Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. JVC (Philippines), Inc.

EN BANC [C.T.A. EB CASE NO. 1744. June 26, 2020.] (C.T.A. Case No. 8646) COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE , petitioner , vs. JVC (PHILIPPINES), INC. , respondent . [C.T.A. EB CASE NO. 1746. June 26, 2020.] (C.T.A. Case No. 8646) JVC (PHILIPPINES), INC. , petitioner , vs. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE , respondent . RESOLUTION CASTAEDA, JR. , J p : This resolves the Motion for Partial Reconsideration filed by JVC (Philippines), Inc. (JVC) on October 29, 2019, 1 without a comment from the Commissioner of Internal Revenue (CIR) despite notice, 2 and the CIR's Motion for Partial Reconsideration [re: Decision dated October 14, 2019], 3 with JVC's Comment/Opposition (to the Commissioner of Internal Revenue's Motion for Partial Reconsideration) filed on November 28, 2019. 4 JVC reiterates the argument that the case of Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Next Mobile, Inc. 5 should not be applied in affirming the validity of the first waiver but the doctrine in Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Philippine Daily Inquirer, Inc. 6 should instead prevail, in view of the facts of the case. 7 HTcADC On the other hand, the CIR insists that JVC is liable to pay the following: Deficiency income tax and value-added tax from the "unaccounted balance" of professional fees in the amount of P5,610,096.60; 8 Surcharge and interests for failure to pay the correct amount of final withholding tax; 9 and, Compromise penalty in the amount of P25,000. 10 Both motions lack merit. JVC's motion is merely a reiteration of the points raised before the Court a quo which had already been squarely passed upon and resolved under the ponencia of J. Erlinda P. Uy, thus: "Finally, petitioner contends that the case of Commissioner of Internal Revenue vs. Philippine Daily Inquirer, Inc. ("Inquirer case") should be applied to this case. We are not swayed. A review of the facts in this case shows that the application of the Next Mobile case, instead of the Inquirer case, is more appropriate in this case. In other words, the factual milieu in the Inquirer case is different from that of the Next Mobile case and so must be applied herein. In the instant case, the alleged infirmity of the First Waiver is that there is failure to indicate the date of acceptance by the concerned BIR official. This, in turn, is similar to in the Next Mobile case, since one of the infirmities raised therein is the lack of the said date of acceptance. In contrast, however, with the Inquirer case, the infirmity of the Waiver raised therein was the failure to execute three (3) copies of the waiver and the proper distribution of the said copies. Clearly, the application of the doctrine espoused in the Next Mobile is more fitting in this case, than that of the Inquirer case ." 11 Finally, the CIR's motion is asking the Court En Banc to review once again the factual findings of the Court a quo on the "unaccounted balance" of professional fees, the surcharge and interest and the compromise penalties. In this regard, the Court En Banc 's assailed decision noted: 12 CAIHTE "Finally, the CIR's grounds for the petition on the unaccounted balance on professional fees of P5,610,096.60, claimed losses of P1,238,543.69, FWT and the compromise penalty are only repetitions of those already declared in his Answer and his Memorandum. Petitioner CIR, by failing to file his Comment and his Memorandum, did not raise any new contentions, factual or otherwise, that could persuade the Court to overturn the assailed holding of the trial court." (Citations omitted) The appreciation of evidence is the purview of trial courts. Thus, factual findings of trial courts are entitled to great weight and respect on appeal, especially when established by unrebutted testimonial and documentary evidence, 13 as in this case. The Court En Banc , therefore, sees no compelling reason to warrant departure from the factual findings of the Court a quo . WHEREFORE , in light of the foregoing considerations, both JVC's Motion for Partial Reconsideration and the CIR's Motion for Partial Reconsideration [re: Decision dated October 14, 2019] are DENIED for lack of merit. SO ORDERED. (SGD.) JUANITO C. CASTAEDA, JR. Associate Justice Roman G. del Rosario, P.J., Erlinda P. Uy, Esperanza R. Fabon-Victorino, Ma. Belen M. Ringpis-Liban, Catherine T. Manahan, Jean Marie A. Bacorro-Villena and Maria Rowena Modesto-San Pedro, JJ. , concur. Footnotes 1. Rollo , pp. 235-242. 2. Id. at p. 271. 3. Id. at pp. 244-255. 4. Id. at pp. 265-270. 5. G.R. No. 212825, December 7, 2015. 6. G.R. No. 213943, March 22, 2017. 7. Rollo , pp. 236-238. 8. Id. at pp. 246-247. 9. Id. at pp. 247-248. 10. Id. at pp. 248-253. 11. November 2, 2017 Resolution, Id. at p. 94. 12. Id. at p. 227. 13. Seven Brothers Shipping Corporation v. DMC-Construction Resources, Inc. , G.R. No. 193914, November 26, 2014.