TY) 2017 and prior years, even if the assessment notices or similar documents are issued after the effectivity of the implementing rules and regulations (IRR). Petitioners claim that they are entitled to avail of the benefits of the TAA, even if respondent refuses to issue the CTDs and sign the APFs, as it is respondent's ministerial duty to issue a Notice of Issuance of Authority to Cancel Assessment (NIATCA) in petitioners' favor after they filed their TARs and APFs and paid their amnesty taxes. However, in their Memorandum, petitioners allege for the first time that a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Revised Rules of Court is the correct remedy. According to petitioners, the denial of the requests for the issuance of the NIATCA in their favor after they filed their TARs and APFs and paid the amnesty taxes is a decision of the Commissioner of Internal Revenue (CIR) arising under the NIRC and its related laws; hence, the Court of Tax Appeals (CTA) is the proper court for the filing of a Petition for Review, pursuant to A.M. No. 05-11-07-CTA or the Revised Rules of the Court of Tax Appeals (RRCTA), specifically, Section 3, Rule 4 thereof. Further, petitioners cite the case of Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Hambrecht & Quist Philippines, Inc. , 112 wherein the Supreme Court held that the CTA's jurisdiction is not limited to cases that involve decisions of the CIR on matters involving assessments or refunds but also covers other cases arising from the NIRC 113 "where the power is exercised in an arbitrary and despotic manner by reason of passion or hostility." 114 Petitioners assert that the CTA's judicial power to determine whether there is grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction on the part of respondent is enshrined in the Constitution, as enunciated in Department of Transportation v. Philippine Petroleum Sea Transport Association, et al. 115 Further, "(a) petition for certiorari is proper where the impugned dispositions, as in this case, are tainted with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction." 116 Petitioners maintain that they can apply for tax amnesty under Section 17 (d) of the TAA. Petitioners explain that the previous tax amnesty law (RA No. 9480) excluded tax cases that were already the subject of final and executory judgments by the courts and withholding tax agents with respect to their withholding tax liabilities; during the deliberation of the TAA, the legislators included these tax liabilities. TIADCc Petitioners claim that Section 19 of the TAA provides that the taxpayer who wishes to avail of the Tax Amnesty on Delinquencies shall file a sworn Tax Amnesty on Delinquencies Return with a Certification of Delinquency and pay the amnesty tax, after which the respondent shall issue the APF. Section 5 (A) of RR No. 4-2019, or the IRR of the TAA also provides that the taxpayer who wishes to avail of the Tax Amnesty on Delinquencies shall file a TAR, an APF and CTD issued by respondent. Hence, petitioners argue that respondent is mandated and obligated to issue their respective CTDs and APFs to allow them to complete the other requirements of the TAA and eventually avail themselves of its benefits. Petitioners insist that there is nothing more left but for respondent to issue the CTDs and APFs to those who have already complied with the provisions of the TAA, as held in the case of CS Garment, Inc. v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue . 117 However, respondent ignored or denied their request for the issuance of the CTDs and APFs on the ground that under RR No. 4-2019, the coverage of the TAA is only for tax delinquencies with assessment notices or similar documents issued on or before the effectivity date of RR No. 4-2019. In effect, petitioners posit that respondent imposed additional conditions for availing of the tax amnesty when it issued RMC No. 57-2019. 118 Petitioners also state that the TAA does not impose a cut-off date of April 24, 2019 or the condition that the assessment notices have become final and executory on or before April 24, 2019, which RMC No. 57-2019 does. Petitioners aver that the law cannot be amended by a mere regulation since an administrative agency may not enlarge, alter or restrict the provisions of the statute being administered, 119 even on the pretext of clarifying specific issues by imposing other conditions not found in the law itself. Such restrictions or conditions, according to petitioners, should be declared null and void and should not prevent petitioners from exercising what is their legal right. In relation thereto, petitioners cited the cases of Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Philippine Aluminum Wheels, Inc. 120 and CS Garment, Inc. v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue . 121 Petitioners further submit that it is clear from Section 20 of the TAA that respondent shall issue the NIATCA to petitioners availing of the Tax Amnesty on Delinquencies within fifteen (15) calendar days from submission of the APF and the TAR. Petitioners opine that they have no other plain, speedy, and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law. Petitioners state that they only have until December 31, 2020 to avail themselves of the TAA under RR No. 15-2020 and RMC No. 61-2020. cSEDTC In their Memorandum, petitioners state that they may lose the right to avail of Tax Amnesty on Delinquencies unless they can seek a judicial determination by way of certiorari as to whether respondent's actions constitute grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction. Respondent's arguments: Respondent contends that the Court has no jurisdiction over the instant petition, praying that the alleged decision denying the application for tax amnesty be reversed. Respondent points out that the same is among its discretionary powers which the Court cannot properly pass upon. Respondent counters that RMC No. 57-2019 was issued in accordance with its rule-making power or quasi-legislative power; it is a circular issued under its power to interpret, clarify, or explain tax laws and to decide tax cases under Section 4 of the NIRC. RMC No. 57-2019 provides the reckoning date of the finality of tax assessment or delinquent accounts for purposes of availing tax amnesty in accordance with RA No. 11213. Respondent adds that with RMC No. 57-2019 issued in the exercise of respondent's quasi-legislative function, the regular courts and not this Court has jurisdiction to render the said RMC null and void. In support, respondent cites Smart Communication, Inc. (SMART) and Pilipino Telephone Corporation (PILTEL) v. National Telecommunication Commission (NTC) , 122 1-UTAK, et al. v. Bureau of Internal Revenue and Joel L. Tan-Torres , 123 and British American Tobacco v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue . 124 Respondent further argues that the nullification of a provision of RMC No. 57-2019 that petitioners pray for is a collateral attack on a presumably valid administrative issuance, which is not allowed. Correspondingly, respondent mentioned the cases of Dasmarias Water District v. Monterey Foods Corporation , 125 Tan v. Bausch & Lomb, Inc. , 126 and San Miguel Brewery v. Magno 127 as the basis thereof. Respondent asserts that Section 19 of the TAA 128 provides explicitly the reckoning date when and where to file and pay the application for tax amnesty. Respondent insists that the TAA requires that the tax liability should be final and executory or delinquent at the time of its effectivity. Thus, since its implementing rules and regulations or RR No. 4-2019 took effect on April 24, 2019, the same should be the reckoning date of the finality or delinquency of the tax liability sought to be applied for amnesty. More, respondent argues that based on the records, the tax assessments against petitioners are not yet delinquent or have not yet attained finality as of April 24, 2019; thus, they are not qualified to avail of the tax amnesty in accordance with the law. According to respondent, petitioners failed to allege that there is a compelling legal duty on its part to approve the application for tax amnesty without a proper legal basis; hence, the petition is dismissible. AIDSTE Respondent concludes that the petition failed to allege that it gravely abused its power when it denied the application for tax amnesty due to lack of legal basis. Citing Carabeo v. Court of Appeals et al. , 129 the abuse of discretion must be so patent and gross as to amount to an evasion of positive duty or to a virtual refusal to perform the task enjoined or to act at all in contemplation of law. What has been bestowed to the CIR by law is not only the power to approve tax amnesty but also the discretion when or when not to exercise it. THE RULING OF THE COURT The CTA has jurisdiction over petitions for certiorari, prohibition, and/or mandamus under Rule 65 of the Revised Rules of Court. We shall first discuss the basis of the CTA's certiorari power under Rule 65 of the Revised Rules of Court. It is settled that jurisdiction over the subject matter of a case is conferred by law and determined by the allegations in the complaint which comprise a concise statement of the ultimate facts constituting the plaintiff's cause of action. 130 The averments in the complaint and the character of the relief sought are the ones to be consulted. 131 In other words, what determines the nature of the action and which court has jurisdiction over it are the allegations in the complaint, and the character of the relief sought. 132 The designation or caption is not controlling more than the allegations in the complaint. 133 While this petition is captioned as "Petition for Review," an examination of petitioners' allegations, arguments, and relief sought reveals that it is a Petition for Mandamus , to wit: 4. This Petition for Review is filed by way of Mandamus under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court seeking to command Respondent to issue a Certificate of Tax Delinquency/Tax Liabilities (CTD), and Acceptance Payment Form (APF) protect the rights of the Petitioners pursuant to Republic Act No. 11213 or the Tax Amnesty Act, Section 17(d). xxx xxx xxx 19. Petitioners were prevented from availing of the benefits of the Tax Amnesty Law. Despite filing with the Respondent's appropriate office which has jurisdiction over the residence or principal place of business of the taxpayer, a sworn Tax Amnesty on Delinquencies Return accompanied by a Certification of Delinquency (CTD), as well as the Acceptance Payment Form (APF), Respondent refused and continues to refuse to issue Petitioners' respective CTD and APF: . . . SDAaTC PRAYER WHEREFORE . . . It is respectfully prayed of this Honorable Court to mandate respondent to issue the CTD and APF in favor of petitioners in order that they may be deemed to have fully complied with all the conditions set forth in the Tax Amnesty Law, including the payment of their amnesty tax, their tax delinquency may be considered settled, and the tax amnesty granted becomes final and irrevocable. The Supreme Court ruled that the caption of the pleading should not be the governing factor, but rather the allegations in it should determine the nature of the action, because even without the prayer for a specific remedy, the courts may nevertheless grant the proper relief as may be warranted by the facts alleged in the complaint and the evidence introduced. 134 Here, petitioners alleged in their Memorandum that a Petition for Certiorari under Rule 65 is the correct remedy 135 but maintain the same prayer for mandamus 136 as reflected in their Petition for Review. 137 Given the foregoing, the Court treats the instant Petition for Review as a Petition for Mandamus . Besides, in the Resolution dated March 25, 2022, the Court has already resolved that this Petition for Review is a Petition for Mandamus , and it has the authority to issue auxiliary writs of certiorari , mandamus , and prohibition as ruled in the case of The City of Manila, et al. v. Hon. Grecia-Cuerdo, et al. (Grecia-Cuerdo) : 138 . . . [While] there is no express grant of such power, with respect to the CTA, Section 1, Article VIII of the 1987 Constitution provides, nonetheless, that judicial power shall be vested in one Supreme Court and in such lower courts as may be established by law and that judicial power includes the duty of the courts of justice to settle actual controversies involving rights which are legally demandable and enforceable, and to determine whether or not there has been a grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction on the part of any branch or instrumentality of the Government. xxx xxx xxx Indeed, in order for any appellate court to effectively exercise its appellate jurisdiction, it must have the authority to issue, among others, a writ of certiorari . In transferring exclusive jurisdiction over appealed tax cases to the CTA, it can reasonably be assumed that the law intended to transfer also such power as is deemed necessary, if not indispensable, in aid of such appellate jurisdiction . There is no perceivable reason why the transfer should only be considered as partial, not total. xxx xxx xxx Furthermore, Section 6, Rule 135 of the present Rules of Court provides that when by law, jurisdiction is conferred on a court or judicial officer, all auxiliary writs, processes and other means necessary to carry it into effect may be employed by such court or officer. (Emphasis supplied) AaCTcI Although what is involved in Grecia-Cuerdo is a petition for certiorari , the Supreme Court clarified that under Section 6, Rule 135 139 of the Rules of Court, the Court's authority extends to the issuance of all writs and processes essential for the exercise of its powers in cases within its appellate jurisdiction. Echoing its pronouncement in Grecia-Cuerdo , the Supreme Court, in the case of Banco de Oro, et al. v. Republic of the Philippines, et al. , 140 declared in no uncertain terms that petitions for certiorari against the acts and omissions of quasi-judicial agencies, i.e. , CIR, should be filed with the CTA, viz. : Section 7 of Republic Act No. 1125, as amended, is explicit that, except for local taxes, appeals from the decisions of quasi-judicial agencies ( Commissioner of Internal Revenue , Commissioner of Customs, Secretary of Finance, Central Board of Assessment Appeals, Secretary of Trade and Industry) on tax-related problems must be brought exclusively to the Court of Tax Appeals. . . . within the judicial system, the law intends the Court of Tax Appeals to have exclusive jurisdiction to resolve all tax problems. Petitions for writs of certiorari against the acts and omissions of the said quasi-judicial agencies should, thus, be filed before the Court of Tax Appeals. 141 (Emphasis supplied) Given the foregoing, this Court has jurisdiction over petitions for certiorari , prohibition and/or mandamus against the acts and omissions of the BIR. We shall now determine the timeliness of the Petition. Petitioners failed to file this Petition on time. Section 4, Rule 65 of the Rules of Court provides that: SEC. 4. When and where petition filed . The petition shall be filed not later than sixty (60) days from notice of the judgment, order, or resolution. In case a motion for reconsideration or new trial is timely filed, whether such motion is required or not, the sixty (60)-day period shall be counted from notice of the denial of said motion. (Emphasis supplied) In the case of Oasis Park Hotel v. Leslee G. Navaluna, et al. (Oasis Park) , 142 the Supreme Court emphasized that to establish the sixty (60)-day timeline for the filing of the petition, the date of receipt of the assailed judgment, final order, or resolution must be stated in the petition; otherwise, the petition for certiorari must be dismissed, viz. : acEHCD The Court, in Vinuya v. Romulo , expounded on the importance of stating the material dates in a petition for certiorari : As the rule indicates, the 60-day period starts to run from the date petitioner receives the assailed judgment, final order or resolution, or the denial of the motion for reconsideration or new trial timely filed, whether such motion is required or not. To establish the timeliness of the petition for certiorari , the date of receipt of the assailed judgment, final order or resolution or the denial of the motion for reconsideration or new trial must be stated in the petition; otherwise, the petition for certiorari must be dismissed . The importance of the dates cannot be understated, for such dates determine the timeliness of the filing of the petition for certiorari . As the Court has emphasized in Tambong v. R. Jorge Development Corporation : There are three essential dates that must be stated in a petition for certiorari brought under Rule 65. First , the date when notice of the judgment or final order or resolution was received; second , when a motion for new trial or reconsideration was filed; and third , when notice of the denial thereof was received. Failure of petitioner to comply with this requirement shall be sufficient ground for the dismissal of the petition . Substantial compliance will not suffice in a matter involving strict observance with the Rules. . . . (Emphasis supplied) Indeed, failure to state the material dates in a petition for mandamus or certiorari is sufficient ground for the dismissal of the Petition under Section 3, Rule 46 of the Rules of Court, 143 in relation to Rule 65 thereof. 144 Here, petitioners filed the Petition for Review, which We treat as a Petition for Mandamus , on December 14, 2020, without any statement of material dates. Thus, the Court is unable to determine whether it was filed within the 60-day reglementary period. Upon perusal of petitioners' evidence, the Court finds that the dates indicated under the heading "date of receipt of BIR response" are dates of respondent's denial letters, not the actual receipt. The date of petitioner Exequiel Balanlay Adora's denial letter was erroneously stated in the Petition and Memorandum as December 11, 2020 , when it should be December 11, 2019 . Moreover, only eleven (11) petitioners received denial letters, while the others did not receive any response from respondent. 145 Petitioners denial letters were dated between August 9, 2019 and October 12, 2020. If the Court counts the 60-day period from the date of the latest denial letter, 146 petitioners had until December 11, 2020 , to file a Petition for Mandamus or Certiorari . However, the Petition was filed only on December 14, 2020 ; thus, not one of petitioners has timely filed the Petition. Accordingly, the dismissal of the instant Petition for being time-barred is proper. EcTCAD However, even if the Petition has been timely filed, it must still be dismissed for being moot and academic . The instant petition has been rendered moot and academic by the expiration of the period for the availment of Tax Amnesty on Delinquencies. Section 19 of the TAA provides the period for availing of the tax amnesty on delinquencies, viz. : SEC. 19. Availment of the Tax Amnesty on Delinquencies; When and Where to File and Pay . Any person, natural or juridical, who wishes to avail of the Tax Amnesty on Delinquencies shall, within one (1) year from the effectivity of the Implementing Rules and Regulations of this Act , file with the appropriate office of the Bureau of Internal Revenue, . . ., a sworn Tax Amnesty on Delinquencies Return accompanied by a Certification of Delinquency . The payment of the amnesty tax shall be made at the time the Return is filed. (Emphasis supplied) On April 5, 2019, RR No. 4-2019 147 was issued to implement the provisions of the TAA. It states that all persons with internal revenue tax liabilities for the taxable year 2017 and prior years may avail of the Tax Amnesty on Delinquencies within one (1) year from its effectivity. 148 On March 16, 2020, RR No. 5-2020 was issued amending RR No. 4-2019. It explicitly provides that the period for the availment of the Tax Amnesty on Delinquencies is until April 23, 2020 . Thereafter, RMC No. 33-2020 dated March 24, 2020 149 was issued, moving the deadline for the availment from April 23, 2020 to May 23, 2020 . On April 7, 2020, RMC No. 38-2020 150 was issued, extending the deadline from May 23, 2020 to June 8, 2020 . Meanwhile, on April 29, 2020, RR No. 11-2020 151 was issued, extending the availment period of the Tax Amnesty on Delinquencies from April 23, 2020 to June 22, 2020 . 152 On June 9, 2020 and June 19, 2020, respectively, RMC No. 61-2020 153 and RR No. 15-2020 154 were issued, further extending the availment period from June 22, 2020 to December 31, 2020 . 155 Lastly, on December 17, 2020, RR No. 32-2020 156 was issued, extending the availment period until June 30, 2021 . 157 No further extension of the deadline was issued thereafter. SDHTEC Hence, when petitioners filed the Petition on December 14, 2020, the effectivity of the extended Tax Amnesty on Delinquencies was about to end on December 31, 2020. In Express Telecommunications Co., Inc. v. AZ Communications, Inc. (Express Telecommunications) , 158 the Supreme Court explained when a case becomes moot, viz. : A case or issue is considered moot and academic when it ceases to present a justiciable controversy by virtue of supervening events, so that an adjudication of the case or a declaration on the issue would be of no practical value or use . In such instance, there is no actual substantial relief which a petitioner would be entitled to, and which would be negated by the dismissal of the petition. Courts generally decline jurisdiction over such case or dismiss it on the ground of mootness. This is because the judgment will not serve any useful purpose or have any practical legal effect because, in the nature of things, it cannot be enforced. (Emphasis supplied) In this case, the supervening issuance of RR No. 32-2020 finally extended the deadline for the availment of the Tax Amnesty on Delinquencies until June 30, 2021 , and the subsequent expiration of the period has mooted the present case. Only Congress, in exercising its legislative powers, can extend or fix the effectivity date of the law. As the Supreme Court held, "[i]f the law is too narrow in scope, it is for the Legislature rather than the courts to expand it." 159 It must be stressed that even if the Court disregards the belated filing of the Petition and grants petitioners' prayer, such would be of no practical use since the availment period of the Tax Amnesty on Delinquencies has already expired. As held in Express Telecommunications , no actual substantial relief can be granted to petitioners as the judgment will serve no useful purpose or have any practical legal effect because, in the nature of things, it cannot be enforced. Apart from being moot and academic , the Petition also lacks merit . Petitioners failed to satisfy the essential requisites of a Petition for Mandamus. Petitioners pray that the Court mandate respondent to issue the subject CTDs and duly endorsed APFs in their favor to avail of the Tax Amnesty on Delinquencies under RA No. 11213. Section 3, Rule 65 of the Revised Rules of Court provides: SEC. 3. Petition for mandamus . When any tribunal, corporation, board, officer , or person unlawfully neglects the performance of an act which the law specifically enjoins as a duty resulting from an office , trust, or station, or unlawfully excludes another from the use and enjoyment of a right or office to which such other is entitled, and there is no other plain, speedy and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law, the person aggrieved thereby may file a verified petition in the proper court, alleging the facts with certainty and praying that judgment be rendered commanding the respondent , immediately or at some other time to be specified by the court, to do the act required to be done to protect the rights of the petitioner , and to pay the damages sustained by the petitioner by reason of the wrongful acts of the respondent. HSAcaE The petition shall also contain a sworn certification of non-forum shopping as provided in the third paragraph of Section 3, Rule 46. (Emphases supplied) Accordingly, before a writ of mandamus may be issued, the following requisites must concur: (1) petitioner must show a clear legal right to the act demanded; (2) respondent must have the duty to perform the act because the same is mandated by law; (3) respondent unlawfully neglects the performance of the duty enjoined by law; (4) the act to be performed is ministerial, not discretionary; and (5) there is no other plain, speedy, and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law. 160 The Petition in this case is utterly devoid of merit. As discussed hereunder, the remedy of mandamus is improper. First: Petitioners should have proved a clear legal right to the issuance of the CTDs and duly endorsed APFs. Petitioners insist that they have a legal right to be issued their respective CTDs and APFs because they are eligible to apply for tax amnesty under Section 17 (d) 161 of the TAA, viz. : SEC. 17. Coverage . There is hereby authorized and granted a tax amnesty herein called the Tax Amnesty on Delinquencies, which shall cover all national internal revenue taxes such as, but not limited to, income tax, withholding tax, capital gains tax, donor's tax, value-added tax, other percentage taxes, excise tax and documentary stamp tax collected by the Bureau of Internal Revenue, including value-added tax and excise taxes collected by the Bureau of Customs for taxable year 2017 and prior years. For purposes of this Act, the Tax Amnesty on Delinquencies may be availed of in the following instances: (a) Delinquencies and assessments, which have become final and executory . . .; xxx xxx xxx (d) Withholding tax agents who withheld taxes but failed to remit the same to the Bureau of Internal Revenue . (Emphasis supplied) Section 3 of RR No. 4-2019, 162 which implements the above provision of the TAA, states: AScHCD SEC. 3. Coverage . All persons, whether natural or juridical, with internal revenue tax liabilities covering Tax Code, as amended, may avail of Tax Amnesty on Delinquencies within one (1) year from the effectivity of these Regulations , 163 under any of the following instances: A. Delinquent Accounts as of the effectivity of these Regulations, including the following: 1. Delinquent Accounts with application for compromise settlement . . .; 2. Delinquent Withholding Tax liabilities arising from non-withholding of tax ; and xxx xxx xxx D. Withholding tax liabilities of withholding agents arising from their failure to remit withheld taxes . (Emphasis supplied) Further, Section 19 of the TAA provides the period for availing of the tax amnesty, viz. : SEC. 19. Availment of the Tax Amnesty on Delinquencies; When and Where to File and Pay . Any person, natural or juridical, who wishes to avail of the Tax Amnesty on Delinquencies shall, within one (1) year from the effectivity of the Implementing Rules and Regulations of this Act , file with the appropriate office of the Bureau of Internal Revenue, . . ., a sworn Tax Amnesty on Delinquencies Return accompanied by a Certification of Delinquency . The payment of the amnesty tax shall be made at the time the Return is filed. (Emphasis supplied) Whereas RMC No. 57-2019 clarifies the reckoning date, and defines who is qualified to avail of the tax amnesty, viz. : Q1. Who are qualified to avail of the Tax Amnesty on Delinquencies? A1. All persons, whether natural or juridical, with delinquent internal revenue tax liabilities covering taxable year 2017 and prior years, on or before April 24, 2019 , may avail of Tax Amnesty on Delinquencies within one year from the effectivity of RR No. 4-2019 , under any of the following instances: A. Delinquent accounts: 1. Delinquent Accounts, whether without or with application for compromise settlement, . . .; 2. Delinquent withholding tax liabilities arising from non-withholding of tax; and xxx xxx xxx D. Withholding tax liabilities of withholding agents arising from their failure to remit withheld taxes. (Section 3, RR No. 4-2019 ) (Emphasis supplied) . HESIcT Here, respondent argues that the law 164 demands that the tax liability be final and executory or delinquent at the time of its effectivity. Thus, since the IRR 165 took effect on April 24, 2019, the same should be the reckoning date of the finality or delinquency of the tax liability sought to be applied for amnesty. Respondent further argues that the tax assessments against petitioners were not yet delinquent or have not yet attained finality as of April 24, 2019. Thus, they are not qualified to avail of the tax amnesty. We agree with respondent. To reiterate, petitioners anchor their entitlement to apply for a tax amnesty on Section 17 (d) 166 of the TAA relative to the tax liabilities of withholding tax agents who withheld taxes but failed to remit the same to the BIR. Based on Section 17 (d) of the TAA, as implemented by Section 3 of RR No. 4-2019, and clarified under Q1/A1 of RMC No. 57-2019, there are two (2) instances when the TAA may be availed of in case of withholding tax liabilities for the taxable year 2017 and prior years, to wit: (1) Delinquent withholding tax liabilities arising from the failure to withhold taxes or non-withholding of taxes ; 167 and (2) Withholding tax liabilities arising from the failure to remit withheld taxes to the BIR. 168 RMC No. 57-2019 explains that the delinquent withholding tax liabilities arising from the failure to withhold must be delinquent on or before April 24, 2019 . 169 A delinquent account pertains to a tax due from a taxpayer arising from the audit of the BIR, which had been issued Assessment Notices that have become final and executory. 170 However, the requirement that tax liabilities must be delinquent does not apply to withholding tax liabilities arising from the failure to remit withheld taxes which may be the subject of Tax Amnesty on Delinquencies at any stage/time of investigation as long as the amount is properly determined by the BIR. 171 Further, Tax Amnesty on Delinquencies can be availed of even if no Assessment Notice has become final and executory on or before April 24, 2019 , if the tax liabilities pertain to unremitted tax withheld by withholding agents. 172 A judicious review and study of petitioners' evidence submitted together with the instant Petition reveal that petitioners' deficiency withholding taxes were due to failure to withhold taxes or non-withholding of taxes . 173 Contrary to the averments in the Petition, none of the petitioners appear to be liable for failure to remit or non-remittance of withheld taxes. 174 To qualify for tax amnesty, petitioners withholding tax liabilities must be delinquent or have attained finality as of April 24, 2019. More importantly, petitioners must have been issued a Final Assessment Notice (FAN)/Formal Letter of Demand (FLD) or Final Decision on Disputed Assessment (FDDA) that has become final and executory as of April 24, 2019. 175 AcICHD Here, out of twenty-two (22) petitioners, only six (6) have attached to the Petition a copy of the FAN/FLD or FDDA; eleven (11) claimed to have received only Notices of Informal Conference (NIC); 176 two (2) received letters from respondent in response to their request for penalty assessment or computation; two (2) did not receive any communication from respondent; and one (1) received a Preliminary Assessment Notice (PAN). 177 The six (6) petitioners with Assessment Notices attached to the Petition are: Petitioners Notice Received Date We Lead Group Holdings, Inc. FLD/FAN October 25, 2019 Audio-Video Solutions Corporation FLD January 10, 2019 Alen V. Dragon Corp. FLD October 2, 2019 Icon Reefer Corp FLD November 28, 2019 G2K Corp. FDDA March 25, 2020 Maxx Energie Ventures Corporation FLD January 12, 2016 Only petitioners Audio-Video Solutions Corporation and Maxx Energie Ventures Corporation have been issued FLDs before April 24, 2019. However, they failed to prove that the FLDs were unprotested and that their tax liabilities have become delinquent as of April 24, 2019. Neither did they provide proof that their protest to the FLDs, if any, had been withdrawn on or before April 24, 2019. 178 Similarly, the tax liabilities of the other twenty (20) petitioners are not yet delinquent . The documents they attached to the Petition confirm that there is no final and executory assessment against any one of them as of April 24, 2019, that can qualify them for the tax amnesty. Indeed, records reveal that respondent denied the issuance of the CTDs and the endorsement of the APFs because petitioners' tax liabilities have yet to become delinquent; 179 they were self-assessed tax liabilities for TYs 2018 and 2019, hence, not covered by the TAA; 180 they were not qualified under RMC No. 57-2019, particularly in Q26 and A26; 181 they were open stop-filer cases, hence, not covered under RR No. 4-2019; 182 they were only at the informal conference stage; 183 among others. Presented below are the BIR notices or communications to petitioners and respondent's action to their request for CTD release and APF endorsement, viz. : caITAC Petitioner BIR Action Reitoh Cold Storage, Inc. BIR Notice Received NIC dated March 13, 2019 Denial Letter dated August 9, 2019: 184 The deficiency expanded withholding tax was assessed due to failure to withhold. Assessment is not yet considered a delinquent account. Denial Letter dated September 17, 2019: 185 The assessment on deficiency withholding tax was due to non-withholding and not due to non-remittance. Hence, the assessment has yet to become delinquent . Further, only a NIC dated March 13, 2019, was issued and received by Reitoh. We Lead Group Holdings, Inc. BIR Notice Received FLD and Assessment Notice dated October 25, 2019 Denial Letter dated December 27, 2019: 186 Not qualified to avail of the Tax Amnesty Program (RA No. 11213). Previous letters were sent informing We Lead that it may settle its tax liability through compromise settlement or abatement of penalties in accordance with the provisions of RR No. 30-2002. Denial Letter dated February 13, 2020: 187 Under RMC No. 57-2019, We Lead has unpaid self-assessed tax returns filed through EFPS for the taxable years 2018 and 2019 . It is required to pay the total basic tax due, and penalties shall be imposed as stated in the NIRC of 1997. Denial Letter dated February 3, 2020: 188 Pursuant to Section 2A.1 of RR No. 4-2019, its delinquency tax for 2016 is not a delinquent account because it still has a valid protest . Even if no valid protest was submitted by it, the effectivity of RR No. 4-2019 was April 24, 2019. There is no delinquent account as of April 24, 2019, because the Formal Letter of Demand was issued only on October 25, 2019. Elence Marine and Industrial Corporation BIR Notice Received Undated NIC None MBPS Cabling Corporation BIR Notice Received NIC dated January 7, 2020 Denial Letter dated July 28, 2020: 189 The assessment for EWT resulted from MBPS Cabling Corp.'s failure to withhold taxes on the payment of services, food, commissions, and professional fees. This is not a case of "withholding tax liabilities arising from failure to remit taxes withheld," as provided in Section 3 (D) of RR No. 4-2019. Likewise, records of the Collection Division revealed that MBPS Cabling Corp. has no records of tax delinquency/deficiency/liability account. At the same time, verification with the Legal Division showed no criminal case for tax evasion and other criminal offenses under Chapter II of Title X and Section 275 of the Tax Code, as amended, is pending against MBPS Cabling Corp., nor any final and executory judgment rendered by the courts against it. Denial Letters dated September 22, 2020 190 and October 16, 2020: 191 Absence of delinquent account, pending case, final and executory judgment, and equivalent document in case of unremitted tax withheld , as required under RR No. 4-2019. Garuda Construction Corporation BIR Notice Received PAN dated July 2, 2018 Denial Letter dated September 30, 2020: 192 There is no valid application and compliance for Tax Amnesty as subject taxes are not covered by the RA No. 11213. BCP Dermatological Corporation BIR Notice Received NIC dated December 26, 2019 Denial Letter dated August 3, 2020: 193 Subject withholding taxes are not covered by the TAA. Audio-Video Solutions Corporation BIR Notice Received FLD dated January 10, 2019 None Dunamis Import-Export Philippines, Incorporated BIR Notice Received NIC dated March 9, 2020 Letter dated October 12, 2020: 194 Request for APF-Signature and demand to sign/follow up on tax amnesty request are forwarded to Legal Division of RR No. 7A-Quezon City Alen V. Dragon Corporation BIR Notice Received FLD dated October 2, 2019 None Medev Medical Devices Corporation BIR Notice Received NIC dated May 31, 2019 Denial Letter dated December 5, 2019: 195 Medev's case is not a delinquent account that would fall under Section 17 (A) of RA No. 11213, nor is it covered by Section 17 (D) of the same law and reproduced under Section 3 (D) of RR No. 4-2019. Tax Amnesty can be availed only by those: (1) with delinquent internal revenue tax liabilities covering TY 2017 and prior years; and (2) the related assessment notices have become final and executory on or before 24 April 2019. In this case, there was no assessment notice yet that has become final and executory. As of June 7, 2019, the case is still under an Informal Conference. Further, the EWT liabilities arises from non-withholding of interest expense of Medev; thus, there is failure to withhold taxes on the said expense, and not failure to remit withheld taxes. Chrysalis Construction and Trading Corporation BIR Notice Received NIC dated July 19, 2018 Denial Letters dated October 7, 2019, 196 October 18, 2019 197 and October 22, 2019: 198 The subject assessment for taxable year 2016 issued against Chrysalis has not yet attained finality since the taxpayer was able to file timely protest/request for reinvestigation . Moreover, the said FAN was issued only after the effectivity of RR No. 4-2019. Finally, verification with the records of the Legal Division would show that there is no pending criminal case filed against Chrysalis/its responsible officers for tax evasion and other criminal offenses under Chapter II of Title X and Section 275 of the Tax Code, as amended, nor any final and executory judgment rendered by the courts against the taxpayer. Papisss, Inc. BIR Notice Received NIC dated May 24, 2019 None Icon Reefer Corporation BIR Notice Received FLD dated November 28, 2019 None JRT Const. and Trading Corporation BIR Notice Received NIC dated September 23, 2019 None DATALINK Solutions Technology and Consultancy, Inc. BIR Notice Received None None ABBE Technology Solutions, Inc. BIR Notice Received NIC dated October 11, 2019 Letter dated January 21, 2020: 199 Forwarded to the CIR for appropriate action Exequiel Balanlay Adora BIR Notice Received Request for Lease Contract re: Penalty Assessment (undated) Denial Letter dated December 11, 2019: 200 Penalties arising from the non-filing of returns/open cases, self-assessed taxes and electronic Filing and Payment cases are not included in the TAA 201 KEN N RIE Transport, Inc. BIR Notice Received None None R2B2 Realty & Development Corporation BIR Notice Received Letter dated January 16, 2020 re: request for computation of penalty for unpaid fringe benefits taxes Denial Letters dated June 2, 2020: 202 R2B2 failed to provide entitlement for the issuance of Notice of Issuance of Authority to Cancel Assessment (NIATCA) pursuant to Section 6 of RR No. 4-2019, in relation to III (1) E of RMO No. 33-2018; endorsed to the Legal Division for appropriate action Letter dated July 1, 2020: 203 Stop-filer cases are not covered under RR No. 4-2019 as they are not considered "delinquent accounts" for purposes of the implementation of RA No. 11213 G2K Corporation BIR Notice Received FDDA dated March 25, 2020 None Maxx Energie Ventures Corporation BIR Notice Received FLD dated January 12, 2016 None Powersource Philippines, Inc. BIR Notice Received NIC dated May 18, 2020 None Clearly, petitioners have no legal right to the issuance of the CTDs and the endorsement of the APFs. TAIaHE Second: Respondent has the duty to perform the act because the same is mandated by law. Third: Petitioners failed to prove that respondent neglected to perform any ministerial duty. Fourth: The issuance of CTDs, APFs, and NIATCAs is a discretionary function of respondent, not a ministerial one. Petitioners claim that they are entitled to avail of the benefits of the TAA as respondent has the ministerial duty to issue in their favor the CTDs, APFs, and NIATCAs after they filed their TAR and APF, albeit without the required endorsement and paid the amnesty tax. The Court disagrees. A writ of mandamus cannot be availed of against an official or government agency whose duty requires the exercise of discretion or judgment. 204 A writ of mandamus will not issue either to compel officials to do something which is not their duty to do or which it is their duty not to do or to give to the applicant anything to which he or she is not entitled by law . 205 Respondent's authority under the TAA includes determining who is qualified to avail of the tax amnesty under the TAA, which is a discretionary function and not merely a ministerial one. A determination that requires a review of evidentiary matters and an application of the law and administrative guidelines is considered a discretionary , quasi-judicial function, demanding an exercise of independent judgment on the part of certain public officers. 206 Having ascertained from the factual circumstances of the case that petitioners' tax liabilities are not covered under the TAA and its implementing regulations, respondent cannot be compelled to introduce exceptions to the coverage of the TAA nor disregard its provisions. Noteworthy is the case of CIR v. Transfield Philippines, Inc. , 207 wherein the Supreme Court explained the nature of a tax amnesty: ICHDca A tax amnesty operates as a general pardon or intentional overlooking by the State of its authority to impose penalties on persons otherwise guilty of evasion or violation of a revenue or tax law. It is an absolute forgiveness or waiver by the government of its right to collect what is due it and to give tax evaders who wish to relent a chance to start with a clean slate. A tax amnesty, much like a tax exemption, is never favored nor presumed in law. The grant of a tax amnesty is akin to a tax exemption; thus, it must be construed strictly against the taxpayer and liberally in favor of the taxing authority. (Emphasis and underscoring supplied) Respondent is guided by the provisions of the TAA, its IRR as found in RR No. 4-2019 and RMC No. 57-2019, and other related issuances about tax amnesty in exercising its discretion and finally denying petitioners' request for the release of the CTDs and endorsed APFs. Section 5 (C) of RR No. 4-2019 provides the step-by-step procedures that taxpayers, like petitioners, must undertake in availing of the TAA, viz. : C. PROCEDURES The taxpayer-applicant shall: Step 1. Secure the Certificate of Delinquencies/Tax Liabilities from the concerned BIR Office as specified below: Step 2. Present the duly accomplished TAR made under oath and APF, together with the other required documents, to the concerned RDO/LTD/LTCED for endorsement of the APF and pay the tax amnesty amount with the AABs or RCOs, whichever is applicable, by presenting the RDO/LTD/LTCED-endorsed or approved APF: Step 3. Submit/file immediately to the RDO/LTD/LTCED where the taxpayer is registered, in triplicate copies, the duly accomplished TAR, made under oath, together with the complete documentary requirements and proof of payment , which in no case shall be beyond the one (1) year availment period. The taxpayer/applicant shall be furnished with a copy, stamped as received, of said TAR and APF. Availment of Tax Amnesty on Delinquencies shall be considered fully complied with upon completion of the above enumerated steps within the one (1) year availment period . (Emphasis supplied) On the other hand, RMO No. 23-2019 outlines the basis for issuing the required CTD to the taxpayer. 208 From the foregoing, a CTD showing taxpayers' tax delinquencies/liabilities based on the records 209 must first be secured from the concerned BIR office having custody or jurisdiction over the taxpayer. A CTD is issued upon determination and verification that the taxpayer's liabilities are delinquent and covered under the TAA. Only upon the issuance of a CTD may a taxpayer be assessed the tax liabilities as indicated above. 210 cDHAES The taxpayer shall then accomplish a sworn TAR and APF and present them, with the CTD, to the concerned RDO/LTD/LTCED for endorsement . The RDO/LTD/LTCED shall endorse the APF upon receipt of the CTD and sworn TAR, which shall then be presented for payment by the taxpayer with the applicable AABs or RCOs. The sworn TAR, endorsed APF, CTD, and proof of payment shall be submitted to the concerned RDO/LTD/LTCED for receiving. 211 Here, petitioners avoided the first step in availing of the TAA. They failed to secure their respective CTDs and the duly endorsed APFs before paying the tax amnesty amount. Hence, contrary to petitioners' claim, they failed to comply with the TAA requirements and to qualify for the tax amnesty. Given the exacting provisions of the TAA, the application for tax amnesty is not a readily demandable entitlement. Respondent acted pursuant to law and existing regulations when it denied petitioners' requests for CTDs, duly endorsed APFs, NIATCAs, and applications for tax amnesty. Absent proof that the rules and regulations are issued beyond respondent's authority or there is a conflict between the TAA and its IRR, respondent's duty has been deemed fulfilled. 212 In the absence of a clear legal right on the part of petitioners and the corresponding ministerial duties required by law on respondent that they neglected to perform, a writ of mandamus , being an extraordinary remedy that requires a showing of extraordinary facts, 213 cannot be issued. Fifth: Petitioners have other plain, speedy, and adequate remedies in the ordinary course of law. Settled is the rule that the special civil action for certiorari , prohibition, or mandamus under Rule 65 of the Revised Rules of Court is available to an aggrieved party only when "there is no plain, speedy, and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law." Otherwise, the petition will not prosper even if the alleged ground is grave abuse of discretion. 214 The thrust of the requisite on exhaustion of administrative remedies is that the courts must allow administrative agencies to carry out their functions and discharge their responsibilities within the specialized areas of their respective competence. 215 To this end, administrative agencies are afforded a chance to correct any previous error committed in their forum. Furthermore, reasons of law, comity, and convenience prevent the courts from entertaining cases proper for determination by administrative agencies. 216 In this case, petitioners should have exhausted all other available remedies. A motion or request for reconsideration is a plain, speedy, and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law. An appeal to the Revenue Regional Director or the CIR is also an available remedy. Records show that the assailed letters were signed and sent to petitioners by the Revenue Officer, 217 RDOs, Assistant Regional Director, 218 and Regional Directors. Recourse to the Regional Director and the CIR, who have the authority to review the actions of their subordinates, is similarly available in this case. TCAScE Another remedy, as suggested in the letter dated December 27, 2019 219 to petitioner We Lead Group Holdings, Inc., signed by Regional Director Albino M. Galanza of RR7A-Quezon City, is compromise settlement or abatement of penalties under RR No. 30-2002. In the case of Lopez v. The City of Manila , 220 the Supreme Court ruled that where a remedy is available within the administrative machinery, this should be resorted to before resort can be made to courts, not only to allow the administrative agency to decide the matter by itself correctly but also to prevent unnecessary and premature recourse to courts. Failure to exhaust administrative remedies provided by law, by weight of established jurisprudence, is fatal to one's cause of action. Lest we forget, the law intends to allow the administrative agency to rectify the errors it may have lapsed into before resorting to the courts of justice can be had. The procedural shortcut taken by petitioners finds no justification either in law or jurisprudence, and it is fatal to their Petition. Accordingly, since petitioners have other plain, speedy, and adequate remedies in the ordinary course of law, the instant Petition for Mandamus is an incorrect remedy. Petitioners likewise failed to satisfy the essential requisites of a Petition for Certiorari. Section 1, Rule 65 of the Revised Rules of Court, provides that: Section 1. Petition for certiorari . When any tribunal, board or officer exercising judicial or quasi-judicial functions has acted without or in excess of its or his jurisdiction , or with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction , and there is no appeal or any plain, speedy, and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law , a person aggrieved thereby may file a verified petition in the proper court, alleging the facts with certainty and praying that judgment be rendered annulling or modifying the proceedings of such tribunal, board or officer, and granting such incidental reliefs as law and justice may require. The petition shall be accompanied by a certified true copy of the judgment, order or resolution subject thereof, copies of all pleadings and documents relevant and pertinent thereto, and a sworn certification of non-forum shopping as provided in the third paragraph of Section 3, Rule 46. (1a) (Emphasis supplied) ASEcHI In essence, for a petition for certiorari to prosper, the following essential requisites 221 must concur: 1. The writ is directed against a tribunal, a board, or any officer exercising judicial or quasi-judicial functions; 2. Such tribunal, board, or officer has acted without or in excess of jurisdiction, or with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction; and 3. There is no appeal or any plain, speedy, and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law. First: The issuance of the letters denying petitioners' requests for CTDs, APFs, or NIATCAs (denial letters) is not a judicial or quasi- judicial act of the respondent. As part of the Executive Department of the government, the BIR is vested with powers to assess and collect taxes. To some extent, it also exercises quasi-judicial and subordinate legislative functions. Respondent's quasi-judicial function is clear under Section 4 of the NIRC of 1997, as amended, to wit: Sec. 4. Power of the Commissioner to Interpret Tax Laws and to Decide Tax Cases . The power to interpret the provisions of this Code and other tax laws shall be under the exclusive and original jurisdiction of the Commissioner, subject to review by the Secretary of Finance . The power to decide disputed assessments, refunds of internal revenue taxes, fees or other charges, penalties imposed in relation thereto, or other matters arising under this Code or other laws or portions thereof administered by the Bureau of Internal Revenue is vested in the Commissioner , subject to the exclusive appellate jurisdiction of the Court of Tax Appeals . (Emphasis supplied) Quasi-judicial or administrative adjudicatory power vests upon the administrative agency the authority to adjudicate the rights of persons before it. It involves the power to hear and determine questions of fact and, after such determination, to decide in accordance with the standards laid down by law issues that arise in the enforcement and administration thereof. In the performance of quasi-judicial and, of course, judicial acts, there must be a law that gives rise to some specific rights of persons or property from which the adverse claims are rooted, and the controversy ensuing therefrom is brought before a tribunal, board, or officer clothed with power and authority to determine the law and adjudicate the right of the contending parties. 222 In the instant case, petitioners assert that the denial of their requests for the issuance of NIATCA after they filed their TARs and APFs and paid the amnesty taxes is a decision of the CIR arising under the NIRC and its related laws. 223 cTDaEH The Court disagrees. As indicated above, the denial letters did not come from the CIR, and they are not decisions of the CIR arising under the NIRC and its related laws. Thus, contrary to petitioners' claim, the denial of their requests for CTDs, APFs, and/or NIATCAs is neither a decision nor a quasi-judicial act of the CIR. Second: Respondent did not act with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction when the subject denial letters were issued. A Petition for Certiorari under Rule 65 is intended for the correction of errors of jurisdiction only or grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction . 224 To successfully bring to court a Petition for Certiorari , petitioners must be able to allege in the pleading that respondent committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction in the issuance of the questioned decision, resolution, or order. What constitutes "grave abuse of discretion" was discussed by the Supreme Court in the case of Tan v. Spouses Antazo , 225 to wit: . . . it is well-settled that a petition for certiorari against a court which has jurisdiction over a case will prosper only if grave abuse of discretion is manifested. The burden is on the part of the petitioner to prove not merely reversible error, but grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction on the part of the public respondent issuing the impugned order . Mere abuse of discretion is not enough; it must be grave. The term grave abuse of discretion is defined as a capricious and whimsical exercise of judgment so patent and gross as to amount to an evasion of a positive duty or a virtual refusal to perform a duty enjoined by law, as where the power is exercised in an arbitrary and despotic manner because of passion or hostility . (Emphasis and underscoring supplied) "Grave abuse of discretion" implies such capricious and whimsical exercise of judgment as to be equivalent to lack or excess of jurisdiction; simply put, power is exercised in an arbitrary or despotic manner by reason of passion, prejudice, or personal hostility; and such exercise is so patent or so gross as to amount to an evasion of a positive duty or a virtual refusal either to perform the duty enjoined or to act at all in contemplation of law. 226 ITAaHc The Revenue Officer, RDOs, Assistant Regional Director, and Regional Directors merely responded to petitioners' various requests when they signed and issued the subject denial letters. A careful review of the letters shows that they are not the "judgment, order or resolution" that may be assailed and raised before this Court under Rule 65. They are regular communication or correspondence issued by BIR officials in reply to a taxpayer's request, as they must act promptly on letters and requests received from taxpayers. 227 Moreover, petitioners did not allege the specific acts or omissions constituting grave abuse of discretion on the part of respondent BIR and the concerned officials in the issuance of the assailed letters. Petitioners merely state: 228 10. The judicial power to determine whether or not there is grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction on the part of Respondent reposed in the CTA is enshrined in the Constitution . . . 11. Thus, "(a) petition for certiorari is proper where the impugned dispositions, as in this case, are tainted with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction. Nonetheless, even if there is such an allegation in the Petition, the Court concludes that no grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction can be attributed to respondent in holding that petitioners are not covered by the TAA and in issuing the denial letters. As to the third requisite, We already ruled that petitioners have other plain, speedy, and adequate remedies in the ordinary course of law. Hence, We need to refrain from belaboring the same requisite again. Clearly, a Petition for Certiorari is not a proper remedy. The Petition is marred with procedural or formal infirmities. At this juncture, it is also well to add that the Court noted procedural or formal infirmities in filing the Petition for Mandamus or Certiorari under Rule 65. The assailed denial letters attached to the Petition are all photocopies. The assailed denial letters attached to the Petition pertaining to eleven (11) petitioners are neither duplicate originals nor certified true copies, in violation of Section 1, Rule 65, 229 in relation to Section 3, Rule 46. 230 cSaATC The Petition lacks the proper Verification and Certification of Forum Shopping. Petitioners failed to attach the original or certified true copies of their respective Secretary's Certificate, Board Resolution, and/or Special Power of Attorney. While the Petition contains a sworn Verification and Certification of Non-Forum Shopping executed by Ms. Maureen Braza and Ms. Gina Mandigma, the alleged authorized representatives of petitioners, the proof of their authority to sign the Verification and Certification, i.e. , Special Power of Attorney, 231 Board Resolution, 232 and Secretary's Certificate, 233 are mere photocopies . This casts doubt as to the validity of the representatives' authority to file this petition on behalf of petitioners. In Shipside, Incorporated v. Court of Appeals, et al. , 234 the Supreme Court stated specific rules regarding verification and certification against forum shopping, to wit: . . ., the lack of certification against forum shopping is generally not curable by the submission thereof after the filing of the petition. Section 5, Rule 45 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure provides that the failure of the petitioner to submit the required documents that should accompany the petition, including the certification against forum shopping, shall be sufficient ground for the dismissal thereof. The same rule applies to certifications against forum shopping signed by a person on behalf of a corporation which are unaccompanied by proof that said signatory is authorized to file a petition on behalf of the corporation . (Emphasis supplied) From the foregoing, when the certification against forum shopping is not accompanied by proof that the signatory thereof is authorized to file the petition on behalf of the corporation, the same is sufficient ground for the dismissal of the action. Petitioners failed to join as respondents the officers who signed and issued the assailed denial letters. Section 5, Rule 65 of the Revised Rules of Court reads: SEC. 5. Respondents and costs in certain cases . When the petition filed relates to the acts or omissions of a judge, court, quasi-judicial agency , tribunal, corporation, board, officer or person , the petitioner shall join, as private respondent or respondents with such public respondent or respondents, the person or persons interested in sustaining the proceedings in the court ; and it shall be the duty of such private respondents to appear and defend, both in his or their own behalf and in behalf of the public respondent or respondents affected by the proceedings, and the costs awarded in such proceedings in favor of the petitioner shall be against the private respondents only, and not against the judge, court, quasi-judicial agency, tribunal, corporation, board, officer or person impleaded as public respondent or respondents. (Emphasis supplied) From the foregoing, when the petition relates to the acts or omissions of a quasi-judicial agency, petitioners shall join, as private respondent or respondents with such public respondent or respondents, the person or persons interested in sustaining the proceedings in the court. CHTAIc Petitioners merely impleaded the agency, the BIR, and not the responsible officials who issued and signed the assailed denial letters and whose alleged acts or omissions have caused petitioners to file this Petition. In sum, there is an abundance of procedural and substantive reasons which are fatal to petitioners' case. The Supreme Court, in many instances, has exercised leniency in applying the rules to dismiss the petition based on mere technicalities. However, petitioners' numerous violations of the rules only show their conscious disregard for the procedure. Nonetheless, even if the Court ignores petitioners' non-compliance with the above essential and formal requisites of the Petition for Mandamus or Certiorari under Rule 65 of the Revised Rules of Procedure, the Petition still fails for having been filed out-of-time and for being moot and academic. WHEREFORE , finding the instant Petition to be without merit, aside from being time-barred and moot, the same is DISMISSED . SO ORDERED. (SGD.) LANEE S. CUI-DAVID Associate Justice Jean Marie A. Bacorro-Villena, J. , concurs. Footnotes 1. Division Docket (Docket) Vol. I, pp. 12-620, with annexes. 2. Id. , Petition for Review, par. 4, p. 13. 3. Id. , p. 16. 4. Id. , Annex P-17, Special Power of Attorney, pp. 80-81. 5. Id. , p. 16 and p. 80. 6. Id. , Annex P-1, Board Resolution, p. 49. 7. Id. , Annex P-2, Secretary's Certificate, pp. 50-51. 8. Id. , Annex P-3, Secretary's Certificate, pp. 52-53. 9. Id. , Annex P-4, Secretary's Certificate, pp. 54-55. 10. Id. , Annex P-5, Secretary's Certificate, pp. 56-57. 11. Id. , Annex P-6, Secretary's Certificate, pp. 58-59. 12. Id. , Annex P-7, Secretary's Certificate, pp. 60-61. 13. Id. , Annex P-8, Secretary's Certificate, pp. 62-63. 14. Id. , Annex P-9, Secretary's Certificate, pp. 64-65. 15. Id. , Annex P-10, Secretary's Certificate, pp. 66-67. 16. Id. , Annex P-11, Secretary's Certificate, pp. 68-69. 17. Id. , Annex P-12, Secretary's Certificate, pp. 70-71. 18. Id. , Annex P-13, Secretary's Certificate, pp. 72-73. 19. Id. , Annex P-14, Secretary's Certificate, pp. 74-75. 20. Id. , Annex P-15, Secretary's Certificate, pp. 76-77. 21. Id. , Annex P-16, Secretary's Certificate, pp. 78-79. 22. Id. , Annex P-18, Secretary's Certificate, pp. 82-83. 23. Id. , Annex P-19, Secretary's Certificate, pp. 84-85. 24. Id. , Annex P-20, Secretary's Certificate, pp. 86-87. 25. Id. , Annex P-21, Secretary's Certificate, pp. 88-89. 26. Id. , Annex P-22, Secretary's Certificate, pp. 90-92. 27. Implementing Rules and Regulations (IRR) of Republic Act No. 11213, Otherwise Known as the "Tax Amnesty Act," Providing for the Guidelines on the Processing of Tax Amnesty Application on Tax Delinquencies. 28. Docket Vol. I, Petition for Review, Annex P-23, pp. 93-94. 29. Id. , Annex P-24, pp. 95-101. 30. Id. , Annex P-25, p. 102. 31. Id. , Annex P-26, pp. 103-108. 32. Id. , Annex P-27, pp. 109-114. 33. Id. , Annex P-28, pp. 115-119. 34. Id. , Annex P-29, pp. 120-128. 35. Id. , Annex P-30, pp. 129-132. 36. Id. , Annex P-31, pp. 133-135. 37. Id. , Annex P-32, pp. 136-137. 38. Id. , Annex P-33, pp. 138-140. 39. Id. , Annex P-34, pp. 141-142. 40. Id. , Annex P-35, pp. 143-144. 41. Id. , Annex P-36, pp. 145-147. 42. JRT Const. and Trading Corporation did not receive any notice from the BIR but filed a Monthly Remittance Return of Creditable Income Taxes Withheld (Expanded) or BIR Form No. 1601-E received by the BIR on February 12, 2020 with "late filing/late payment penalties computed" annotation, id. , Annex P-37, pp. 148-159. 43. Id. , Annex P-38, pp. 160-162. 44. Id. , Annex P-39, pp. 163-166. 45. KEN N RIE Transport, Inc. did not receive any notice from the BIR but filed a Monthly Remittance Return of Creditable Income Taxes Withheld (Expanded) or BIR Form No. 1601-E received by the BIR on February 21, 2020 with "late filing" stamp, id. , Annex P-40, pp. 167-177. 46. Id. , Annex P-41, p. 178. 47. Id. , Annex P-42, pp. 179-180. 48. Id. , Annex P-43, pp. 181-182. Without signature page attached. 49. Id. , Annex P-44, pp. 183-185. 50. Id. , Annexes P-145 to 209, pp. 498-585. 51. Id. , Annex P-210A, pp. 587-588. 52. Id. , Annex P-210, p. 586. 53. Par. 18, Petition for Review, Docket Vol. I, p. 34, vis--vis par. 6, Memorandum for Petitioners, Docket Vol. II, p. 795. 54. Id. 55. Petition for Review, Annex P-211, Docket Vol. I, p. 589. 56. Id. , Annex P-212, pp. 590-591. 57. Id. , Annex P-212A, p. 592. 58. Par. 18, Petition for Review, Docket Vol. I, p. 34, vis--vis par. 6, Memorandum for Petitioners, Docket Vol. II, p. 795. 59. Id. 60. Id. , Annex P-213, pp. 593-595; Annex P-214A, pp. 597-599. 61. Id. , Annex P-214, p. 596. 62. Id. , Annex P-214B, p. 600. 63. Par. 18, Petition for Review, Docket Vol. I, p. 34, vis--vis par. 6, Memorandum for Petitioners, Docket Vol. II, p. 796. 64. Par. 18, Petition for Review, Docket Vol. I, p. 35, vis--vis par. 6, Memorandum for Petitioners, Docket Vol. II, p. 796. 65. Id. , Annex P-215, p. 603. 66. Par. 18, Petition for Review, Docket Vol. I, p. 35, vis--vis par. 6, Memorandum for Petitioners, Docket Vol. II, p. 796. 67. Id. , Annex P-216, pp. 604-605, with missing pages and signature page. 68. Par. 18, Petition for Review, Docket Vol. I, p. 35, vis--vis par. 6, Memorandum for Petitioners, Docket Vol. II, p. 796. 69. Id. , Annex P-217, p. 606. 70. Par. 18, Petition for Review, Docket Vol. I, p. 35, vis--vis par. 6, Memorandum for Petitioners, Docket Vol. II, p. 796. 71. Id. , Annex P-218, pp. 607-608, with missing signature page. 72. Par. 18, Petition for Review, Docket Vol. I, p. 35, vis--vis par. 6, Memorandum for Petitioners, Docket Vol. II, p. 796. 73. Id. , Annex P-219A, pp. 610-612; id. , Annex P-219C, p. 616. 74. Id. , Annex P-219B, pp. 613-615. 75. Id. , Annex P-219, p. 609. 76. Par. 18, Petition for Review, Docket Vol. I, p. 36, vis--vis par. 6, Memorandum for Petitioners, Docket Vol. II, p. 796. 77. Id. , Annex P-220, p. 617. 78. Par. 18, Petition for Review, Docket Vol. I, p. 36, vis--vis par. 6, Memorandum for Petitioners, Docket Vol. II, p. 796. 79. Id. , Annex P-221, p. 618, with missing pages and signature page. 80. Petition for Review, no. 17, p. 36. 81. Par. 18, Petition for Review, Docket Vol. I, p. 36, vis--vis par. 6, Memorandum for Petitioners, Docket Vol. II, p. 797. 82. Petition for Review, Annex P-222A, p. 620. 83. Id. , Annex P-222, p. 619. 84. Par. 18, Petition for Review, Docket Vol. I, p. 37, vis--vis par. 6, Memorandum for Petitioners, Docket Vol. II, p. 797. 85. Docket Vol. II, pp. 621-622. 86. Docket Vol. II, pp. 625-630. 87. Docket Vol. II, pp. 632-636. 88. Docket Vol. II, p. 631. 89. Docket Vol. II, p. 638. 90. Docket Vol. II, pp. 639-655. 91. Docket Vol. II, pp. 657-660. 92. Docket Vol. II, pp. 696-700. 93. Docket Vol. II, pp. 707-709. 94. Docket Vol. II, pp. 710-734. 95. Docket Vol. II, pp. 661-665. 96. Docket Vol. II, pp. 670-694, with annexes. 97. Docket Vol. II, pp. 702-706. 98. Docket Vol. II, Minutes of the Hearing, p. 735; Order dated June 14, 2021, p. 736; Resolution dated June 17, 2021, p. 739. 99. Docket Vol. II, pp. 740-742. 100. Docket Vol. II, p. 743. 101. Docket Vol. II, pp. 749-750. 102. Docket Vol. II, Notice of Resetting dated October 15, 2021, pp. 751-752. 103. Docket Vol. II, Notice of Resetting dated February 9, 2022, pp. 753-754. Memorandum Circular No. 10-2022. 104. Docket Vol. II, pp. 755 to 757. 105. Docket Vol. II, pp. 760 to 761. 106. Docket Vol. II, pp. 764 to 766. 107. Docket Vol. II, pp. 768 to 772. 108. Docket Vol. II, pp. 773 to 789. 109. Docket Vol. II, pp. 793 to 816. 110. Docket Vol. II, p. 817. 111. Grounds, Petition for Review, Docket Vol. I, p. 37, vis--vis Statement of the Issues, Memorandum for Petitioners, Docket Vol. II, pp. 797-798. 112. G.R. No. 169225, November 17, 2010, cited in CIR v. Philippine Aluminum Wheels, Inc. , CTA EB No. 994 (CTA Case No. 7817), May 19, 2014. 113. WPP Marketing Communications, Inc. v. CIR , CTA Case No. 9704, June 5, 2020. 114. Id. 115. G.R. No. 230107, July 24, 2018. 116. Rural Bank of Calinog (Iloilo), Inc. v. CA , G.R. No. 146519, August 8, 2005. 117. G.R. No 182399, March 12, 2014. 118. Clarifies Certain Issues on Tax Amnesty on Delinquencies under Revenue Regulations No. 4-2019 which Implemented Title IV of Republic Act No. 11213 or the Tax Amnesty Act, May 22, 2019. 119. Pilipinas Kao, Inc. v. Court of Appeals , G.R. No. 105014, December 18, 2001. 120. G.R. No. 216161, August 9, 2017. 121. Id. 122. G.R. No. 151908, August 12, 2003. 123. CTA Case No. 8101, July 21, 2010, citing Smart Communications, Inc., et al. v. NTC , G.R. No. 151908, August 12, 2003; Globe and ISLACOM v. Court of Appeals and NTC , G.R. No. 152063, August 12, 2003. 124. G.R. No. 163583, August 20, 2008. 125. G.R. No. 175550, September 17, 2008. 126. G.R. No. 148420, December 15, 2005, 478 SCRA 115, 123-124, citing Olsen and Co v. Aldanese , G.R. No. L-18740, April 28, 1922. 127. G.R. No. L-21879, September 29, 1967. 128. SEC. 19. Availment of the Tax Amnesty on Delinquencies; When and Where to File and Pay . Any person, natural or juridical, who wishes to avail of the Tax Amnesty on Delinquencies shall, within one (1) year from the effectivity of the Implementing Rules and Regulations of this Act , file with the appropriate office of the Bureau of Internal Revenue, which has jurisdiction over the residence or principal place of business of the taxpayer, a sworn Tax Amnesty on Delinquencies Return accompanied by a Certification of Delinquency . The payment of the amnesty tax shall be made at the time the Return is filed. (Emphasis added) 129. G.R. Nos. 178000 and 178003, December 4, 2009. 130. Padlan v. Dinglasan , G.R. No. 180321, March 20, 2013. 131. Id. 132. Villena v. Payoyo , G.R. No. 163021, April 27, 2007. 133. Hernudd v. Lofgren , G.R. No. 140337, September 27, 2007. 134. Evangelista v. Santiago , G.R. No. 157447, April 29, 2005, citing Chacon Enterprises v. Court of Appeals , G.R. No. L-46418, September 29, 1983. 135. Docket Vol. II, par. 4, p. 798; pars. 9-11; pp. 801-802. 136. Id. , pp. 815-816. For easy reference, petitioners' prayer in its Memorandum reads: "WHEREFORE, with Petitioner's availment of the tax amnesties on delinquencies pursuant to Republic Act No. 11213, otherwise known as the Tax Amnesty Act, it is respectfully prayed of this Honorable Court to mandate Respondent to issue the CTD and APF in favor of Petitioners in order that they may be deemed to have fully complied with all the conditions set forth in the including the payment of their amnesty tax, their tax delinquency may be considered settled, and the tax amnesty granted becomes final and irrevocable." 137. Docket Vol. I, p. 47. 138. G.R. No. 175723, February 4, 2014. 139. SEC. 6. Means to carry jurisdiction into effect . When by law jurisdiction is conferred on a court or judicial officer, all auxiliary writs, processes and other means necessary to carry it into effect may be employed by such court or officer; and if the procedure to be followed in the exercise of such jurisdiction is not specifically pointed out by law or by these rules, any suitable process or mode of proceeding may be adopted which appears comfortable to the spirit of the said law or rules. 140. G.R. No. 198756, August 16, 2016. 141. The Supreme Court "[applied] by analogy the ruling In National Water Resources Board v. A. L. Ang Network, Inc. , 632 Phil. 22, 28-29 (2010) [Per J. Carpio-Morales, First Division], which states that '[s]ince the appellate court has exclusive appellate jurisdiction over quasi-judicial agencies under Rule 43 of the Rules of Court, petitions for writs of certiorari , prohibition or mandamus against the acts and omissions of quasi-judicial agencies, like petitioner, should be filed with it.' 142. G.R. No. 197191, November 21, 2016. 143. SEC. 3. Contents and filing of petition; effect of noncompliance with requirements . . . . In actions filed under Rule 65, the petition shall further indicate the material dates showing when notice of the judgment or final order or resolution subject thereof was received, when a motion for new trial or reconsideration, if any, was filed and when notice of the denial thereof was received. . . . The failure of the petitioner to comply any of the requirements shall be sufficient ground for the dismissal of the petition. (Emphasis supplied) 144. Wenceslao, et al. v. Makati Development Corporation , G.R. No. 230696, August 30, 2017. 145. Petition for Review, par. 18, Docket Vol. I, pp. 34-37; Memorandum for Petitioners, par. 6, Docket Vol. II, pp. 795-797. 146. Id. 147. Implementing Rules and Regulations (IRR) of Republic Act No. 11213, Otherwise Known as the "Tax Amnesty Act," Providing for the Guidelines on the Processing of Tax Amnesty Application on Tax Delinquencies. 148. SEC. 3. Coverage. All persons, whether natural or juridical, with internal revenue tax liabilities covering taxable year 2017 and prior years, may avail of Tax Amnesty on Delinquencies within one (1) year from the effectivity of these Regulations, . . . 149. Extends Deadline on Availment of Tax Amnesty on Delinquencies under Revenue Regulations (RR) No. 4-2019 as Amended by RR No. 5-2020. 150. Further Extension of Deadline on Availment of Tax Amnesty on Delinquencies under Revenue Regulations (RR) No. 4-2019 as Amended by RR No 5-2020 in Relation with Revenue Memorandum Circular (RMC) No. 33-2020 dated March 24, 2020. 151. Amends Section 2 of Revenue Regulations No. 10-2020 Relative to the Extension of Statutory Deadlines and Timelines for the Filing and Submission of Any Document and the Payment of Taxes Pursuant to Section 4 (z) of Republic Act No. 11469, Otherwise Known as "Bayanihan to Heal as One Act," April 29, 2020. 152. Id. , Section 2, line 34. 153. Further Extension of Deadline on Availment of Tax Amnesty on Delinquencies under Revenue Regulations (RR) No. 4-2019 as Amended by RR No. 5-2020 in Relation with Revenue Memorandum Circular (RMC) No. 33-2020 dated March 24, 2020, RMC No. 38-2020 dated April 7, 2020 and RR No. 11-2020 dated April 29, 2020. 154. Further Amendments to Revenue Regulations No. 4-2019, as Amended, on Tax Amnesty on Delinquencies, June 19, 2020. 155. Id. , SEC. 2. Amendment to Section 3 . Section 3 of RR No. 4-2019, as amended, is hereby further amended to read as follows: "SECTION 3. COVERAGE. Any person, . . . may avail of Tax Amnesty on Delinquencies within one (1) year from the effectivity of these Regulations or until December 31, 2020, . . . However, the said date may be extended if the circumstances warrant an extension such as in case of country-wide economic or health reasons ." (Underscoring on the original) 156. Further Amendments to Revenue Regulations No. 4-2019, as Amended, on Tax Amnesty on Delinquencies, December 17, 2020. 157. Id. , SEC. 2. Amendment to Section 3 . Section 3 of RR No. 4-2019, as amended, is hereby further amended to read as follows: "SECTION 3. COVERAGE. All persons, . . ., may avail of Tax Amnesty on Delinquencies within one (1) year from the effectivity of these Regulations or until June 30, 2021 , under any of the instances listed below. However, the said date may be extended if the circumstances warrant an extension such as in case of country-wide economic or health reason/s." (Emphasis on the original) 158. G.R. No. 196902, July 13, 2020. 159. Lacson v. Roque , G.R. No. L-6225, 92 Phil. 456, 464, January 10, 1953, citing Cornejo v. Naval , G.R. No. L-33648, 54 Phil. 809, 814, July 30, 1930. 160. Philippine Statistics Authority (Formerly National Statistics Office) and Philippine Statistics Authority-Legazpi City v. Ferolino , G.R. No, 238021, June 14, 2021; Malingin v. Sandagan, et al. , G.R. No. 240056, October 12, 2020; Datu Malingin (Lemuel Talingting y Simborio), et al. v. PO3 Sandagan, et al. , G.R. No 240056, October 12, 2020. 161. Item 4, Statement of the Facts, Memorandum for Petitioners. 162. SUBJECT: Implementing Rules and Regulations of Republic Act No. 11213, Otherwise Known as the "Tax Amnesty Act," Providing for the Guidelines on the Processing of Tax Amnesty Application on Tax Delinquencies, Revenue Regulations No. 04-19, April 5, 2019. 163. RR No. 4-2019 was published on April 9, 2019, and took effect on April 24, 2019. 164. Referring to RA No. 11213 or the Tax Amnesty Act. 165. Referring to RR No. 4-2019 that became effective on April 24, 2019. 166. Item 4, Statement of the Facts, Memorandum for Petitioners. 167. Q1/A1 (A) (2), RMC No. 57-2019. 168. Q1/A1 (D), RMC No. 57-2019. 169. Q1/A1, RMC No. 57-2019. 170. Section 2 (A) of RR No. 4-2019 defines a delinquent account to mean as follows: . . . A. Delinquent Account shall pertain to a tax due from a taxpayer arising from the audit of the Bureau of Internal Revenue (BIR) which had been issued Assessment Notices that have become final and executory due to the following instances: 1. Failure to pay the tax due on the prescribed due date provided in the Final Assessment Notice (FAN)/Formal Letter of Demand (FLD) and for which no valid Protest, whether a request for reconsideration or reinvestigation, has been filed within thirty (30) days from receipt thereof; . . . B. Assessment Notice . . . This term includes Final Assessment Notice (FAN)/Formal Letter of Demand (FLD) and Final Decision on Disputed Assessment (FDDA). 171. Q7/A7, id. 172. Q9/A9 (2); Q8/A8, RMC No. 57-2019. 173. Section 3 (A) (2) of RR No. 4-2019 and clarified under Q1/A1 A (2) of RMC No. 57-2019. 174. Section 17 (d) of the TAA and Section 3 (D) of RR No. 4-2019. 175. Section 2 (A), RR No. 4-2019. 176. RMC No. 57-2019: Q8/A8. The tax liabilities as informed during the informal conference are not yet considered delinquent and cannot be the subject of tax amnesty on delinquencies except when the tax liability pertains to unremitted withheld taxes. 177. Par. 15, Petition for Review, Docket Vol. I, pp. 20-22. 178. RMC No. 57-2019: Q22. Will the tax liabilities covered by a FAN which was timely protested yet withdrawn on or before April 24, 2019 be considered delinquent account qualified for tax amnesty? A22. If the protest was withdrawn on or before April 24, 2019, the tax liabilities shall be considered delinquent from the date of lapse of the period to protest, as if there is no protest filed. The taxpayer shall be qualified to avail of the tax amnesty on delinquencies provided the delinquent accounts pertain to taxable year 2017 and prior years and the period to protest lapsed on or before April 24, 2019. 179. Docket Vol. I, pp. 586-588; pp. 593-600; pp. 604-605; pp. 607-608; p. 609; pp. 610-612; pp. 613-615; p. 616; p. 618; p. 619. 180. Id. , pp. 590-592. 181. Docket Vol. I, pp. 594-595; pp. 598-599. RMC No. 57-2019: Q26. Under RR 4-2019, Preliminary Assessment Notice (PAN)/Notice for Informal Conference (NIC) or equivalent document is sufficient document of the taxpayer to support the tax liabilities pertaining to unremitted tax withheld. What are those equivalent document being referred to? A26. Equivalent document can be any of the following, provided the same was issued on or before April 24, 2019, and the taxable period involved are 2017 and prior years: a. Letter to the withholding agent demanding remittance of the amount not remitted based on the withholding tax returns filed; b. Letter to the withholding agent demanding the remittance of tax withheld based on the Commission on Audit (COA) reports, for those subject to COA audit; c. Preliminary Collection Letter demanding the payment of tax withheld declared per returns filed. 182. RMC No. 57-2019: Q14. Are open stop-filer cases included in the amnesty? A14. No, these are not covered under RR No. 4-2019 . 183. RMC No. 57-2019: Q8. If the taxpayer is amenable to the deficiency tax resulting from the audit conducted pertaining to taxable year 2017 and prior years, as presented during the informal conference, can the tax liabilities be settled through availment of tax amnesty on delinquencies? A8. The tax liabilities as informed during the informal conference are not yet considered delinquent and cannot be the subject of tax amnesty on delinquencies except when the tax liability pertains to unremitted withheld taxes. 184. Annex P-210A, Petition for Review, Docket Vol. I, pp. 587-588. 185. Annex P-210, id. , p. 586. 186. Annex P-211, id. , p. 589. 187. Id. , Annex P-212, pp. 590-591. 188. Id. , Annex P-212A, p. 592. 189. Id. , Annex P-213, pp. 593-595; Annex P-214A, pp. 597-599. 190. Id. , Annex P-214, p. 596. 191. Id. , Annex P-214B, p. 600. 192. Id. , Annex P-215, p. 603. 193. Id. , Annex P-216, pp. 604-605, with missing pages and signature page. 194. Id. , Annex P-217, p. 606. 195. Id. , Annex P-218, pp. 607-608, with missing signature page. 196. Id. , Annex P-219A, pp. 610-612; id. , Annex P-219C, p. 616. 197. Id. , Annex P-219B, pp. 613-615. 198. Id. , Annex P-219, p. 609. 199. Id. , Annex P-220, p. 617. 200. Id. , Annex P-221, p. 618, with missing pages and signature page. 201. Petition for Review, no. 17, p. 36. 202. Petition for Review, Annex P-222A, p. 620. 203. Id. , Annex P-222, p. 619. 204. First Class Cadet Aldrin Jeff P. Cudia v. The Superintendent of the Philippine Military Academy , G.R. No. 211362, February 24, 2015. 205. Uy Kiao Eng v. Nixon Lee , G.R. No. 176831, January 15, 2010. 206. See Lihaylihay v. The Treasurer of the Philippines Roberto C. Tan, et al. , G.R. No. 192223, July 23, 2018. 207. G.R. No. 211449, January 16, 2019. 208. Policies, Guidelines and Procedures in the Processing of Applications for Tax Amnesty on Delinquencies Pursuant to Republic Act (RA) No. 11213 Otherwise Known as the "Tax Amnesty Act," May 8, 2019. 209. Annex "C" of RR 4-2019; Annex "A" of RMO 23-2014. 210. Part II, Items 1 and 2, RMO No. 23-2019. 211. Part II, Items 3 to 6, RMO No. 23-2019. 212. See People v. Jolliffe , G.R. No. L-9553, May 13, 1959. 213. Bordomeo, et al. v. Court of Appeals, et al. , G.R. No. 161596, February 20, 2013; See Lamb v. W.H. Phipps , G.R. No. L-7806, July 12, 1912; Garcia v. Sweeney , G.R. No. 1693, February 5, 1904. 214. Bethel Realty and Development Corp. v. Housing and Land Use Regulatory Board, et al. , G.R. No. 184482, July 4, 2012. 215. Ejera v. Merto, et al. , G.R. No. 163109, January 22, 2014, citing Universal Robina Corp. (Corn Division) v. Laguna Lake Development Authority , G.R. No. 191427, May 30, 2011. 216. Gonzales v. Court of Appeals , G.R. No. 106028, May 9, 2001. 217. In the case of petitioner Exequiel Balanlay Adora, Docket Vol. I, p. 163. 218. In the case of petitioner Audio-Video Solutions Corporation, id. , pp. 120-125. 219. Id. , p. 589. 220. G.R. No. 127139, February 19, 1999. 221. Alfredo Tagle v. Equitable PCI Bank , G.R. No. 172299, April 22, 2008, citing Landbank of the Philippines v. Court of Appeals , 456 Phil. 755; Sanchez v. Court of Appeals , 345 Phil. 155. 222. The Department of Trade and Industry, et al. v. Danilo B. Enriquez , G.R. No. 225301, June 02, 2020. 223. Memorandum for Petitioners, paragraph 5, Docket Vol. II, p. 798. 224. People of the Philippines v. Court of Appeals , G.R. No. 142051, 468 Phil. 1, 10, February 24, 2004. 225. G.R. No. 187208, February 23, 2011. 226. Cuison v. Court of Appeals , 351 Phil. 1089, 1102 (1998); Lalican v. Hon. Vergara , 342 Phil. 485, 495 (1997); Pure Foods Corp. v. National Labor Relations Commission , G.R. No. 78591, March 21, 1989, 171 SCRA 415, 426; Palma v. Q & S, Inc. , 123 Phil. 958, 960 (1966). 227. Section 5, Republic Act No. 6713, February 20, 1989, "Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards for Public Officials and Employees." 228. Memorandum for Petitioners, pars. 10 and 11, Docket Vol. II, pp. 801-802. 229. SEC. 1. Petition for Certiorari . . . . The petition shall be accompanied by a certified true copy of the judgment, order or resolution subject thereof, copies of all pleadings and documents relevant and pertinent thereto, and a sworn certification of non-forum shopping as provided in the third paragraph of Section 3, Rule 46. 230. Section 3, Rule 46 provides: SEC. 3. Contents and filing of petition; effect of noncompliance with requirements. xxx xxx xxx . . . [The petition] shall be . . . accompanied by a clearly legible duplicate original or certified true copy of the judgment, order, resolution, or ruling subject thereof, such material portions of the record as are referred to therein, and other documents relevant or pertinent thereto. . . . xxx xxx xxx The failure of the petitioner to comply with any of the foregoing requirements shall be sufficient ground for the dismissal of the petition . (Emphasis supplied) 231. Supra , note 4. 232. Supra , note 6. 233. Supra , notes 7-26. 234. G.R. No. 143377, February 20, 2001.