Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Travel Warehouse, Inc.

EN BANC [C.T.A. EB CASE NO. 1722. February 18, 2019.] (C.T.A. Case No. 9103) COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE , petitioner , vs . TRAVEL WAREHOUSE, INC. , respondent . DECISION RINGPIS-LIBAN , J p : Before the Court En Banc is a Petition for Review filed by petitioner 1 Commissioner of Internal Revenue (CIR) to seek nullification of the Decision 2 dated August 7, 2017 (assailed Decision), the dispositive portion thereof reads: " WHEREFORE , the instant Petition for Review is hereby GRANTED. Accordingly, the Formal Letter of Demand and Assessment Notices dated January 14, 2014 and Warrant of Garnishment dated June 23, 2015 issued against Travel Warehouse, Inc. are declared NULL and VOID . SO ORDERED." and the Resolution 3 dated September 22, 2017 (assailed Resolution) of the same Second Division of the Court (Court in Division) denying the CIR's Motion for Reconsideration, the dispositive portion thereof reads: " WHEREFORE , the instant Motion for Reconsideration is hereby DENIED . SO ORDERED. " THE FACTS The facts as stated in the assailed Decision 4 are as follows: "Petitioner 5 Travel Warehouse, Inc. is a domestic corporation duly organized and existing under the laws of the Philippines with principal office address at Unit 1007 OMM-Citra Bldg., San Miguel Ave., Ortigas Center, San Antonio, Pasig City. It is registered with BIR Revenue District Office No. 43A, with Tax Identification Number 005-694-401-000. Respondent 6 is the duly appointed Commissioner of Internal Revenue (CIR) vested under the law with authority to carry out all functions, duties and responsibilities of the BIR. CAIHTE Petitioner received Letter Notice No. 43A-RLF-10-00-00222 dated November 14, 2011 informing it of the discrepancies shown by computerized matching conducted by the BIR between petitioner's records and its customer's records. A Letter of Authority (LOA) dated January 23, 2013 was issued against petitioner authorizing the examination of the books of accounts and other accounting records for all internal revenue taxes for the year 2010. Pursuant to the LOA, the BIR requested the submission and presentation of various financial documents to the authorized examiner through a letter dated January 28, 2013; First Notice for Presentation of Documents dated February 8, 2013; and, Second and Final Notice dated February 18, 2013. Petitioner submitted its VAT and Income Tax Returns for the year 2010 through its Transmittal dated March 5, 2013. Petitioner, through its letter dated March 8, 2013, requested for an additional period within which to present its documentary evidence. On March 19, 2013, petitioner submitted a letter to the BIR, explaining the basis of the service fees as supported by contracts with its customers. Respondent issued a Notice for Informal Conference dated May 27, 2013. Subsequently, a preliminary Assessment Notice (PAN) dated December 27, 2013, and a Formal Letter of Demand (FLD/FAN) with Assessment Notices dated January 14, 2014, were issued. The FLD/FAN contained the following assessments: I. DEFICIENCY INCOME TAX Taxable revenue per Income Tax Return (ITR) P154,148.10 Add: Adjustments per Investigation Additional taxable sales P29,891,244.77 Rent not subjected to withholding tax 48,800.00 Salaries & wages not subjected to withholding tax 303,175.00 Unaccounted input tax 44,322.43 Unaccounted disbursement 841,125.98 Unsupported expenses 1,338,850.98 32,467,519.16 Taxable income per investigation P32,621,667.26 Income tax due thereon P9,786,500.00 Add: Disallowed tax credits/ Payments Prior year's excess credits P1,383.78 Payments 165,100.00 Total P166,483.78 Less: Excess tax credits carried over to next period P120,239.40 Unsupported tax payments For the first three quarters 165,100.00 285,339.40 118,855.62 Deficiency Income Tax P9,905,355.80 Add: 20% Interest p.a. (4/16/2011 to 2/14/14) 5,617,557.95 TOTAL AMOUNT DUE: P15,522,913.75 II. DEFICIENCY VALUE ADDED TAX Taxable revenue/receipts per VAT P4,507,753.43 Returns Add: Adjustments per Investigation Undeclared receipts P14,761,545.10 Unaccounted input tax 44,322.43 Unaccounted disbursement 841,125.98 15,646,993.51 Taxable sales/receipts per investigation P20,154,746.94 Output tax due thereon 2,418,569.63 Less: Allowed tax credits/ Payments Presumptive input tax P516,221.59 Payment per ITS (sic) 59,913.16 Total 576,134.75 Less: Excess input tax carried over to succeeding period 4,177.57 571,957.18 Deficiency value added tax P1,846,612.45 Add: 20% Interest p.a. (01/26/2011 to 2/14/14) 1,128,204.32 TOTAL AMOUNT DUE: P2,974,816.77 III. DEFICIENCY EXPANDED WITHHOLDING TAX Amount EWT rate Amount due Rent P48,800.00 5% P2,440.00 Deficiency expanded withholding tax P2,440.00 Add: 20% Interest p.a. (01/18/2011 to 2/14/14) 1,501.44 TOTAL AMOUNT DUE P3,941.44 On August 15, 2014, a Preliminary Collection Letter (PCL) was issued for the total amount of Php18,516,671.96, inclusive of interest. On September 1, 2014, petitioner submitted a Letter to the BIR, explaining that the customers' records declared wrong purchase amount under the name of petitioner, and that the income of travel agencies should be based on service fee only. On the same date, petitioner received the Final Notice Before Seizure for the collection of Php18,516,671.96. DETACa Petitioner submitted another Letter to the BIR, dated September 22, 2014, stating that the issuance of the FLD/FAN together with the PAN deprived it due process for denying it of its right to respond to the PAN, and reiterating its explanation on the findings of the BIR. On June 23, 2015, petitioner's accounts with Banco De Oro (BDO) were garnished through a Warrant of Garnishment issued by the BIR and served to the Legal Services Group of BDO. On July 23, 2015, petitioner filed the instant Petition for Review [With Application for Temporary Restraining Order and/or Preliminary Injunction] seeking to lift, invalidate and annul the Warrant of Garnishment and FLD/FAN issued against it. On July 29, 2015, petitioner filed its Supplemental Petition for Review. Meanwhile, petitioner's Application for Temporary Restraining Order and/or Preliminary Injunction was set for hearing on August 3, 2015. Said motion to suspend the collection of tax was granted subject to the posting of an appropriate surety bond in the amount of Php27,775,007.94, however, petitioner failed to comply with the posting of such bond. Respondent, within the extension granted, filed his Answer on August 20, 2015. The case proceeded to pre-trial with the parties filing their Joint Stipulation of Facts (JSFI) on December 1, 2015 which the Court approved and adopted on January 18, 2016. The case proceeded to trial with petitioner presenting four witnesses: (1) Ms. Violeta D. Santos, Finance Manager; (2) Mr. Glenn C. Garcia, Documentation Office; (3) Ms. Wilhelmina E. David, HR Manager; and Mr. Cesario B. Ancheta, Jr., messenger from Pasig City Central Post Office. Petitioner then filed its Formal Offer of Evidence (FOE) on March 28, 2016 and resolved by the Court on May 13, 2016, thereby admitting and denying admission to several exhibits. Petitioner's Motion for Reconsideration of said denial of admission was likewise denied. Respondent presented two witnesses: (1) Ms. Rosalina T. Reyes, Revenue Officer; and (2) Ms. Jovelyn R. Reodique, Revenue Officer. Respondent filed his FOE on November 21, 2016, which were all admitted in the Court's Resolution dated February 21, 2017. The Court ordered the submission of memoranda which petitioner and respondent complied with on March 24, 2017 and April 6, 2017, respectively. Considering the foregoing, the instant case was deemed submitted for decision on April 10, 2017. The parties submitted the following issues 7 for resolution of the Court in Division: 1. Whether or not the FAN all dated 14 January 2014 are null and void for violation of Section 228 of the NIRC, and RR No. 12-99, as amended by RR No. 018-13; 2. Whether or not the right of CIR to properly assess TWI for the taxes covered by the FAN all dated 14 January 2014 has already prescribed; 3. Whether or not the Warrant of Garnishment issued by the CIR is void; 4. Whether or not TWI is liable for deficiency Income Tax in the amount of Php15,522,913.75, deficiency Value Added Tax in the amount of Php2,974,816.77, deficiency Expanded Withholding Tax in the amount of Php3,941.44 and Compromise Penalty in the amount of Php15,000.00 for taxable year 2010 inclusive of interest; and 5. Whether or not the Assessments have already become final, executory and demandable. On August 7, 2017, the Court in Division rendered the assailed Decision. On September 22, 2017, the Court in Division rendered the questioned Resolution. Aggrieved, the CIR filed before the Court En Banc this Petition for Review 8 on October 11, 2017. In the Resolution 9 dated November 29, 2017, TWI was directed by the Court En Banc to file its comment in this case. On January 19, 2018, TWI filed its "Comment (To the Petitioner's Petition for Review dated 9 October 2017)." 10 aDSIHc In the Resolution dated March 26, 2018, 11 the Court gave due course to this Petition for Review. In view thereof, the instant case was deemed submitted for decision. THE ISSUE The main issue in this case is whether or not the Court in Division erred in granting TWI's Petition for Review, declaring the Assessment Notices dated January 14, 2014 and Warrant of Garnishment dated June 23, 2015 as null and void. THE ARGUMENTS The CIR contends that the Court in Division erred in ruling that the assessments are void for his failure to comply with due process requirements; that an opportunity was given to TWI to refute the deficiency assessment issued upon it, in compliance with the due process requirements provided under RR No. 12-99, as amended, however, TWI failed to do so; that TWI failed to appear during the Informal Conference; that when the PAN and FLD were served upon TWI, the latter still failed to respond, hence, the assessments became final, executory and demandable; and that TWI was estopped from asserting its rights. On the other hand, TWI argues that the CIR's petition should be dismissed outright for failing to comply with the procedural requirements for Petitions for Review to the CTA En Banc ; that the CIR failed to prove that it accorded due process to respondent; that the CIR failed to dispute that the PAN and FAN were served on respondent on the same date and similarly failed to introduce any new evidence to prove that respondent received the PAN ahead of the FAN, or was otherwise given a fifteen (15)-day period to respond to the same as prescribed under Section 228 of the NIRC, as amended by Revenue Regulations No. 12-99. ATICcS THE RULING OF THE COURT EN BANC After a careful review of the CIR's arguments and the records of the case, the Court En Banc finds no reason to reverse the assailed Decision and assailed Resolution of the Court in Division. The records of the case show that the Court in Division had fully and exhaustively resolved the issues raised in this petition. Moreover, the CIR's opportunity to appeal has already lapsed since the assailed Decision has become final and executory for failure of the CIR to file a motion for reconsideration in accordance with the rules. Nonetheless, the Court En Banc shall pass upon the CIR's arguments. No motion for reconsideration of the Decision could have been considered as filed before the Court in Division On August 16, 2017, the CIR filed before the Court in Division a "Motion for Reconsideration (Decision dated August 7, 2017)." 12 In the said motion, the CIR states that he received a copy of the Decision on August 8, 2017. However, a perusal of the said motion shows that it does not have the necessary Notice of Hearing and Affidavit of Service. The notice requirement and proof of service in a motion is mandatory. It is specifically provided in Sections 4, 5 and 6 of Rule 15, 13 and Section 13 of Rule 13 14 of the 1997 Rules of Court. The said rules equally apply to a motion for reconsideration. Hence, a motion for reconsideration without a notice of hearing is a mere scrap of paper that does not toll the running of the period to appeal. 15 Thus, during the time that the instant Petition for Review was filed before this Court, the Court a quo has already lost its jurisdiction over the case. The CIR's right to appeal is a statutory privilege that must be exercised in the manner provided by law. Section 1, Rule 8 of the Revised Rules of the Court of Tax Appeals provides: SECTION 1. Review of cases in the Court en banc . In cases falling under the exclusive appellate jurisdiction of the Court en banc , the petition for review of decision or resolution of the Court in Division must be preceded by the filing of a timely motion for reconsideration or new trial with the Division. Sections 6 and 7 of Rule 14 of the Revised Rules of the Court of Tax Appeals provide: SECTION 6. Entry of Judgment and Final Resolution . If no appeal or motion for reconsideration or new trial is filed within the time provided in these Rules, the Clerk of Court shall forthwith enter the judgment or final resolution in the book of judgment. The date when the judgment or final resolution becomes necessary shall be deemed the date of its entry. The entry shall contain the dispositive part of the judgment or final resolution and shall be signed by the Clerk of Court, with a certification that such judgment or resolution has become final and executory. (Rules of Court, Rule 51, Sec. 10a) SECTION 7. Execution of Judgment . Upon the expiration of the period to appeal from a judgment or order that disposes of the action or proceeding and no appeal has been duly perfected, execution shall issue as a matter of right, on motion. If an appeal has been duly perfected and finally resolved, execution may be forthwith applied for in the court of origin, on motion of the judgment obligee, submitting therewith a certified true copy of the judgment or final order sought to be enforced and of its entry, with notice to the adverse party. (Rules of Court, Rule 39, Sec. 1a) The assessments issued against TWI are void because of the CIR's failure to comply with the due process requirement The CIR insists that it complied with the due process requirements provided in RR No. 12-99, but TWI failed to respond to the notices. Consequently, the assessment notices became final and executory. TIADCc The Court En Banc agrees with the findings of the Court in Division that the CIR's argument is unmeritorious. An assessment to be valid must conform to the provisions of Section 228 of the NIRC, as amended. It specifically enumerates the due process requirements in the issuance of a deficiency tax assessment. SEC. 228. Protesting of Assessment . When the Commissioner or his duly authorized representative finds that proper taxes should be assessed, he shall first notify the taxpayer of his findings: Provided, however , that a pre-assessment notice shall not be required in the following cases: (a) When the finding for any deficiency tax is the result of mathematical error in the computation of the tax as appearing on the face of the return; or (b) When a discrepancy has been determined between the tax withheld and the amount actually remitted by the withholding agent; or (c) When a taxpayer who opted to claim a refund or tax credit of excess creditable withholding tax for a taxable period was determined to have carried over and automatically applied the same amount claimed against the estimated tax liabilities for the taxable quarter or quarters of the succeeding taxable year; or (d) When the excise tax due on excisable articles has not been paid; or (e) When an article locally purchased or imported by an exempt person, such as, but not limited to, vehicles, capital equipment, machineries and spare parts, has been sold, traded or transferred to non-exempt persons. The taxpayers shall be informed in writing of the law and the facts on which the assessment is made; otherwise, the assessment shall be void. Within a period to be prescribed by implementing rules and regulations, the taxpayer shall be required to respond to said notice. If the taxpayer fails to respond, the Commissioner or his duly authorized representative shall issue an assessment based on his findings. Such assessment may be protested administratively by filing a request for reconsideration or reinvestigation within thirty (30) days from receipt of the assessment in such form and manner as may be prescribed by implementing rules and regulations. Within sixty (60) days from filing of the protest, all relevant supporting documents shall have been submitted; otherwise, the assessment shall become final. If the protest is denied in whole or in part, or is not acted upon within one hundred eighty (180) days from submission of documents, the taxpayer adversely affected by the decision or inaction may appeal to the Court of Tax Appeals within thirty (30) days from receipt of the said decision, or from the lapse of the one hundred eighty (180)-day period; otherwise, the decision shall become final, executory and demandable." In relation thereto, Section 3 of RR No. 12-99, as amended by RR No. 18-2013, provides: AIDSTE Sec. 3. Due Process Requirement in the Issuance of a Deficiency Tax Assessment. 3.1 Mode of Procedure in the Issuance of a Deficiency Tax Assessment. 3.1.1 Preliminary Assessment Notice (PAN). If after review and evaluation by the Commissioner or his duly authorized representative, as the case may be, it is determined that there exists sufficient basis to assess the taxpayer for any deficiency tax or taxes, the said Office shall issue to the taxpayer a Preliminary Assessment Notice (PAN) for the proposed assessment. It shall show in the details the facts and the law, rules and regulations, or jurisprudence on which the proposed assessment is based x x x. If the taxpayer fails to respond within fifteen (15) days from date of receipt of the PAN, he shall be considered in default, in which case, a Formal Letter of Demand and Final Assessment Notice (FLD/FAN) shall be issued calling for payment of the taxpayer's deficiency tax liability, inclusive of the applicable penalties. If the taxpayer, within fifteen (15) days from date of receipt of the PAN, responds that he/it disagrees with the finding of deficiency tax or taxes, an FLD/FAN shall be issued within fifteen (15) days from filing/submission of the taxpayer's response, calling for payment of the taxpayer's deficiency tax liability, inclusive of the applicable penalties. xxx xxx xxx 3.1.3. Formal Letter of Demand and Final Assessment Notice (FLD/FAN). The Formal Letter of Demand and Final Assessment Notice (FLD/FAN) shall be issued by the Commissioner or his duly authorized representative. The FLD/FAN calling for payments of the taxpayer's deficiency tax or taxes shall state the facts, the law, rules and regulations, or jurisprudence on which the assessment is based; otherwise, the assessment shall be void. A perusal of the records of this case shows that the CIR failed to refute the evidence presented by TWI that the PAN and FAN were sent to respondent on the same date and were received by them on the same date. The following are the pertinent portions of the assailed Decision 16 wherein the Court in Division correctly ruled that the CIR violated TWI's right to due process because it fails to give TWI the opportunity to assail the PAN prior to the issuance of a FAN: "Petitioner alleges that the PAN dated December 27, 2013 and FLD/FAN dated January 14, 2014 were both received on January 7, 2014. Petitioner's witnesses testified as to the receipt of the PAN and FLD/FAN: Ms. Violeta D. Santos, petitioner's Finance Manager, stated: Q12: When did TWI receive the said FAN? A: TWI received the FAN, together with the Preliminary Assessment Notice ("PAN") dated 27 December 2013 on 7 January 2014. Q13: You mentioned that TWI received the FAN together with the PAN, can you tell how were these documents received? A. The FAN and the PAN were mailed together in an envelope stamped with number "68" and was received on 7 January 2014. Mr. Glenn C. Garcia, petitioner's Documentation Officer, stated: Q5: You mentioned that you receive documents transmitted to TWI. What document, if any, did you receive for TWI last 7 January 2014? AaCTcI A: On 7 January 2014, I received an envelope with its usual markings from the Central Post Office ("CPO") of Pasig City. Q6: What happened next, if any? A: The messenger then asked that the receiving copy of the contents of the envelope be signed. Q7: What did you do, if any, as regards the said mail man request? A: I asked our acting Finance Manager, Ms. Wilhelmina E. David, to sign the receiving copy and she did. xxx xxx xxx Q13: What is the content of the envelope you mentioned earlier? A: The contents of the documents (sic) are as follows: a) Four (4) Assessment Notices all dated 14 January 2014 b) Formal Letter of Demand marked as issued on January 14 January 2014 with Details of Discrepancies c) Preliminary Assessment Notices dated 27 December 2013 with Details of Discrepancies Ms. Wilhelmina E. David, petitioner's HR Manager and former acting Finance Manager, stated: Q6: You mentioned that you received that (sic) tax assessments against TWI last 7 January 2014. What happened on this instance? A: Our Documentation Officer, Glenn C. Garcia, approached me with respect to receiving certain documents from messenger. Q7: What happened when Mr. Garcia approached you? A. He told me that the documents delivered should be signed as received on each page as requested by the mailman. Q8: What did you do when he told you this? A: I signed the receiving copies of the documents delivered. Q9: What are these documents? A: I signed the following: a) Four (4) Assessment Notices all dated 14 January 2014 b) Formal Letter of Demand marked as issued on 14 January 2914 (sic) with Details of Discrepancies c) Preliminary Assessment Notice dated 27 December 2013 with Details of Discrepancies On the other hand, respondent's witness, RO Jovelyn R. Rodique, testified as follows: 18. Q: Was the Petitioner provided with a copy of the Preliminary Assessment Notice and details of Discrepancies? A: Yes thru registered mail. 19. Q: What happened next, if any? A: A Final Assessment Notice with Formal Letter of Demand and Details of Discrepancies were issued due to the failure of the Petitioner to respond to the Preliminary Assessment Notice pursuant to Revenue Regulations 12-99, as amended. The testimony from respondent's witness confirms petitioner's allegations and witnesses' testimonies that the PAN was sent through registered mail. As to the FAN, respondent's witness merely testified that it was issued, but not how it was served and whether it was received. Petitioner's allegation that the PAN and FLD/FAN were received together was uncontroverted by respondent's witness. Thus, that the FLD/FAN was received together with the PAN on January 7, 2014 renders the FLD/FAN void for violation of due process. EcTCAD xxx xxx xxx Under the law and the rules, the CIR or his duly authorized representative is required to issue a PAN against the taxpayer whenever there is a finding of any deficiency tax due. The taxpayer shall be required to respond to the PAN within fifteen (15) days from receipt thereof. The taxpayer's failure to respond within the period prescribed results to the taxpayer being considered in default, and shall lead to the issuance of the FLD/FAN. The mandatory nature of the issuance of the PAN and compliance with the due process requirements has been settled in Commissioner of Internal Revenue vs. Metro Star Superama, Inc , where the Supreme Court explained: Indeed, Section 228 of the Tax Code clearly requires that the taxpayer must first be informed that he is liable for deficiency taxes through the sending of a PAN. He must first be informed of the facts and the law upon which the assessment is made. The law imposes a substantive, not merely a formal, requirement . . . xxx xxx xxx . . . it is clear that the sending of a PAN to [the] taxpayer to inform him of the assessment made is but part of the "due process requirement in the issuance of a deficiency tax assessment," the absence of which renders nugatory any assessment made by the tax authorities. The use of the word "shall" in subsection 3.1.2. [now, 3.1.1] describes the mandatory nature of the service of a PAN. The persuasiveness of the right to due process reaches both substantial and procedural rights and the failure of the CIR to strictly comply with the requirements laid down by law and its own rules is a denial of Metro Star's right to due process . . . (Underscoring supplied) In several cases, this Court has ruled that the issuance of the FLD/FAN prior to the lapse of the fifteen (15)-day period given to the taxpayer to respond to the PAN is a violation of the taxpayer's right to due process. In this case, petitioner received the PAN through registered mail on January 7, 2014; thus, it had fifteen days therefrom or until January 22, 2014 to file its response/protest. However, as testified to by the petitioner's witnesses and undisputed by respondent's witnesses, petitioner simultaneously received the PAN dated December 27, 2013 and the FAN dated January 14, 2014 on January 7, 2014. Clearly, the FLD/FAN was issued and received prior to the lapse of the 15-day period given petitioner to respond to the PAN. This is a denial of petitioner's right to due process, as such, the FLD/FAN are void. The irregularity in the dates of issuance and receipt of the FAN fails to escape the intrusive eye of this Court, emphasizing more clearly the importance of the observance of the mandatory 15-day period granted to the taxpayer to reply to the PAN before a FAN can be issued. Time is quite essential in this entire procedure of administrative protest because any escalation in the levels of the protest, i.e ., FLD/FAN, leaves the taxpayer with fewer options, such as going to the Court of Tax Appeals on appeal or entering into a compromise settlement, among others, which all entail financial costs to the taxpayer. Hence, the mandatory period granted to assail the PAN is integral to the right to due process granted by law to the taxpayer." HSAcaE Considering the foregoing discussion, Court En Banc finds no cogent reason to disturb the assailed Decision and Resolution. WHEREFORE , premises considered, the Petition for Review is DENIED for lack of merit. The assailed Decision dated August 7, 2017 and the assailed Resolution dated September 22, 2017 are AFFIRMED . SO ORDERED. AScHCD (SGD.) MA. BELEN M. RINGPIS-LIBAN Associate Justice Roman G. del Rosario, P.J., Juanito C. Castaeda, Jr., Erlinda P. Uy, Esperanza R. Fabon-Victorino, Cielito N. Mindaro-Grulla and Catherine T. Manahan, JJ. , concur. Footnotes 1. Respondent in CTA Case No. 9103. 2. Rollo , CTA EB Case No. 1722, pp. 10-26. 3. Rollo , pp. 27-29. 4. Citations omitted. 5. Respondent Travel Warehouse, Inc. ("TWI") in this case. 6. Petitioner in this case. 7. Joint Stipulation of Facts and Issues, Docket, CTA Case No. 9103, p. 474. 8. Rollo, CTA EB Case No. 1722, pp. 1-9, with Annexes. 9. Ibid . pp. 34-35. 10. Ibid . pp. 37-52. 11. Ibid. pp. 62-63. 12. Docket, CTA Case No. 9103, pp. 875-880. 13. SEC. 4. Hearing of motion . Except for motions which the court may act upon without prejudicing the rights of the adverse party, every written motion shall be set for hearing by the applicant. Every written motion required to be heard and the notice of the hearing thereof shall be served in such a manner as to ensure its receipt by the other party at least three (3) days before the date of hearing, unless the Court for good cause sets the hearing on shorter notice. SEC. 5. Notice of hearing . The notice of hearing shall be addressed to all parties concerned, and shall specify the time and date of the hearing which must not be later than ten (10) days after the filing of the motion. SEC. 6. Proof of service necessary . No written motion set for hearing shall be acted upon by the Court without proof of service thereof. 14. SEC. 13. Proof of Service . Proof of personal service shall consist of a written admission of the party served, or the official return of the server, or the affidavit of the party serving, containing a full statement of the date, place and manner of service. If the service is by ordinary mail, proof thereof shall consist of an affidavit of the person mailing of facts showing compliance with section 7 of this Rule. If service is by registered mail, proof shall be made by such affidavit and the registry receipt issued by the mailing office. The registry return card shall be filed immediately upon its receipt by the sender, or in lieu thereof the unclaimed letter together with the certified or sworn copy of the notice given by the post master to the addressee. 15. Pedro G. Resurreccion, Joseph Cometa and Criseforo Litera To, Jr. vs. People of the Philippines , G.R. No. 192866, July 9, 2014. 16. Decision, pp. 10-17, citations omitted.