Abalos v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue

SECOND DIVISION [C.T.A. CASE NO. 9089. August 10, 2018.] SHENILYN ABALOS, ET AL. , petitioner , vs. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE , respondent . DECISION CASTAEDA, JR. , J p : THE CASE This is a Petition for Review 1 filed on July 13, 2015 by several Filipino employees of the Asian Development Bank (ADB),praying for the refund of their alleged erroneously and illegally paid income tax in the aggregate amount of Fifty-One Million Eight Hundred Four Thousand Nine Hundred Fifty-Five Pesos (P51,804,955.00) for taxable years 2012 and 2013. HTcADC THE FACTS Petitioner Shenilyn Abalos and her co-petitioners are Filipinos and regular employees of ADB, 2 whose office is located at 6 ADB Ave.,Mandaluyong City. 3 On the other hand, respondent is the duly appointed Commissioner of the Bureau of Internal Revenue (BIR), who 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 National Internal Revenue Code (NIRC) or other laws or portions thereof administered by the BIR. He holds office at the 5th Floor, BIR National Office Building, Agham Road, Diliman, Quezon City. 4 On April 12, 2013, respondent issued Revenue Memorandum Circular (RMC) No. 31-2013 entitled "Guidelines on the Taxation of Compensation Income of Philippine Nationals and Alien Individuals Employed by Foreign Governments/Embassies/Diplomatic Missions and International Organizations Situated in the Philippines." It provides, among others, that officers and staff of the ADB who are not Philippine nationals shall be exempt from Philippine income tax: " SECTION 1. BACKGROUND. Foreign governments/embassies/diplomatic missions and international organizations situated in the Philippines acting as employers enjoy immunity from collecting taxes on salaries and emoluments of their employees, whether they are foreigners or Philippine nationals. This immunity from being constituted as withholding agents of the Philippine Government is accorded to these entities on the basis of international comity as embodied in several international agreements to which the Philippines is a signatory, such as, the Vienna Convention for International Relations (for embassies and diplomatic missions),Convention on the Privileges and Immunities of the United Nations, Convention on the Privileges and Immunities of Specialized Agencies (for the various agencies of the United Nations),Asian Development Bank Headquarters Agreement (for ADB),Articles of Agreement of the International Finance Corporation, among others. CAIHTE In recognition of this immunity, the Withholding Tax Regulations (Revenue Regulations No. 2-98, as amended),clearly reiterate the exemption from the withholding tax system of the remunerations being paid by foreign governments and international organizations to their employees who are residents or nationals of the Philippines. Section 2.78.1(B)(5) provides thus: 'Sec. 2.78. WITHHOLDING TAX ON COMPENSATION. ... Sec. 2.78.1. Withholding of Income Tax on Compensation Income. xxx xxx xxx (B) Exemptions from withholding tax on compensation. The following income payments are exempted from the requirement of withholding tax on compensation: xxx xxx xxx (5) Compensation for services by a citizen or resident of the Philippines for a foreign government or an international organization. Remuneration paid for services performed as an employee of a foreign government or an international organization is exempted. The exemption includes not only remuneration paid for services performed by ambassadors, ministers and other diplomatic officers and employees but also remuneration paid for services performed as consular or other officer or employee of a foreign government or as a non-diplomatic representative of such government.' However, it has been observed that the foregoing provisions have been a source of confusion on the correct tax treatment of the compensation income earned by Philippine nationals and alien individuals employed by foreign governments/embassies/diplomatic missions and international organizations. To clarify, the exemption from withholding taxes on the compensation of officials and employees applies to foreign governments/embassies/diplomatic missions and international organizations. Since the withholding of tax is merely a method of tax collection, the exemption from withholding taxes does not equate to the exemption from paying the income tax itself . Section 23 of the National Internal Revenue Code (Tax Code)lays down the general principles in the taxations of citizens and alien individuals, to wit: aScITE 'SECTION 23. General Principles of Income Taxation in the Philippines. Except when otherwise provided in this Code: (A) A citizen of the Philippines residing therein is taxable on all income derived from sources within and without the Philippines; xxx xxx xxx (D) An alien individual, whether a resident or not of the Philippines, is taxable only on income derived from sources within the Philippines; x x x' As an exemption to the general rule, it is noted that most international agreements which grant withholding tax immunity to foreign governments/embassies/diplomatic missions and international organizations also provide exemption to their officials and employees who are foreign nationals and/or non-Philippine residents from paying income taxes on their salaries and other emoluments. xxx xxx xxx SECTION 2. TAX TREATMENT OF COMPENSATION INCOME. The tax treatment of Philippine nationals and alien individuals on compensation income received by them from foreign governments/embassies and missions and international organizations shall be as follows: xxx xxx xxx (d) Those Employed by Organizations Covered by Separate International Agreements or Specific Provisions of Law 1. Asian Development Bank (ADB) Section 45(b),Article XII of the Agreement between the Asian Development Bank and the Government of the Republic of the Philippines regarding the Headquarters of the Asian Development Bank provides: 'ARTICLE XII xxx xxx xxx Section 45. Officers and staff of the Bank, including for the purposes of this Article experts and consultants performing missions for the Bank, shall enjoy the following privileges and immunities: DETACa xxx xxx xxx (b) Exemption from taxation on or in respect of the salaries and emoluments paid by the Bank subject to the power of the Government to tax its nationals;' From the above, only officers and staff of the ADB who are not Philippine nationals shall be exempt from Philippine income tax ." (Underscoring and emphasis supplied) Pursuant to the RMC, the Filipino employees of the ADB were ordered to declare and pay income taxes for 2012 onwards. 5 Accordingly, petitioners paid the following amounts as their income taxes for taxable years 2012 and 2013: 6 PETITIONER INCOME TAX PAID TOTAL 2012 2013 Shenilyn Abalos P177,084.17 P177,084.17 Ruel Gatchalian 207,652.88 207,652.88 Donna Lacuna 350,506.39 P340,081.00 690,587.39 Andrew Gutierrez 416,697.97 179,400.00 596,097.97 Rosario Vergara 1,349,742.73 1,390,842.00 2,740,584.73 Maria Susan Torres 316,364.99 305,284.03 621,649.02 Marilyn Medrano 335,211.99 196,035.00 531,246.99 Ma. Cristina Duenas 462,001.08 457,668.00 919,669.08 Gemma Esther Estrada 519,930.49 515,521.00 1,035,451.49 Maria Cynthia Petalcorin 391,829.00 396,264.00 788,093.00 Pilipinas Quising 665,292.92 644,250.00 1,309,542.92 Shiela Romance 432,083.30 452,137.00 884,220.30 Aleli Rosario 454,768.40 450,972.00 905,740.40 Nick Angelo Villaluz 485,410.11 506,323.00 991,733.11 Maria Carmela Abadeza 131,554.44 148,828.00 280,382.44 Maria Conchita Abao 174,459.20 174,459.20 Annabelle Abello 443,183.34 439,679.00 882,862.34 Minerva Abrera 408,327.42 408,327.42 Rexel Abrigo 385,510.03 385,510.03 Lourdes Adriano 2,137,163.95 2,137,163.95 Sherwin Agbayani 148,126.00 153,525.00 301,651.00 Wilfredo Agliam 218,344.81 218,344.81 Aileen M. Aguilar 258,979.03 130,556.00 389,535.03 Bernadeth Agustin 229,108.61 229,108.61 Janice Alalay 126,836.73 126,836.73 Maria Criselda Alano 200,886.78 238,203.00 439,089.78 Janelyn Alcantara 292,173.35 292,173.35 Maria Charmaine Alcantara 146,937.72 167,129.00 314,066.72 Raquel Aldaba 334,870.20 334,870.20 Angelica Alejandro 309,272.26 309,272.26 Leonor Alejandro 357,217.00 357,217.00 Elizabeth Alimurung 372,275.70 372,275.70 Anna Maria Alipio 425,105.27 422,826.00 847,931.27 Maria Luisa Lora Almadrigo 475,085.29 466,416.00 941,501.29 Ruth Almodovar 326,933.14 333,017.00 659,950.14 Glenita Amoranto 292,502.98 292,502.98 Ma. Cecilia Amparo 365,832.23 368,424.00 734,256.23 Catherine Anastacio 349,892.66 185,209.00 535,101.66 Evelyn Andrada 345,471.08 171,343.00 516,814.08 Maria Teresa Andrade 458,512.95 458,512.95 Melody Andres 79,200.09 79,200.09 Almira Ansao 179,402.85 179,402.85 Mary Ann Antonio 280,967.88 173,700.00 454,667.88 Victoriano Antonio 491,923.10 497,608.00 989,531.10 Maria Eufemia Apilado 917,031.90 917,031.90 Ruth Ann Apolinario 205,180.59 228,168.00 433,348.59 Josephine Aquino 150,401.02 150,401.02 Pamela Aquino 771,337.48 766,484.00 1,537,821.48 Rafael Aquino 309,806.85 309,806.85 Leticia Aranda 223,100.71 221,087.00 444,187.71 Raquel Araojo 255,976.91 131,006.00 386,982.91 Shasel Marie Arbues 140,951.65 140,951.65 Marilyn Ardiente 762,555.24 760,597.00 1,523,152.24 Marian Arellano 539,197.60 539,197.60 Ella Cecilia Arienda 130,135.21 130,135.21 Maria Arlene Artajo 400,642.40 427,420.00 828,062.40 Fean Asprer 358,332.32 387,806.00 746,138.32 Angeles Ramil 141,479.04 141,479.04 Irene Atienza 278,976.71 293,352.00 572,328.71 Maria Cristina Avila 459,943.38 459,943.38 Mavelle Bacay 129,657.48 178,766.00 308,423.48 Nonette Bacay 215,064.12 215,064.12 Rosalia Baeza 294,265.35 160,219.00 454,484.35 Alma Baguio 112,023.85 112,023.85 Maria Nieva Baguisa 335,937.83 250,000.00 585,937.83 Jacqueline Balankig 253,632.57 253,632.57 Ludovina Balicanot 381,716.13 392,467.00 774,183.13 Audrey Marie Banzon 247,454.96 247,454.96 Katherine Barbecho 258,114.02 300,913.00 559,027.02 Marissa Barcenas 348,901.77 199,086.00 547,987.77 Florissa Barot 203,910.83 203,910.83 Djaane Barrameda 129,590.91 129,590.91 Katherine Barrameda 225,695.63 225,695.63 Maricar Barrogo 206,679.50 206,679.50 Marian Therese Bartolome 204,724.44 208,613.00 413,337.44 Dennis Baruian 134,809.29 134,809.29 Eileen Purita Battung 320,658.12 320,658.12 Gisela Patricia Bautista 313,148.61 313,148.61 Herman Bautista 219,757.21 226,770.00 446,527.21 Jude Bedonia 637,417.31 272,080.00 909,497.31 Ruth Benigno 185,667.36 176,029.00 361,696.36 Ofelia Benitez 333,030.50 333,030.50 Noemi Benizano 116,309.75 116,309.75 Daniel Beran 217,974.21 217,974.21 Jaime Bere 534,081.57 594,451.00 1,128,532.57 Angela Francesca Bernaldo 301,222.36 301,222.36 Aileen Bernardo 289,803.44 288,683.00 578,486.44 Maricel Bolado 124,806.59 124,806.59 Anna Marie Borgonia 541,889.22 488,592.00 1,030,481.22 Raquel Borres 385,841.86 385,841.86 Ramona Bote 444,300.15 444,300.15 Bernadette Buensoceso 448,224.89 460,536.00 908,760.89 Ma. Theresa Bugayong 334,843.17 334,843.17 Ethyl Bulao-Lorena 43,011.48 43,011.48 Josefina Theresa Burgonia 160,000.00 160,000.00 Nancy Bustamante 238,638.05 238,638.05 Juleah Anne Caballo 126,957.94 146,150.00 273,107.94 Nick Cabibil, Jr. 233,276.69 233,276.69 Valerie Anne Cabuang 192,199.95 192,199.95 Brian Cafirma 181,209.75 218,545.00 399,754.75 Ricasol Calaluan 167,443.59 166,321.00 333,764.59 TOTAL P34,129,573.97 P17,675,381.03 P51,804,955.00 On February 14, 2014, Mr. Erwin Salaveria and Ms. Portia Gonzales, Filipino employees of the ADB, filed a Petition to Nullify Section 2 (d) (1) of RMC No. 31-2013, with the Regional Trial Court (RTC) Branch 213 of Mandaluyong City, docketed as Civil Case No. MC14-8775. 7 HEITAD On September 30, 2014, the RTC promulgated a decision in Civil Case No. MC14-8775 declaring Section 2 (d) (1) of RMC No. 31-2013 as void for being issued without legal basis, in excess of authority and/or without due process of law due to the absence of legislation and/or regulation to the contrary. 8 A Motion for Reconsideration was filed by respondent but was denied on January 9, 2015. 9 Respondent appealed the lower court decision to the Court of Appeals, docketed as CA-G.R. CV No. 104374, which dismissed it via Resolution dated July 3, 2015. Respondent filed a Motion for Reconsideration, but it was also denied by the Court of Appeals. 10 Respondent then elevated the case before the Supreme Court by filing a Petition for Review on Certiorari .The case is still awaiting resolution by the High Tribunal. 11 Armed with a favorable RTC ruling, petitioners allegedly filed their respective administrative claims for refund of income tax with the BIR under Section 229 of the Tax Code. 12 In a letter dated April 21, 2015, in reply to the request for refund by Maria Cristina Duenas, Gemma Esther Estrada, Maria Cynthia Petalcorin, Pilipinas Quising, Shiela Romance, Aleli Rosario, Maria Susan Torres, Rosario Vergara and Nick Angelo Villaluz (Duenas, et al.) for their 2012 taxes respondent allegedly stated that: aDSIHc "In reply, please be informed that there is no legal basis to support your claim for refund. This Office has appealed the RTC decision, and hence, for all legal intents and purposes, it is not yet final and executory. Moreover, assuming that your clients are legally entitled to refund, per Revenue Delegation Authority Order (RDAO) No. 03-02 dated 15 February 2002, claims for tax refund shall be processed by the Revenue District Office (RDO) of the Bureau of Internal Revenue where the taxpayer is registered or required to be registered. In the instant case, since your clients are registered at RDO No. 41-Mandaluyong City, the said office has the proper jurisdiction to process the claims. Accordingly, in the meantime, the docket of your claims for tax refund shall be indorsed to RDO 41." 13 With respect to the refund of the 2013 income taxes paid by petitioners Duenas, et al. and the request for refund filed by the rest of the petitioners, allegedly no response was made by the respondent. 14 On July 13, 2015, to prevent the lapse of the two-year period to file a refund claim under Section 229 of the Tax Code, the petitioners Shenilyn Abalos, et al. were prompted to file the present Petition for Review before this Court. 15 On October 12, 2015, respondent then filed his Answer. 16 Respondent asserts that the assailed decision of RTC Branch 213 of Mandaluyong City, from which petitioners based their claims for refund, is void. Respondent alleged that the power to rule on the validity of revenue issuances administered by the BIR is within the jurisdiction of this Court and not the regular courts. 17 The pre-trial conference was initially scheduled on November 26, 2015, 18 but was subsequently cancelled and reset to January 21, 2016. 19 Petitioners filed their Pre-Trial Brief on January 19, 2016 20 and respondent submitted his Pre-Trial Brief on January 18, 2016. 21 On August 22, 2016, after presenting their witnesses, petitioners filed their Formal Offer of Documentary Evidence, 22 consisting of Exhibits "P-1" to "P-36",inclusive of sub-markings. In its October 20, 2016 23 and May 24, 2017 24 Resolutions, the Court eventually admitted all the formally offered exhibits as petitioner's evidence. On July 31, 2017, respondent's counsel manifested that she will no longer present evidence 25 and will adopt the arguments in the Answer as the memorandum for the case. 26 ATICcS On September 18, 2017, the Court declared the instant case submitted for decision, after the respondent's September 11, 2017 Manifestation 27 and without petitioners' memorandum per Report of Records Division dated September 14, 2017. 28 THE ISSUE The parties submitted the following issue for the Court's resolution: 29 "Whether or not petitioners are entitled to claim for refund for income taxes paid in taxable years 2012 and 2013 alleged to be erroneously and/or illegally paid." THE RULING Pertinent to the resolution of the issue at hand are Sections 204 (C) and 229 of the NIRC of 1997, as amended, which is quoted hereunder for ready reference: " Sec. 204 . Authority of the Commissioner to Compromise, Abate and Refund or Credit Taxes . The Commissioner may xxx xxx xxx (C) Credit or refund taxes erroneously or illegally received or penalties imposed without authority, refund the value of internal revenue stamps when they are returned in good condition by the purchaser, and, in his discretion, redeem or change unused stamps that have been rendered unfit for use and refund their value upon proof of destruction. No credit or refund of taxes or penalties shall be allowed unless the taxpayer files in writing with the Commissioner a claim for credit or refund within two (2) years after the payment of the tax or penalty :Provided, however, That a return filed showing an overpayment shall be considered as a written claim for credit or refund." (Underscoring supplied) " SEC. 229 . Recovery of Tax Erroneously or Illegally Collected. No suit or proceeding shall be maintained in any court for the recovery of any national internal revenue tax hereafter alleged to have been erroneously or illegally assessed or collected, or of any penalty claimed to have been collected without authority, or of any sum alleged to have been excessively or in any manner wrongfully collected, until a claim for refund or credit has been duly filed with the Commissioner; but such suit or proceeding may be maintained, whether or not such tax, penalty, or sum has been paid under protest or duress. In any case, no such suit or proceeding shall be filed after the expiration of two (2) years from the date of payment of the tax or penalty regardless of any supervening cause that may arise after payment : Provided, however ,That the Commissioner may, even without a written claim therefor, refund or credit any tax, where on the face of the return upon which payment was made, such payment appears clearly to have been erroneously paid." (Underscoring supplied) According to these provisions, both the administrative and the judicial claims for refund must be filed with the CIR and the Court of Tax Appeals, respectively, within the two-year prescriptive period from the date of payment of tax. ETHIDa The table below presents the relevant dates of the income tax payments based on the evidence presented by the petitioners such as the Annual Income Tax Returns, BIR Payment Forms, BIR Revenue Official Receipts, Bank Deposit Slips, and the Certifications from the Revenue Accounting Division (RAD) of the BIR: Name of Employee Date of Full Payment of Income Tax Last day to file claim for refund 2012 2013 2012 2013 Shenilyn Abalos July 15, 2013 30 July 15, 2015 Ruel Gatchalian July 15, 2013 31 July 15, 2015 Donna Lacuna July 15, 2013 32 April 14, 2014 33 July 15, 2015 April 14, 2016 Andrew Gutierrez July 2, 2013 34 & July 15, 2013 35 April 11, 2014 36 July 15, 2015 April 11, 2016 Rosario Vergara April 3, 2013 37 & July 15, 2013 38 April 15, 2014 39 July 15, 2015 April 15, 2016 Maria Susan Torres April 12, 2013 40 & July 15, 2013 41 July 15, 2014 42 July 15, 2015 July 15, 2016 Marilyn Medrano April 15, 2013 43 & July 15, 2013 44 April 15, 2014 45 July 15, 2015 April 15, 2016 Ma. Cristina Duenas April 15, 2013 46 & July 15, 2013 47 April 3 2014 48 & July 14, 2014 49 July 15, 2015 July 14, 2016 Gemma Esther Estrada April 15, 2013 50 & July 15, 2013 51 April 4, 2014 & July 11, 2014 52 July 15, 2015 July 11, 2016 Maria Cynthia Petalcorin April 15, 2013 53 & July 15, 2013 54 April 11, 2014 55 & July 15, 2014 56 July 15, 2015 July 15, 2016 Pilipinas Quising April 15, 2013 57 & July 15, 2013 58 April 7, 2014 59 & July 14, 2014 60 July 15, 2015 July 14, 2016 Shiela Romance April 15, 2013 61 & July 15, 2013 62 April 11, 2014 63 & July 15, 2014 64 July 15, 2015 July 15, 2016 Aleli Rosario April 15, 2013 65 & July 15, 2013 66 April 11, 2014 67 & July 14, 2014 68 July 15, 2015 July 14, 2016 Nick Angelo Villaluz April 15, 2013 69 & July 15, 2013 70 April 7, 2014 71 & July 10, 2014 72 July 15, 2015 July 10, 2016 Maria Carmela Abadeza July 15, 2013 73 March 21, 2014 74 July 15, 2015 March 21, 2016 Maria Conchita Abao July 15, 2013 75 July 15, 2015 Annabelle Abello July 12, 2013 76 April 11, 2014 77 & July 14, 2014 78 July 13, 2015 July 14, 2016 Minerva Abrera July 15, 2013 79 July 15, 2015 Rexel Abrigo July 12, 2013 80 July 13, 2015 Lourdes Adriano July 15, 2013 81 July 15, 2015 Sherwin Agbayani July 15, 2013 82 April 10, 2014 83 July 15, 2015 April 10, 2016 Wilfredo Agliam July 15, 2013 84 July 15, 2015 Aileen M. Aguilar July 15, 2013 85 April 14, 2014 86 July 15, 2015 April 14, 2016 Bernadeth Agustin July 15, 2013 87 July 15, 2015 Janice Alalay July 15, 2013 88 July 15, 2015 Maria Criselda Alano July 15, 2013 89 April 10, 2014 90 July 15, 2015 April 10, 2016 Janelyn Alcantara July 15, 2013 91 July 15, 2015 Maria Charmaine Alcantara July 15, 2013 92 April 11, 2014 93 & July 15, 2014 94 July 15, 2015 July 15, 2016 Raquel Aldaba July 15, 2013 95 July 15, 2015 Angelica Alejandro July 15, 2013 96 July 15, 2015 Leonor Alejandro July 15, 2013 97 July 15, 2015 Elizabeth Alimurung July 15, 2013 98 July 15, 2015 Anna Maria Alipio July 15, 2013 99 April 14, 2014 & July 15, 2014 100 July 15, 2015 July 15, 2016 Maria Luisa Lora Almadrigo July 15, 2013 101 March 20, 2014 102 July 15, 2015 March 20, 2016 Ruth Almodovar July 15, 2013 103 April 10, 2014 104 July 15, 2015 April 10, 2016 Glenita Amoranto July 15, 2013 105 July 15, 2015 Ma. Cecilia Amparo July 15, 2013 106 March 21, 2014 107 July 15, 2015 March 21, 2016 Catherine Anastacio July 15, 2013 108 April 14, 2014 109 July 15, 2015 April 14, 2016 Evelyn Andrada July 15, 2013 110 April 8, 2014 111 July 15, 2015 April 8, 2016 Maria Teresa Andrade July 15, 2013 112 July 15, 2015 Melody Andres July 15, 2013 113 July 15, 2015 Almira Ansao July 15, 2013 114 July 15, 2015 Mary Ann Antonio July 15, 2013 115 April 15, 2014 116 July 15, 2015 April 15, 2016 Victoriano Antonio July 15, 2013 117 March 21, 2014 118 July 15, 2015 March 21, 2016 Maria Eufemia Apilado July 15, 2013 119 July 15, 2015 Ruth Ann Apolinario July 15, 2013 120 March 21, 2014 121 July 15, 2015 March 21, 2016 Josephine Aquino July 15, 2013 122 July 15, 2015 Pamela Aquino July 15, 2013 123 March 27, 2014 124 & July 15, 2014 125 July 15, 2015 July 15, 2016 Rafael Aquino July 15, 2013 126 July 15, 2015 Leticia Aranda July 15, 2013 127 April 14, 2014 128 April 14, 2016 Raquel Araojo July 15, 2013 129 April 10, 2014 130 July 15, 2015 April 10, 2016 Shasel Marie Arbues July 15, 2013 131 July 15, 2015 Marilyn Ardiente July 15, 2013 132 April 14, 2014 133 & July 15, 2014 134 July 15, 2015 July 15, 2016 Marian Arellano July 15, 2013 135 July 15, 2015 Ella Cecilia Arienda July 15, 2013 136 July 15, 2015 Maria Arlene Artajo July 15, 2013 137 April 10, 2014 138 & July 15, 2014 139 July 15, 2015 July 15, 2016 Fean Asprer July 15, 2013 140 March 31, 2014 141 & July 15, 2014 142 July 15, 2015 July 15, 2016 Angeles Ramil July 15, 2013 143 July 15, 2015 Irene Atienza July 15, 2013 144 April 11, 2014 & July 15, 2014 145 July 15, 2015 July 15, 2016 Maria Cristina Avila July 15, 2013 146 July 15, 2015 Mavelle Bacay July 15, 2013 147 April 15, 2014 148 July 15, 2015 Nonette Bacay July 15, 2013 149 July 15, 2015 Rosalia Baeza July 15, 2013 150 April 10, 2014 151 July 15, 2015 April 10, 2016 Alma Baguio July 15, 2013 152 July 15, 2015 Maria Nieva Baguisa July 15, 2013 153 April 15, 2014 154 & June 3, 2014 155 July 15, 2015 June 3, 2016 Jacqueline Balankig July 15, 2013 156 July 15, 2015 Ludovina Balicanot July 15, 2013 157 April 14, 2014 158 July 15, 2015 April 14, 2016 Audrey Marie Banzon July 15, 2013 159 July 15, 2015 Katherine Barbecho July 15, 2013 160 April 15, 2014 161 & June 30, 2014 162 July 15, 2015 June 30, 2016 Marissa Barcenas July 15, 2013 163 April 14, 2014 164 July 15, 2015 April 14, 2016 Florissa Barot July 15, 2013 165 July 15, 2015 Djaane Barrameda July 15, 2013 166 July 15, 2015 Katherine Barrameda July 15, 2013 167 July 15, 2015 Maricar Barrogo July 15, 2013 168 July 15, 2015 Marian Therese Bartolome July 15, 2013 169 March 20, 2014 170 & July 7, 2014 171 July 15, 2015 July 7, 2016 Dennis Baruian July 15, 2013 172 July 15, 2015 Eileen Purita Battung July 15, 2013 173 July 15, 2015 Gisela Patricia Bautista July 15, 2013 174 July 15, 2015 Herman Bautista July 15, 2013 175 March 21, 2014 176 July 15, 2015 March 21, 2016 Jude Bedonia July 15, 2013 177 April 14, 2014 178 July 15, 2015 April 14, 2016 Ruth Benigno July 15, 2013 179 March 21, 2014 180 July 15, 2015 Ofelia Benitez July 15, 2013 181 July 15, 2015 Noemi Benizano July 15, 2013 182 July 15, 2015 Daniel Beran July 15, 2013 183 July 15, 2015 Jaime Bere July 15, 2013 184 July 15, 2014 185 July 15, 2015 July 15, 2016 Angela Francesca Bernaldo July 15, 2013 186 July 15, 2015 Aileen Bernardo July 15, 2013 187 April 11, 2014 188 July 15, 2015 April 11, 2016 Maricel Bolado July 15, 2013 189 July 15, 2015 Anna Marie Borgonia July 15, 2013 190 April 14, 2014 & June 30, 2014 191 July 15, 2015 June 30, 2016 Raquel Borres July 15, 2013 192 July 15, 2015 Ramona Bote July 15, 2013 193 July 15, 2015 Bernadette Buensoceso July 15, 2013 194 April 15, 2014 195 & July 15, 2014 196 July 15, 2015 July 15, 2016 Ma. Theresa Bugayong July 15, 2013 197 July 15, 2015 Ethyl Bulao-Lorena July 15, 2013 198 July 15, 2015 Josefina Theresa Burgonia July 15, 2013 199 July 15, 2015 Nancy Bustamante July 15, 2013 200 July 15, 2015 Juleah Anne Caballo July 15, 2013 201 April 11, 2014 & July 10, 2014 202 July 15, 2015 July 10, 2016 Nick Cabibil, Jr. July 15, 2013 203 July 15, 2015 Valerie Anne Cabuang July 15, 2013 204 July 15, 2015 Brian Cafirma July 15, 2013 205 April 14, 2014 206 April 14, 2016 Ricasol Calaluan July 15, 2013 207 April 14, 2014 208 & July 15, 2014 209 July 15, 2015 July 15, 2016 Based on the foregoing table, the Petition for Review filed on July 13, 2015 was filed within the two-year period from the respective dates of income tax payments. TIADCc Significantly, however, it is noted that the written administrative claims for refund filed with the respondent CIR were not formally offer as evidence. Although the fact of filing of the administrative claims was alleged in the Petition for Review 210 and the photocopies of which were attached as Annexes A to G 211 these allegations were, nonetheless, subsequently denied by the respondent in the Answer. 212 Specifically, a thorough review of the petitioners' Formal Offer of Documentary Evidence 213 consisted only of the following exhibits without the copies of Annexes A to G: Exhibit Marking Document Description Purpose "P-1" 214 and "P-12" 215 Judicial Affidavit of Atty. Esther R. Ibanez and Amended Judicial Affidavit of Atty. Peter Paul S. Romero, respectively To constitute the direct testimony of the witnesses. "P-2" 216 Letter to the Ms. Eleanor Litao, Chief of Revenue Accounting Division (RAD) of the BIR, dated March 5, 2015 To show that a request for certification of the income taxes paid by petitioners was made to the BIR. "P-3", 217 "P-4", 218 "P-5", 219 "P-6", 220 "P-7", 221 "P-8", 222 "P-9", 223 "P-10", 224 "P-11" 225 "P-13", 226 "P-14", 227 "P-15", 228 and "P-16" 229 Certifications from the Revenue Accounting Division (RAD) of the BIR To show that petitioners paid income taxes for their 2012 and 2013 salaries. "P-3-1" to "P-3-4", 230 "P-4-1" to "P-4-6", 231 "P-5-1" to "P-5-4", 232 "P-6-1" 233 "P-7-1" to "P-7-16", "P-8-1" to "P-8-42", "P-9-1" to "P-9-3", "P-10-1" to "P-10-15", "P-11-1" to "P-11-43", "P-13-1" to "P-13-2", "P-14-1" to "P-14-9", "P-15-1" to "P-15-2" and "P-16-1" Individual petitioners and respective amounts paid To show amount of taxes paid by petitioners "P-17" 234 and "P-20" 235 Annual Income Tax Returns (ITR) for 2012 Same purpose as above "P-18" to "P-19-3", 236 "P-22" to "P-24", 237 "P-25", 238 "P-25-2" to "P-25-3", 239 "P-26-1", 240 "P-27-1", 241 "P-28", 242 "P-29-1", 243 "P-30", 244 "P-32-1" 245 and "P-33" 246 Bank Deposit Slips Same purpose as above "P-21" 247 BIR Revenue Official Receipt 2012 (BIR Form 2524) Same purpose as above "P-24-1", 248 "P-25-1", 249 "P-26", 250 "P-27", 251 "P-29", 252 "P-31" 253 and "P-32" 254 BIR Payment Forms (BIR Form 0605) Same purpose as above "P-31-1" 255 Bank of Philippine Islands Manager's check dated July 4, 2014 in the amount of P104,306.00 Same purpose as above "P-34" 256 BIR Revenue Official Receipt 2011 (BIR Form 2524) Same purpose as above "P-35" 257 Decision dated 30 September 2014 of Br. 213, RTC Mandaluyong City in Erwin Salaveria, et al. vs. Commissioner of Internal Revenue ,Civil Case No. MC 14-8775 Same purpose as above "P-36" 258 Resolution of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No. 104374 dated 3 July 2015 To show and prove that the Court of Appeals denied the appeal of the Commissioner of Internal Revenue from the Decision of the Regional Trial Court of Mandaluyong City voiding RM C 31-20 13 "P-36-1" 259 Resolution of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No. 104374 denying respondent's Motion for Reconsideration To show and prove that the Court of Appeals denied the Motion for Reconsideration by the Commissioner of Internal Revenue of the Resolution of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No. 104374 dated 3 July 2015 The photocopies of the administrative claims for refund that were allegedly filed with the respondent and attached as Annexes A to G of the Petition for Review 260 were taken up in the testimony of Atty. Peter Paul S. Romero. 261 Nonetheless, the originals of these documents were not identified, compared and marked in the testimony and were also not included in the Formal Offer of Documentary Evidence which was subsequently filed after the presentation of evidence for petitioners. 262 In Pilipinas Shell Petroleum Corporation v. Commissioner of Customs , 263 the Supreme Court reversed the finding of fraud by the trial court which was anchored on a memorandum that was not formally offered during trial. The Supreme Court explained at length why a piece of evidence that was not offered cannot be considered: cSEDTC "In the case at bench, a perusal of the records reveals that there is neither any iota of evidence nor concrete proof offered and admitted to clearly establish that petitioner committed any fraudulent acts .The CTA in Division relied solely on the Memorandum dated 2 February 2001 issued by the CIIS-IPD of the BOC in ruling the existence of fraud committed by petitioner. However, there is no showing that such document was ever presented, identified, and testified to or offered in evidence by either party before the trial court . Time and again, this Court has consistently declared that cases filed before the CTA are litigated de novo ,party-litigants must prove every minute aspect of their cases. Section 8 of R.A. No. 1125, as amended by R.A. No. 9282, categorically described the CTA as a court of record. Indubitably, no evidentiary value can be given to any documentary evidence merely attached to the BOC Records, as the rules on documentary evidence require that such documents must be formally offered before the CTA. Pertinent is Section 34, Rule 132 of the Rules of Court which reads : Section 34. Offer of evidence . The court shall consider no evidence which has not been formally offered. The purpose for which the evidence is offered must be specified. From the foregoing provision, it is clear that for evidence to be considered by the court, the same must be formally offered. Corollarily, the mere fact that a particular document is identified and marked as an exhibit does not mean that it has already been offered as part of the evidence of a party .In Interpacific Transit, Inc. v. Aviles ,We had the occasion to make a distinction between identification of documentary evidence and its formal offer as an exhibit. We said that the first is done in the course of the trial and is accompanied by the marking of the evidence as an exhibit while the second is done only when the party rests its case and not before. A party, therefore, may opt to formally offer his evidence if he believes that it will advance his cause or not to do so at all. In the event he chooses to do the latter, the trial court is not authorized by the Rules to consider the same. The Rule on this matter is patent that even documents which are identified and marked as exhibits cannot be considered into evidence when the same have not been formally offered as part of the evidence, but more so if the same were not identified and marked as exhibits ,such as in the present case .An assay of the records reveals that the subject Memorandum dated 2 February 2001 was neither identified nor offered in evidence by respondent during the entire proceedings before the CTA in Division. Consequently, this is fatal to respondent's cause in establishing the existence of fraud committed by petitioner since the burden of proof to establish the same lies with the former alone. AIDSTE As a matter of fact, even if the aforesaid documentary evidence was included as part of the BOC Records submitted before the CTA in compliance with a lawful order of the court, this does not permit the trial court to consider the same in view of the fact that the Rules prohibit it. The reasoning forwarded by the CTA in Division in its Resolution dated 24 February 2009, that the apparent purpose of transmittal of the records is to enable it to appreciate and properly review the proceedings and findings before an administrative agency, is misplaced. Unless any of the party formally offered in evidence said Memorandum, and accordingly, admitted by the court a quo ,it cannot be considered as among the legal and factual bases in resolving the controversy presented before it. By analogy, in Dizon v. CTA ,this Court underscored the importance of a formal offer of evidence and the corresponding admission thereafter. We quote: 'While the CTA is not governed strictly by technical rules of evidence, as rules of procedure are not ends in themselves and are primarily intended as tools in the administration of justice, the presentation of the BIR's evidence is not a mere procedural technicality which may be disregarded considering that it is the only means by which the CTA may ascertain and verify the truth of BIR's claims against the Estate. The BIR's failure to formally offer these pieces of evidence, despite CTA's directives, is fatal to its cause. Such failure is aggravated by the fact that not even a single reason was advanced by the BIR to justify such fatal omission. This, we take against the BIR.' Per the records of this case, the BIR was directed to present its evidence in the hearing of February 21, 1996, but BIR's counsel failed to appear. The CTA denied petitioner's motion to consider BIR's presentation of evidence as waived, with a warning to BIR that such presentation would be considered waived if BIR's evidence would not be presented at the next hearing. Again, in the hearing of March 20, 1996, BIR's counsel failed to appear. Thus, in its Resolution dated March 21, 1996, the CTA considered the BIR to have waived presentation of its evidence. In the same Resolution, the parties were directed to file their respective memorandum. Petitioner complied but BIR failed to do so. In all of these proceedings, BIR was duly notified. Hence, in this case, we are constrained to apply our ruling in Heirs of Pedro Pasag v. Parocha : SDAaTC A formal offer is necessary because judges are mandated to rest their findings of facts and their judgment only and strictly upon the evidence offered by the parties at the trial. Its function is to enable the trial judge to know the purpose or purposes for which the proponent is presenting the evidence. On the other hand, this allows opposing parties to examine the evidence and object to its admissibility. Moreover, it facilitates review as the appellate court will not be required to review documents not previously scrutinized by the trial court . Strict adherence to the said rule is not a trivial matter. The Court in Constantino v. Court of Appeals ruled that the formal offer of one's evidence is deemed waived after failing to submit it within a considerable period of time. It explained that the court cannot admit an offer of evidence made after a lapse of three (3) months because to do so would "condone an inexcusable laxity if not non-compliance with a court order which, in effect, would encourage needless delays and derail the speedy administration of justice." Applying the aforementioned principle in this case, we find that the trial court had reasonable around to consider that petitioners had waived their right to make a formal offer of documentary or object evidence. Despite several extensions of time to make their formal offer, petitioners failed to comply with their commitment and allowed almost five months to lapse before finally submitting it. Petitioners' failure to comply with the rule on admissibility of evidence is anathema to the efficient, effective, and expeditious dispensation of justice .(Emphasis and underlining supplied) Clearly therefore, evidence not formally offered during the trial cannot be used for or against a party litigant by the trial court in deciding the merits of the case. Neither may it be taken into account on appeal. Since the rule on formal offer of evidence is not a trivial matter, failure to make a formal offer within a considerable period of time shall be deemed a waiver to submit it. Consequently, any evidence that has not been offered and admitted thereafter shall be excluded and rejected ." (Citations omitted; emphasis and underscoring supplied) Section 204 (C) authorizes the respondent CIR with, inter alia ,the authority to grant tax refunds. In addition, the filing of the administrative claim before the respondent CIR under Section 204 (C) is made a prerequisite for the filing of the judicial claim under Section 229: AaCTcI " SEC. 229 . Recovery of Tax Erroneously or Illegally Collected. No suit or proceeding shall be maintained in any court for the recovery of any national internal revenue tax hereafter alleged to have been erroneously or illegally assessed or collected ,or of any penalty claimed to have been collected without authority, or of any sum alleged to have been excessively or in any manner wrongfully collected, until a claim for refund or credit has been duly filed with the Commissioner ;but such suit or proceeding may be maintained, whether or not such tax, penalty, or sum has been paid under protest or duress. In any case, no such suit or proceeding shall be filed after the expiration of two (2) years from the date of payment of the tax or penalty regardless of any supervening cause that may arise after payment : Provided, however ,That the Commissioner may, even without a written claim therefor, refund or credit any tax, where on the face of the return upon which payment was made, such payment appears clearly to have been erroneously paid." (Underscoring supplied) In Metropolitan Bank & Trust Company v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue , 264 the Supreme Court had the occasion to explain anew Section 229 and denied a refund claim of final withholding tax for the taxpayer's failure to comply with the requisites therein: "As may be gleaned from the foregoing provisions, a claimant for refund must first file an administrative claim for refund before the CIR, prior to filing a judicial claim before the CTA .Notably, both the administrative and judicial claims for refund should be filed within the two (2)-year prescriptive period indicated therein , and that the claimant is allowed to file the latter even without waiting for the resolution of the former in order to prevent the forfeiture of its claim through prescription. In this regard, case law states that "the primary purpose of filing an administrative claim [is] to serve as a notice of warning to the CIR that court action would follow unless the tax or penalty alleged to have been collected erroneously or illegally is refunded. To clarify, Section 229 of the Tax Code then Section 306 of the old Tax Code however does not mean that the taxpayer must await the final resolution of its administrative claim for refund, since doing so would be tantamount to the taxpayer's forfeiture of its right to seek judicial recourse should the two (2)-year prescriptive period expire without the appropriate judicial claim being filed." (Emphasis and underscoring supplied) Because the administrative claims that were allegedly filed were not identified, marked and formally offered, the petitioners failed to prove that their administrative claims were filed within the two-year period under Section 204. Likewise, the petitioners also failed to establish that prior to the judicial claim, administrative claims for refund were in fact filed with the respondent CIR in compliance with Section 229. acEHCD Taxpayers must prove not only their entitlement to a refund, but also their compliance with the procedural due process as non-observance of the prescriptive periods within which to file the administrative and the judicial claims would result in the denial of their claims. 265 As a final point, a review of the evidence offered disclose that the following petitioners failed to submit proofs of payment of the income tax which are subject of the claim for refund: Taxable year 2012 Amount of Claim 1. Ma. Cecilia Amparo P365,832.23 2. Leticia Aranda 223,100.71 3. Brian Cafirma 181,209.75 Subtotal P770,142.69 Taxable year 2013 1. Mavelle Bacay P178,766.00 2. Ruth Benigno 176,029.00 Subtotal P354,795.00 TOTAL P1,124,937.69 Hence, even granting that petitioners' administrative claims were indeed timely filed, the foregoing claims in the aggregate amount of P1,124,937.69 should be denied. Claims for tax refunds are in the nature of tax exemptions, and as such, should be construed strictissimi juris against the taxpayers and liberally in favor of the government. 266 The burden is upon the taxpayers to prove the factual basis of their claims. 267 Petitioners, unfortunately, failed to discharge this burden. WHEREFORE ,premises considered, the instant Petition for Review is hereby DENIED for lack of merit. SO ORDERED. (SGD.) JUANITO C. CASTAEDA, JR. Associate Justice Caesar A. Casanova, J. ,concurs. Catherine T. Manahan, J. ,with all due respect, please see my Dissenting Opinion. Separate Opinions MANAHAN , J.,dissenting opinion : My esteemed colleagues denied the Petition for Review on the following grounds: (1) the administrative claims for refund were not identified, marked and formally offered in evidence, hence, petitioners failed to establish that these were in fact filed with the Bureau of Internal Revenue (BIR) prior to the filing of the judicial claim; and (2) petitioners failed to submit proofs of payment of the income taxes which are the subject matter of the refund claim. This twin failure, according to the majority, proved fatal to their claim because of non-compliance with the clear provisions of Section 229 of the 1997 N ational Internal Revenue C ode (N IR C). 1 EcTCAD There is no disagreement to the contention that an administrative claim for refund is a prerequisite for filing a judicial claim for refund of national internal revenue taxes before the Court of Tax Appeals (CTA) and this rule admits only of a few exceptions provided under the relevant provisions of the 1997 N IR C. 2 However, I dissent to the outright conclusion that the claims for refund should be denied because no documentary evidence of such claims as well as proofs of income tax payments were formally offered in evidence during trial. The general rule that no evidence formally offered in courts can be considered, admits of certain exceptions. Section 34, Rule 132 of the Rules of Court provides: "Rule 132 Section 34. Offer of evidence . The court shall consider no evidence which has not been formally offered. The purpose for which the evidence is offered must be specified." The foregoing, however, admits of an exception. The Supreme Court has, in many decisions, relaxed the aforesaid rule and set forth two conditions for the exception to apply: a) that the evidence has been identified by testimony duly recorded and b) that the evidence has been incorporated in the records of the case . 3 In this case, petitioner's witness, Atty. Peter Paul S. Romero, has identified these administrative claims for refund in his Amended Judicial Affidavit, 4 to wit: Q. What have you done on behalf of petitioners in this case as one of their handling lawyers in relation to their claim for refund of income taxes paid? A. On their behalf, I previously requested the Commissioner of Internal Revenue to refund the income taxes they paid for their 2012 and 2013 salaries as employees of the Asian Development Bank. SDHTEC Q. What can you show to establish that you made the request? A. Mam, I undersigned the administrative claim for refund for these petitioners. These claims are contained in the various letters addressed to the Commissioner of Internal Revenue copies of which have been attached to the petition filed with this Honorable Court as Annexes "A" to "G" .(emphasis supplied) The Amended Judicial Affidavit of petitioners' witness which serves as his direct testimony on the claim for refund has been formally offered in evidence as Exhibit "P-12". 5 Furthermore, these claims have been incorporated in the records of the case, as shown in the following pleadings replete in the case: Petition for Review, Pre-Trial Brief and the Amended Judicial Affidavit of Atty. Peter Paul S. Romero. Thus, in the interest of substantial justice, I humbly believe that these written claims for refund should be admitted as evidence of petitioners' substantial compliance with the requirements provided under the law. As to the second ground of denial that the proofs of payment were not submitted, the records of the case show otherwise. Petitioner presented in evidence Exhibits "P-3" to "P-16",inclusive of sub-markings which refer to the Certifications issued by the Revenue Accounting Division (RAD) of the BIR certifying that the payments made by the concerned employees listed therein were verified and found included/collected as per their database. The details of said Certifications (and other evidence) however should still be analyzed and scrutinized during a full blown trial. Based on the foregoing, I vote against the denial of the petition for review. Footnotes 1. Docket, Vol. I, pp. 14-32. 2. Par. 1, Joint Stipulation of Facts and Issues, Docket, Vol. I, p. 321. 3. Par. 1, Admissions, Answer, Docket, Vol. I, p. 282. 4. Par. 2, Joint Stipulation of Facts and Issues, Docket, Vol. I, p. 321. 5. Par. 1, Joint Stipulation of Facts and Issues, Docket, Vol. I, p. 321. 6. Par. 13, Petition for Review, Docket, Vol. I, pp. 24-26. 7. Pars. 16 and 17, Petition for Review, Division Docket, Vol. I, p. 27. 8. Par. 17, Petition for Review, Division Docket, Vol. I, p. 27. 9. Par. 18, Petition for Review, Division Docket, Vol. I, p. 27. 10. Par. 19, Petition for Review, Division Docket, Vol. I, p. 28. 11. Id. 12. Pars. 4 and 5, Petition for Review, Division Docket, Vol. I, pp. 18-19; Annexes A to G, Petition for Review, Division Docket, Vol. I, pp. 135-226. 13. Annex H, Petition for Review, Docket, Vol. I, p. 227. 14. Par. 4, Petition for Review, Docket, Vol. I, p. 18. 15. Par. 6, Petition for Review, Docket, Vol. I, p. 18. 16. Docket, Vol. I, pp. 282-293. 17. Par. 5, Answer, Docket, Vol. I, p. 291. 18. Docket, Vol. I, pp. 294-295. 19. Order, Docket, Vol. I, p. 233. 20. Docket, Vol. I, pp. 303-307. 21. Docket, Vol. I, pp. 300-302. 22. Docket, Vol. II, pp. 607-624. 23. Docket, Vol. II, pp. 677-679. 24. Docket, Vol. II, pp. 831-833. 25. Order, Docket, Vol. II, p. 837. 26. Manifestation, Docket, Vol. II, pp. 838-840. 27. Id. 28. Resolution, Docket, Vol. II, p. 843. 29. Issue, Joint Stipulation of Facts and Issues, Docket, Vol. I, p. 322; March 1, 2016 Order, Docket, Vol. I, p. 327. 30. Exhibit "P-11-2",Docket, Vol. I, p. 393. 31. Exhibit "P-17",Docket, Vol. I, p. 435. 32. Exhibit "P-13-1",Docket, Vol. II, p. 754. 33. Exhibit "P-14-1",Docket, Vol. I, p. 412. 34. Exhibit "P-15-1",Docket, Vol. I, p. 427. 35. Exhibit "P-15-2",Docket, Vol. I, p. 427. 36. Exhibit "P-16-1",Docket, Vol. I, p. 432. 37. Exhibit "P-23",Docket, Vol. I, p. 447. 38. Exhibit "P-9-2",Docket, Vol. I, p. 387. 39. Exhibit "P-23-1",Docket, Vol. I, p. 448. 40. Exhibit "P-24",Docket, Vol. I, p. 449. 41. Exhibit "P-9-1",Docket, Vol. I, p. 387. 42. Exhibit "P-24-1",Docket, Vol. I, p. 450. 43. Exhibit "P-14-8",Docket, Vol. I, p. 423. 44. Exhibit "P-34",Docket, Vol. I, p. 468. 45. Exhibit "P-14-9",Docket, Vol. I, p. 415. 46. Exhibit "P-4-3",Docket, Vol. I, p. 371. 47. Exhibit "P-6-1",Docket, Vol. I, p. 377. 48. Exhibit "P-4-1",Docket, Vol. I, p. 370. 49. Exhibit "P-4-2",Docket, Vol. I, p. 370. 50. Exhibit "P-4-5",Docket, Vol. I, p. 372. 51. Exhibit "P-4-6",Docket, Vol. I, p. 372. 52. Exhibit "P-4-4",Docket, Vol. I, p. 372. 53. Exhibit "P-14-4",Docket, Vol. I, p. 421. 54. Exhibit "P-14-3",Docket, Vol. I, p. 421. 55. Exhibit "P-14-5",Docket, Vol. I, p. 422. 56. Exhibit "P-14-2",Docket, Vol. I, p. 421. 57. Exhibit "P-33",Docket, Vol. I, p. 467. 58. Exhibit "P-13-2",Docket, Vol. II, p. 756. 59. Exhibit "P-14-6",Docket, Vol. I, p. 422. 60. Exhibit "P-14-7",Docket, Vol. I, p. 422. 61. Exhibit "P-18-1",Docket, Vol. I, p. 437. 62. Exhibit "P-18",Docket, Vol. I, p. 436. 63. Exhibit "P-18-2",Docket, Vol. I, p. 438. 64. Exhibit "P-18-3",Docket, Vol. I, p. 439. 65. Exhibit "P-19-1",Docket, Vol. I, p. 440. 66. Exhibit "P-19",Docket, Vol. I, p. 440. 67. Exhibit "P-19-3",Docket, Vol. I, p. 442. 68. Exhibit "P-19-2",Docket, Vol. I, p. 441. 69. Exhibit "P-25",Docket, Vol. I, p. 451. 70. Exhibit "P-9-3",Docket, Vol. I, p. 387. 71. Exhibit "P-25-2",Docket, Vol. I, p. 453. 72. Exhibits "P-25-1" and "P-25-3",Docket, Vol. I, pp. 452 and 454. 73. Exhibit "P-11-1",Docket, Vol. I, p. 393. 74. Exhibit "P-11-43",Docket, Vol. I, p. 394. 75. Exhibit "P-11-3",Docket, Vol. I, p. 393. 76. Exhibit "P-11-4",Docket, Vol. I, p. 393. 77. Exhibit "P-10-1",Docket, Vol. I, p. 389. 78. Exhibits "P-26" and "P-26-1",Docket, Vol. I, pp. 455-456. 79. Exhibit "P-10-2",Docket, Vol. I, p. 389. 80. Exhibit "P-11-5",Docket, Vol. I, p. 393. 81. Exhibit "P-11-6",Docket, Vol. I, p. 393. 82. Exhibit "P-11-7",Docket, Vol. I, p. 393. 83. Exhibit "P-10-3",Docket, Vol. I, p. 389. 84. Exhibit "P-11-8",Docket, Vol. I, p. 393. 85. Exhibit "P-11-9",Docket, Vol. I, p. 393. 86. Exhibit "P-10-4",Docket, Vol. I, p. 389. 87. Exhibit "P-11-10",Docket, Vol. I, p. 393. 88. Exhibit "P-11-11",Docket, Vol. I, p. 393. 89. Exhibit "P-11-12",Docket, Vol. I, p. 393. 90. Exhibit "P-10-5",Docket, Vol. I, p. 390. 91. Exhibit "P-11-13",Docket, Vol. I, p. 393. 92. Exhibit "P-11-14",Docket, Vol. I, p. 393. 93. Exhibit "P-10-6",Docket, Vol. I, p. 390. 94. Exhibits "P-27" and "P-27-1",Docket, Vol. I, pp. 457-458. 95. Exhibit "P-11-15",Docket, Vol. I, p. 393. 96. Exhibit "P-11-16",Docket, Vol. I, p. 393. 97. Exhibit "P-11-17",Docket, Vol. I, p. 393. 98. Exhibit "P-11-18",Docket, Vol. I, p. 393. 99. Exhibit "P-11-19",Docket, Vol. I, p. 393. 100. Exhibit "P-10-7",Docket, Vol. I, p. 390. 101. Exhibit "P-11-20",Docket, Vol. I, p. 393. 102. Exhibit "P-11-39",Docket, Vol. I, p. 394. 103. Exhibit "P-11-21",Docket, Vol. I, p. 393. 104. Exhibit "P-10-8",Docket, Vol. I, p. 390. 105. Exhibit "P-11-22",Docket, Vol. I, p. 393. 106. Alleged in the Petition for Review, Docket, Vol. I, p. 20. 107. Exhibit "P-11-40",Docket, Vol. I, p. 394. 108. Exhibit "P-11-23",Docket, Vol. I, p. 393. 109. Exhibit "P-10-9",Docket, Vol. I, p. 390. 110. Exhibit "P-11-24",Docket, Vol. I, p. 393. 111. Exhibit "P-10-10",Docket, Vol. I, p. 390. 112. Exhibit "P-11-25",Docket, Vol. I, p. 393. 113. Exhibit "P-11-26",Docket, Vol. I, p. 393. 114. Exhibit "P-11-27",Docket, Vol. I, p. 393. 115. Exhibit "P-11-28",Docket, Vol. I, p. 393. 116. Exhibit "P-10-11",Docket, Vol. I, p. 390. 117. Exhibit "P-11-36",Docket, Vol. I, p. 394. 118. Exhibit "P-11-42",Docket, Vol. I, p. 394. 119. Exhibit "P-11-38",Docket, Vol. I, p. 394. 120. Exhibit "P-11-30",Docket, Vol. I, p. 393. 121. Exhibit "P-11-41",Docket, Vol. I, p. 394. 122. Exhibit "P-11-37",Docket, Vol. I, p. 394. 123. Exhibit "P-11-31",Docket, Vol. I, p. 393. 124. Exhibit "P-10-12",Docket, Vol. I, p. 391. 125. Exhibit "P-28",Docket, Vol. I, p. 459. 126. Exhibit "P-11-32",Docket, Vol. I, p. 393. 127. Alleged in the Petition for Review, Docket, Vol. I, p. 20. 128. Exhibit "P-10-13",Docket, Vol. I, p. 391. 129. Exhibit "P-11-33",Docket, Vol. I, p. 394. 130. Exhibit "P-10-14",Docket, Vol. I, p. 391. 131. Exhibit "P-11-34",Docket, Vol. I, p. 394. 132. Exhibit "P-11-35",Docket, Vol. I, p. 394. 133. Exhibit "P-10-15",Docket, Vol. I, p. 391. 134. Exhibits "P-29" and "P-29-1",Docket, Vol. II, pp. 460-461. 135. Exhibit "P-8-1",Docket, Vol. I, p. 383. 136. Exhibit "P-8-2",Docket, Vol. I, p. 383. 137. Exhibit "P-8-3",Docket, Vol. I, p. 383. 138. Exhibit "P-7-1",Docket, Vol. I, p. 378. 139. Exhibit "P-7-2",Docket, Vol. I, p. 378. 140. Exhibit "P-8-4",Docket, Vol. I, p. 383. 141. Exhibit "P-7-3",Docket, Vol. I, p. 378. 142. Exhibit "P-7-4",Docket, Vol. I, p. 378. 143. Exhibit "P-11-29",Docket, Vol. I, p. 393. 144. Exhibit "P-8-5",Docket, Vol. I, p. 383. 145. Exhibit "P-7-5",Docket, Vol. I, p. 378. 146. Exhibit "P-8-6",Docket, Vol. I, p. 383. 147. Exhibit "P-8-7",Docket, Vol. I, p. 383. 148. Alleged in the Petition for Review, Docket, Vol. I, p. 20. 149. Exhibit "P-8-8",Docket, Vol. I, p. 383. 150. Exhibit "P-8-9",Docket, Vol. I, p. 383. 151. Exhibit "P-7-6",Docket, Vol. I, p. 379. 152. Exhibit "P-8-10",Docket, Vol. I, p. 383. 153. Exhibit "P-8-11",Docket, Vol. I, p. 383. 154. Exhibit "P-7-7",Docket, Vol. I, p. 379. 155. Exhibit "P-30",Docket, Vol. I, p. 462. 156. Exhibit "P-20",Docket, Vol. I, pp. 443-444. 157. Exhibit "P-8-12",Docket, Vol. I, p. 383. 158. Exhibit "P-7-8",Docket, Vol. I, p. 379. 159. Exhibit "P-8-13",Docket, Vol. I, p. 383. 160. Exhibit "P-8-14",Docket, Vol. I, p. 383. 161. Exhibit "P-7-9",Docket, Vol. I, p. 380. 162. Exhibit "P-7-10",Docket, Vol. I, p. 380. 163. Exhibit "P-8-15",Docket, Vol. I, p. 383. 164. Exhibit "P-7-11",Docket, Vol. I, p. 380. 165. Exhibit "P-8-16",Docket, Vol. I, p. 383. 166. Exhibit "P-8-17",Docket, Vol. I, p. 383. 167. Exhibit "P-8-18",Docket, Vol. I, p. 383. 168. Exhibit "P-8-19",Docket, Vol. I, p. 383. 169. Exhibit "P-8-20",Docket, Vol. I, p. 383. 170. Exhibit "P-8-41",Docket, Vol. I, p. 384. 171. Exhibits "P-31" and "P-31-1",Docket, Vol. I, pp. 463-464. 172. Exhibit "P-8-21",Docket, Vol. I, p. 383. 173. Exhibit "P-8-22",Docket, Vol. I, p. 383. 174. Exhibit "P-8-24",Docket, Vol. I, p. 383. 175. Exhibit "P-8-23",Docket, Vol. I, p. 383. 176. Exhibit "P-8-42",Docket, Vol. I, p. 384. 177. Exhibit "P-8-25",Docket, Vol. I, p. 383. 178. Exhibit "P-7-12",Docket, Vol. I, p. 380. 179. Exhibit "P-8-26",Docket, Vol. I, p. 383. 180. Alleged in the Petition for Review, Docket, Vol. I, p. 21. 181. Exhibit "P-8-27",Docket, Vol. I, p. 383. 182. Exhibit "P-22",Docket, Vol. I, p. 446. 183. Exhibit "P-21",Docket, Vol. I, p. 445. 184. Exhibits "P-8-28" and "P-8-29",Docket, Vol. I, p. 383. 185. Exhibit "P-7-13",Docket, Vol. I, p. 380. 186. Exhibit "P-8-30",Docket, Vol. I, p. 383. 187. Exhibit "P-8-31",Docket, Vol. I, p. 383. 188. Exhibit "P-7-14",Docket, Vol. I, p. 380. 189. Exhibit "P-8-32",Docket, Vol. I, p. 384. 190. Exhibit "P-8-33",Docket, Vol. I, p. 384. 191. Exhibit "P-7-15",Docket, Vol. I, p. 381. 192. Exhibit "P-8-34",Docket, Vol. I, p. 384. 193. Exhibit "P-8-35",Docket, Vol. I, p. 384. 194. Exhibit "P-8-36",Docket, Vol. I, p. 384. 195. Exhibit "P-7-16",Docket, Vol. I, p. 381. 196. Exhibits "P-32" and "P-32-1",Docket, Vol. I, pp. 465-466. 197. Exhibit "P-8-37",Docket, Vol. I, p. 384. 198. Exhibit "P-8-38",Docket, Vol. I, p. 384. 199. Exhibit "P-8-39",Docket, Vol. I, p. 384. 200. Exhibit "P-8-40",Docket, Vol. I, p. 384. 201. Exhibit "P-5-1",Docket, Vol. I, p. 374. 202. Exhibit "P-3-1",Docket, Vol. I, p. 361. 203. Exhibit "P-5-2",Docket, Vol. I, p. 374. 204. Exhibit "P-5-4",Docket, Vol. I, p. 375. 205. Alleged in the Petition for Review, Docket, Vol. I, p. 21. 206. Exhibit "P-3-2",Docket, Vol. I, p. 361. 207. Exhibit "P-5-3",Docket, Vol. I, p. 374. 208. Exhibit "P-3-3",Docket, Vol. I, p. 361. 209. Exhibit "P-3-4",Docket, Vol. I, p. 361. 210. Pars. 4 and 5, Docket, Vol. I, pp. 18-19. 211. Docket, Vol. I, pp. 135-226. 212. Par. 4, Answer, Docket, Vol. I, p. 283. 213. Docket, Vol. II, pp. 607-624. 214. Docket, Vol. I, pp. 331-341. 215. Docket, Vol. II, pp. 746-753; see also Judicial Affidavit of Atty. Peter Paul S. Romero filed via registered mail on April 29, 2016, Docket, Vol. I, pp. 405-411. 216. Docket, Vol. I, p. 342. 217. Docket, Vol. I, pp. 361-366. 218. Docket, Vol. I, pp. 367-373. 219. Docket, Vol. I, pp. 374-375. 220. Docket, Vol. I, pp. 376-377. 221. Docket, Vol. I, pp. 378-382. 222. Docket, Vol. I, pp. 383-384. 223. Docket, Vol. I, pp. 385-388. 224. Docket, Vol. I, pp. 389-392. 225. Docket, Vol. I, pp. 393-394. 226. Docket, Vol. II, pp. 491-495. 227. Docket, Vol. II, pp. 496-509. 228. Docket, Vol. II, pp. 510-512. 229. Docket, Vol. II, pp. 513-518. 230. Docket, Vol. I, pp. 361-366. 231. Docket, Vol. I, pp. 367-373. 232. Docket, Vol. I, pp. 374-375. 233. Docket, Vol. I, p. 377. 234. Docket, Vol. II, p. 519. 235. Docket, Vol. II, pp. 527-528. 236. Docket, Vol. II, pp. 520-526. 237. Docket, Vol. II, pp. 530-533. 238. Docket, Vol. II, p. 535. 239. Docket, Vol. II, pp. 537-538. 240. Docket, Vol. II, p. 540. 241. Docket, Vol. II, p. 542. 242. Docket, Vol. II, p. 543. 243. Docket, Vol. II, p. 545. 244. Docket, Vol. II, p. 546. 245. Docket, Vol. II, p. 550. 246. Docket, Vol. II, p. 551. 247. Docket, Vol. II, p. 529. 248. Docket, Vol. II, p. 534. 249. Docket, Vol. II, p. 536. 250. Docket, Vol. II, p. 539. 251. Docket, Vol. II, p. 541. 252. Docket, Vol. II, p. 544. 253. Docket, Vol. II, p. 547. 254. Docket, Vol. II, p. 549. 255. Docket, Vol. II, p. 548. 256. Docket, Vol. II, p. 552. 257. Docket, Vol. II, pp. 629-660. 258. Docket, Vol. II, pp. 661-667. 259. Docket, Vol. II, pp. 668-672. 260. Petition for Review, Docket, Vol. I, pp. 135-226. 261. Questions 2-4, Amended Judicial Affidavit, Docket, Vol. II, pp. 747-748; please refer also to Questions 2-4 of the original Judicial Affidavit of Atty. Peter Paul S. Romero, Docket, Vol. I, pp. 406-407. 262. Docket, Vol. II, pp. 607-624. 263. G.R. No. 195876, December 5, 2016. 264. G.R. No. 182582, April 17, 2017. 265. Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Manila Electric Company ,G.R. No. 181459, June 9, 2014. 266. Eastern Telecommunications Phils., Inc. v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue ,G.R. 183531, March 25, 2015. 267. Panasonic Communications Imaging Corporation of the Philippines (formerly Matsushita Business Machine Corporation of the Philippines) v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue , G.R. No. 178090, February 8, 2010. MANAHAN, J.,dissenting opinion: 1. "Section 229. Recovery of tax erroneously or illegally collected . No suit or proceeding shall be maintained in any court for the recovery of any national internal revenue tax hereafter alleged to have been erroneously or illegally assessed or collected, or of any penalty claimed to have been collected without authority, or of any sum alleged to have been excessively or in any manner wrongfully collected, until a claim for refund or credit has been duly filed with the Commissioner ;but such suit or proceeding may be maintained, whether or not such tax, penalty, or sum has been paid under protest or duress. (emphasis supplied) xxx xxx xxx 2. a. That the return filed showing an overpayment, shall be considered a written claim for refund (Section 204 (C)). b. That the CIR, may even without a written claim for refund, may grant the same, where on the face of the return, such payment appears clearly to have been erroneously paid (Section 229); 3. Star Two (SPV-AMC),Inc. vs. Howard Ko, et al. ,G.R. No. 185454, March 23, 2011; CIR vs. United Salvage and Towage (Phils.),Inc. ,G.R. No. 197515, July 2, 2014; The Heirs of Romana Saves vs. The Heirs of Escolatico Saves ,G.R. No. 152866, October 6, 2010; People of the Philippines vs. Susan Napat-A ,G.R. No. 84951, November 14, 1989; The People of the Philippines vs. Silvestre Mate ,G.R. No. L-34754, March 27, 1981. 4. Court Docket, Volume II, pp. 746-751. 5. Exhibit "P-12",Court Docket, Volume II, pp. 746-751.