La Frutera, Inc. v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue

TWENTY-SECOND DIVISION [CA-G.R. SP No. 70908. January 23, 2008.] LA FRUTERA, INC., petitioner , vs . COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, respondent . D E C I S I O N BORJA, R.V. , J p : This is a Petition for Review 1 of the March 22, 2002 Resolution of the Court of Tax Appeals, Quezon City, rendered in the exercise of its appellate jurisdiction in C.T.A. Case No. 5985, denying reconsideration of its January 16, 2002 Decision. The Facts of the Case Petitioner La Frutera, Inc., is a domestic corporation engaged in the business of producing and exporting cavendish bananas with principal place of business in Datu Paglas Estate, Barangay Digal, Buluan, Maguindanao, Autonomous Region of Muslim Mindanao. It is a duly registered VAT taxpayer with Tax Identification Number 004-397-647-VAT under BIR Certificate of Registration with RDO VAT Control No. 97-107-002104, dated April 1, 1997. Petitioner is also registered with the Board of Investments (BOI) with Certificate of Registration No. EP-014-97 issued on July 7, 1997. 2 On August 19, 1999, petitioner filed with the Department of Finance, through its One-Stop-Shop Inter-Agency Tax Credit and Duty Drawback Center, applications for tax credit/refund for petitioner's alleged excess or unutilized creditable input Value-Added Tax (VAT) payments allegedly in the amount of P8,945,148.44, for the period starting from the fourth quarter (October 1 to December 31) of 1997 to the four quarters (January 1 to December 31) of calendar year 1998. 3 The claim was not acted upon. Whereupon, on December 28, 1999, petitioner filed a petition for review 4 with the Court of Tax Appeals, impleading the Commissioner of Internal Revenue (hereinafter, respondent CIR) as party respondent and seeking the issuance of tax credit certificate or refund under Section 112 (A) and (B) of the Tax Reform Act of 1997 (R.A. No. 8424). 5 Respondent CIR countered by raising the special and affirmative defenses that: 1. Petitioner's alleged claim for refund is subject to administrative routinary investigation/examination by the Respondent's Bureau. 2. Petitioner miserably failed to demonstrate that the tax subject of the case comes within the scope of claims for refund. 3. In a claim for refund, the burden of proof is on the taxpayer to establish its right to refund, and failure to sustain the burden is fatal to the claim for refund. 4. The total amount of Eight Million Nine Hundred Forty Five Thousand One Hundred Forty Eight Pesos and Forty Four centavos (P8,945,148.44) claimed by the Petitioner as alleged refundable unutilized creditable VAT input taxes was not properly documented. 5. Taxes paid and collected are presumed to have been made in accordance with law and regulations. 6. Claims for tax refund are construed strictly against the claimant as they partake of the nature of an exemption from tax and it is incumbent upon the Petitioner to prove that it is entitled thereto under the law. 7. Moreover, Petitioner must prove that it has complied with the governing rules with reference to tax refund, which are found in Sections 204 and 229 of the Tax Code as amended. 6 Subsequently the parties stipulated the issues they were submitting for the resolution of the Court a quo as: a) Whether or not Petitioner has unapplied or unutilized creditable VAT input taxes in the amount of P8,945,148.44 generated from the fourth (4th) quarter ended December 31, 1997 and the four quarters of calendar year 1998, which is a proper subject of a claim for refund pursuant to Section 112 of the National Internal Revenue Code, as amended; b) Whether or not the Petitioner's export sales of cavendish bananas are zero-rated for VAT purposes; c) Whether or not the Petitioner's P8,945,148.44 unapplied or unutilized creditable VAT input taxes for the fourth (4th) quarter ended December 31, 1997 and the four quarters of calendar year 1998 were generated by the Petitioner from its purchases of capital goods and/or purchases of domestic goods and services for the said period; d) Whether or not the said P8,945,148.44 unapplied or unutilized creditable VAT input taxes generated for the fourth (4th) quarter ended December 31, 1997 and four (4) quarters of calendar year 1998 remained unutilized and unapplied to any VAT output tax liability of the Petitioner; e) Whether or not Petitioner complied with the requirements necessary for the refund/tax credit of the P8,945,148.44 unapplied or unutilized creditable VAT input taxes paid for the periods: fourth (4th) quarter ended December 31, 1997 and the four (4) quarters of calendar year 1998; and f) Whether or not the creditable VAT input taxes of P8,945,148.44 generated for the fourth (4th) quarter of 1997 and the four (4) quarters of calendar year 1998 are substantiated by the documentary evidence in the form of invoices and official receipts. 7 On January 16, 2002, the Court of Tax Appeals (CTA) rendered a Decision, the dispositive portion of which reads: IN VIEW OF ALL THE FOREGOING, Petitioner's claim for refund/tax credit is HEREBY PARTIALLY GRANTED. Respondent is ORDERED to REFUND or ISSUE A TAX CREDIT CERTIFICATE in favor of the Petitioner in the amount of P253,965.02 representing excess and unutilized input VAT paid on purchases of capital goods covering the period beginning the fourth quarter of 1997 to the fourth quarter of 1998. No costs. SO ORDERED. 8 Petitioner then filed a motion for reconsideration which was denied in the March 22, 2002 Resolution of the court a quo . Aggrieved, petitioner filed the present petition for review ascribing to the court a quo the following errors: I. In resolving that Petitioner is not allowed to claim the entire amount of P8,945,148.44 as tax credits [of] the input VAT paid on domestic purchases of goods and services as it failed to prove that it generated zero-rated sales. II. In disallowing various VAT payments despite the findings of the Commissioned Certified Public Accountant (CPA) which states that out of the total tax credits claimed amounting to P8,945,148.44 only VAT input payments amounting to P690,633.67 were not properly supported. 9 The Ruling of the Court The prime issue to be resolved in this case is: whether or not the total amount of P8,945,148.44 could be claimed as tax credit/refund as a result allegedly of zero-rated transactions ( i.e. export sales) and purchases of capital goods in accordance with Section 112 (A) and (B), respectively, of Republic Act No. 8424, The Tax Reform Act of 1997. Of the total amount of P8,945,148.44, P5,014,327.99 represents the amount being applied for tax credit/refund under Sec. 112 (A), in cases when there are zero-rated or effectively zero-rated sales generated by the applicant. The balance of P3,930,820.45 represents the amount applied for under Sec. 112 (B), wherein the applicant purchased capital goods in the ordinary course of business. Before resolving the issue, it may be well to note the applicable basic provisions involved in this case. Section 112 (A) and (B) of the Tax Reform Act provides: SEC. 112. Refunds or Tax Credits of Input Tax . (A) Zero-rated or Effectively Zero-rated Sales . Any VAT-registered person, whose sales are zero-rated or effectively zero-rated may, within two (2) years after the close of the taxable quarter when the sales were made, apply for the issuance of a tax credit certificate or refund of creditable input tax due or paid attributable to such sales, except transitional input tax, to the extent that such input tax has not been applied against output tax: Provided, however, That in the case of zero-rated sales under Section 106 (A)(2)(a)(1), (2) and (B) and Section 108 (B) (1) and (2), the acceptable foreign currency exchange proceeds thereof had been duly accounted for in accordance with the rules and regulations of the Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas (BSP): . . . . B) Capital Goods . A VAT-registered person may apply for the issuance of a tax credit certificate or refund of input taxes paid on capital goods imported or locally purchased, to the extent that such input taxes have not been applied against output taxes. The application may be made only within two (2) years after the close of the taxable quarter when the importation or purchase was made. In relation thereto, Section 106 (A) (2) (a) of the same law provides for the criteria for an entity to be considered as engaging in zero-rated transaction or sale, viz. : SEC. 106. Value-Added Tax on Sale of Goods or Properties. (A) Rate and Base of Tax. . . . (1) . . . (2) The following sales by VAT-registered persons shall be subject to zero percent (0%) rate: (a) Export Sales . The term 'export sales' means: (1) the sale and actual shipment of goods from the Philippines to a foreign country, irrespective of any shipping arrangement that may be agreed upon which may influence or determine the transfer of ownership of the goods so exported and paid for in acceptable foreign currency or its equivalent in goods or services, and accounted for in accordance with the rules and regulations of the Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas (BSP); (2) Sale of raw materials or packaging materials to a nonresident buyer for delivery to a resident local export-oriented enterprise to be used in manufacturing, processing, packing or repacking in the Philippines of the said buyer's goods and paid for in acceptable foreign currency and accounted for in accordance with the rules and regulations of the Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas (BSP); (3) Sale of raw materials or packaging materials to export-oriented enterprise whose export sales exceed seventy percent (70%) of total annual production; (4) Sale of gold to the Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas (BSP); and (5) Those considered export sales under Executive Order No. 226, otherwise known as the Omnibus Investment Code of 1987, and other special laws. In arriving at its fallo , the court a quo had ratiocinated in the following manner: It is the averment of the Petitioner that part of the subject claim amounting to P5,014,327.99 which represents input VAT paid on domestic purchases of goods and services is attributable to its incidental revenues or pre-operating sales for the last quarter of 1997 and all four quarters of 1998 (Exhibit JJ, TSN, September 25, 2000) But thorough examination of the evidence on record revealed that Petitioner has no sufficient proof that it generated zero-rated sales to which the input VAT payments of P5,014,327.99 can be attributed. xxx xxx xxx In its Petition for Review, Petitioner maintains that its export sales of cavendish bananas are subject to VAT at zero percent. Yet, in its amended VAT returns and annual income tax returns, Petitioner reflected nil zero-rated sales for the period involved in this case. This Court is now in quandary as to what is the correct avowal. But Petitioner explains that the amounts so declared as export sales in 1998 were erroneously placed there by mistake (TSN, September 25, 2000) We are not convinced. We believe that they were actually export sales made by the Petitioner only that Petitioner fails to show ample evidence to prove its claim. After all, grave mistakes such as asserted cannot be overlooked. Petitioner also argues that the amount of export sales stated in the Application for Tax Credit/Refund of VAT paid for the fourth quarter of 1997 to fourth quarter of 1998 were in reality, pre-operating sales or incidental revenues in the context of the Banana Industry. For Petitioner, during the period subject of this claim, was still under the pre-operating stage and had not yet started its commercial operations (TSN, September 25, 2000, p. 10). As such, Petitioner had no commercial export sales but only pre-operating sales of P111,829,183.80. We noticed however, that these alleged incidental revenues or pre-operating sales were not declared by herein Petitioner in its 1998 income tax return. Whatever its contention, the fact remains that the amount of P5,014,327.99 is being claimed as its input VAT on domestic purchases of goods and services. And We resolve to deny the same for the simple reason that Petitioner failed to prove that it generated zero-rated sales. With it ambivalent positions, We are not surprised. On one hand it claims that it had no export sales, while on the other hand, it states it had, but subject to zero rate. The provisions of the law aforequoted are quite clear on how tax credit or refund on zero-rated export sales can be had. Petitioner's documents are not sufficient to support its assertions. Therefore, what is left for consideration is whether or not Petitioner is entitled to the remaining claim of P3,930,820.45 representing input VAT payments on capital goods purchased for the subject period. xxx xxx xxx Plainly from the above provisions and Section 112(B) of the Tax Code, as amended, in order to be entitled to a refund/tax credit of input VAT paid on capital goods purchased, Petitioner must prove that: 1) it is a VAT-registered entity; 2) it paid input VAT on capital goods purchased; 3) its input VAT payments on capital goods are duly supported by VAT invoices or official receipts; 4) it did not offset or apply the claimed input VAT payments on capital goods against any output VAT liability; and 5) the administrative and judicial claims for refund were filed within the two-year prescriptive period. Records will show that Petitioner complied with all the aforementioned requirements. Nonetheless, We grant only a portion of its total claim of P3,930,820.45. First and foremost, there is no question that Petitioner is a VAT registered entity (Exhibit C). Second, it paid input VAT on capital goods purchased. But from among the various suppliers' invoices/official receipts submitted, only the following purchases with the corresponding input taxes of P253,965.02 can be classified as capital goods: xxx xxx xxx Petitioner was able to establish that the input taxes of P253,965.02 were not applied against any output VAT liability during the period covering the Fourth Quarter of 1997 to the Fourth Quarter of 1998 as well as in the succeeding first quarter of 1999 (Exhibits D to M, and FF). Finally, the administrative claim filed on August 19, 1999 and the judicial claim filed on December 28, 1999, fell within the two-year prescriptive period. 10 On the amount of P5,014,327.99 allegedly representing input VAT payments on domestic purchases of goods and services attributable to petitioner's export sales On this matter the court a quo had said that It is the averment of the Petitioner that part of the subject claim amounting to P5,014,327.99 which represents input VAT paid on domestic purchases of goods and services is attributable to its incidental revenues or pre-operating sales for the last quarter of 1997 and all four quarters of 1998 (Exhibit JJ, TSN, September 25, 2000) But a thorough examination of the evidence on record revealed that Petitioner has no sufficient proof that it generated zero-rated sales to which the input VAT payments of P5,014,327.99 can be attributed. 11 In support of its claims, petitioner assails the above finding and maintains that prior to its full commercial operation the company had already generated pre-operating sales which are in the nature of export sales 12 and the existence of export sales was sufficiently disclosed in its audited financial statements and were indicated in the applications for tax credit/refund. 13 Said sales generated revenues which were then offsetted against the cost (purchases of goods and services) related to the pre-operating or development stage. The balance were capitalized and carried in the books as Deferred Development Expense/Cost. 14 Thus, it is for this reason that the said pre-operating/export sales were not reflected as revenue and sales in its VAT and income tax returns. 15 We are not persuaded. Section 2 of Revenue Regulations No. 3-88, amending Revenue Regulations No. 5-87, provides: Section 2. Section 16 of Revenue Regulations No. 5-87 is hereby amended to read as follows: Sec. 16. Refunds or tax credits of input tax . (a) Zero-rated sales of goods and services . Only a VAT-registered person may be granted a tax credit or refund of value-added taxes paid corresponding to the zero-rated sales of goods and services, to the extent that such taxes have not been applied against output taxes, upon showing of proof of compliance with the conditions stated in Section 8 of these Regulations. For export sales, the application should be filed with the Bureau of Internal Revenue within two years from the date of exportation. For other zero-rated sales, the application should be filed within two years after the close of the quarter when the transaction took place. xxx xxx xxx (c) Claims for tax credits/refunds . Application for Tax Credit/Refund of Value-Added Tax Paid (BIR Form No. 2552) shall be filed with the Revenue District Office of the city or municipality where the principal place of business of the applicant is located or directly with the Commissioner, Attention: VAT Division. A photocopy of the purchase invoice or receipt evidencing the value added tax paid shall be submitted together with the application . The original copy of the said invoice/receipt, however, shall be presented for cancellation prior to the issuance of the Tax Credit Certificate or refund. xxx xxx xxx 1. export sales i) Photocopy of the export documents showing the amount of export, and the date and destination of the goods exported. With respect to the foreign currency denominated sale, the photocopy of the invoice or receipt evidencing the sale of the goods, as well as the name of the person to whom the goods were delivered . ii) Statement from the Central Bank or any of its accredited agent banks that the proceeds of the sale in acceptable foreign currency has been inwardly remitted and accounted for in accordance with applicable banking regulations. xxx xxx xxx Under subparagraphs 1 (ii) and 2 (ii), the statement shall show the amount in foreign currency of the export proceeds or consideration and the date of inward remittance, conversion rate into Philippine currency and the total peso value thereof. [underscoring supplied] The foregoing provisions cannot be any clearer: it provides that supporting documents must be submitted together with the application for tax credit/refund. The subject documents refer to purchase invoices or receipts and other documents evidencing export sales which include "bills of lading, airways bills, export declarations and the like, as well as inward remittances". 16 As duly observed by the court a quo , the documents mentioned remain unpresented and petitioner relied only on the testimony of its Accounting Manager, Mr. Reynaldo L. Jeminico, sans any document in support of its position that the pre-operating sales were export sales within the ambit of the law and regulations setting forth the requirements for claiming refund or tax credit. For a judicial claim for refund to prosper, claimant must not only prove that it is a VAT registered entity and that it had filed its claims within the prescriptive period; it must substantiate the input VAT paid by purchase invoices or official receipts . 17 In the case at bench, petitioners failed to comply with the requirements and thus failed to lay the factual basis for claiming refund or tax credit. On the amount of P3,930,820.45 allegedly representing input VAT payments on capital goods purchased. The court a quo had said In the present case, Petitioner failed to prove that the goods purchased for the propagation and plantation of the seedlings, and for the maintenance of the plants and preservation of the fruits until harvest time are capital goods within the ambit of the law. 18 Petitioner argues that the said purchases on capital goods were covered by invoices and official receipts which were duly submitted to the Court a quo and that the same were reviewed by SGV & Co., the commissioner appointed by the said Court, pursuant to CTA Circular No. 1-95, as amended by CTA Circular No. 10-97. 19 The SGV had reviewed the documents and found that out of the P8,945,148.44, only the amount of P690,633.67 were not properly substantiated with the invoice documents. In addition, a certain Mr. Ruben R. Rubio, a representative of SGV, was presented in the Court a quo to discuss the findings of the submitted documents, which, together with its written report, 20 were not substantially disputed by respondent CIR. Thus, the Court a quo erred when it disregarded the findings of its appointed commissioner but resolved to grant only the amount of P253,965.02 (representing input VAT payments on the capital goods) as tax credit or refund. Again, We are not convinced. Section 11, Rule 32 of the Revised Rules of Civil Procedure, from which Circular No. 10-97 (1) was based upon, provides: Sec. 11. Hearing upon report . Upon the expiration of the period of ten (10) days referred to in the preceding section, the report shall be set for hearing, after which the court shall issue an order adopting, modifying, or rejecting the report in whole or in part, or recommitting it with instructions, or requiring the parties to present further evidence before the commissioner or the court. There is nothing in the cited Rule which declares or may be construed as declaring that the report of the commissioner is binding upon the court. The rule is axiomatic that a court retains the discretion to accept the report of the referee [commissioner] in part and set aside in part or reverse it entirely even where no exceptions to the referee's [commissioner's] report are taken. 21 Moreover, the court a quo committed no error in ruling that the capital goods purchased for purposes of claiming tax credit or refund under Section 112 (B) was not applicable in part to petitioner for the reason that the goods purchased did not come within the purview of "capital goods" defined in Section 4.106-1 of Revenue Regulations No. 7-95. Of the amount of P3,930,820.45, the court a quo only found the amount of P253,965.02 (as input VAT payments) to be within the concept of capital goods purchased which was duly substantiated with invoice documents. Section 4.106-1 of Revenue Regulations No. 7-95 states: (b) Capital goods . only a VAT-registered person may apply for issuance of a tax credit certificate or refund of input taxes paid on capital goods imported or locally purchased. The refund shall be allowed to the extent that such input taxes have not been applied against output taxes. The application should be made within two (2) years after the close of the taxable quarter when the importation or purchase was made. Refund of input taxes on capital goods shall be allowed only to the extent that such capital goods are used in VAT taxable business. If it also used in exempt operations, the input tax refundable shall only be the ratable portion corresponding to the taxable operations. "Capital goods or properties" refer to goods or properties with estimated useful life greater than one year and which are treated as depreciable assets under Section 29 (f), used directly or indirectly in the production or sale of taxable goods or services . [Underscoring supplied] The findings of the court a quo conform to the above-cited regulation. Besides, Petitioner did not proffer any proof that the remaining amount applied for as input VAT payments qualified as a capital goods "with estimated useful life greater than one year and which are treated as depreciable assets in the production or sale of taxable goods or services". The general rule is that claimants of tax refunds bear the burden of proving the factual basis of their claims. This is because tax refunds are in the nature of tax exemptions, the statutes of which are construed strictissimi juris against the taxpayer and liberally in favor of the taxing authority. Taxes are the lifeblood of the nation, therefore statutes that allow exemptions are construed strictly against the grantee and liberally in favor of the government. 22 In the present case, petitioner failed to discharge the duty of proving, by sufficient and competent evidence, that it is entitled to the refund of the remaining amount claimed. Further, it is well-settled that the Court is bound by the findings of fact of the CTA. Said findings are not to be disturbed unless clearly shown to be unsupported by substantial evidence. 23 ACCORDINGLY, the Petition for Review is hereby DENIED. The assailed Resolution, denying reconsideration of its earlier Decision, of the Court of Tax Appeals in CTA Case No. 5985 is hereby AFFIRMED in toto . SO ORDERED. Lopez and Ybanez, JJ., concur. Footnotes 1. Under Rule 43 of the Revised Rules of Court. This petition was filed prior to the effective date (April 23, 2004) of R.A. No. 9282, An Act Expanding the Jurisdiction of the Court of Tax Appeals [CTA], Elevating its Rank to the Level of a Collegiate Court with Special Jurisdiction and Enlarging its Membership, Amending for the Purpose Certain Sections of Republic Act No. 1125, otherwise known as the Law Creating the Court of Tax Appeals . Section 11 of the new law provides, among others, that the remedy to a party adversely affected by a decision or ruling of the CTA en banc is by way of petition for review under Rule 45 of the Revised Rules of Civil Procedure. The CTA en banc issued a resolution on November 30, 2004 which held that R.A. No. 9282 does not provide for any retroactive application. 2. January 16, 2002 Decision, p. 1; Rollo, p. 75. 3. Decision, pp. 1-2, Rollo, pp. 75-76; Joint Stipulation, p. 2, Rollo, p. 100; Petition, p. 2, Rollo, p. 4. 4. Docketed as CTA Case No. 5985. 5. Petition, p. 2, Rollo, p. 4; Decision, p. 2, Rollo, p. 76. 6. Decision, pp. 3-4; Rollo, pp. 77-78. 7. Decision, p. 4; Rollo, p. 78. 8. Decision, pp. 12-13; Rollo, pp. 86-87. 9. Petition, p. 3; Rollo, p. 5. 10. Decision, pp. 5-12; Rollo, pp. 79-86. 11. Decision, p. 5; Rollo, p. 79. 12 Petition, p. 4, 2nd par.; Rollo, p. 6; Cf. Motion for Reconsideration, p. 2; Rollo, p. 89. 13. Petition, pp. 5, 7; Rollo, pp. 7, 9. 14. Petition, p. 4, 3rd par.; Rollo, p. 6. 15. Petition, p. 7, 1st par.; Rollo, p. 9. 16. March 22, 2002 Resolution, p. 2; Rollo , p. 96. 17. Commissioner of Internal Revenue vs. Manila Mining Corp. , G.R. No. 153204, August 31, 2005, citing Commissioner of Internal Revenue vs. Seagate Technology (Philippines) , G.R. No. 153866, February 11, 2005. 18. Resolution, p. 3; Rollo , p. 97. 19. Petition, p. 8; Rollo, p. 10. CIRCULAR NO. 10-97 SUBJECT: Amending CTA Circular No. 1-95 Rules governing the presentation of voluminous documents as evidence such as receipts, invoices, vouchers or long accounts. xxx xxx xxx 1. The party who desires to introduce as evidence such voluminous documents must, after motion and approval by the Court, present: (a) a Summary containing, among others, a chronological listing of the numbers, dates and amounts covered by the invoices or receipts and the amount/s of tax paid; and (b) a Certification of an independent Certified Public Accountant attesting to the correctness of the contents of the summary after making an examination, evaluation and audit of the voluminous receipts and invoices. The name of the accountant or partner of the firm in charge must be stated in the motion so that he/she can be commissioned by the Court to conduct the audit and, thereafter, testify in Court relative to such summary and certification pursuant to Rule 32 of the Rules of Court . [Italics in the original, underscoring Ours] 20. Annexes C and D of the Petition; Rollo, pp. 45-74. 21. Civil Procedure (Annotated), Volume 1, Justice Jose Y. Feria and Maria S. Noche, 2001 Edition, p. 593, citing Baltazar vs. Limpin, 49 Phil. 39 (1926). 22. Phil. Phosphate Fertilizer Corp. vs. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, G.R. No. 141973, June 28, 2005. 23. Commissioner of Internal Revenue vs. Mirant Pagbilao Corp., G.R. No. 159593, October 12, 2006, citing: Commissioner of Internal Revenue vs. Embroidery and Garments Industries (Phil.), Inc., 364 Phil. 541, 545-546 (1999); Commissioner of Internal Revenue vs. Union Shipping Corp., G.R. No. 66160, 21 May 1990, 185 SCRA 547, 553; Industrial Textiles Manufacturing Co. of the Phils., Inc. (ITEMCOP) v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, G.R. No. L-27718, 27 May 1985, 136 SCRA 549, 551; Commissioner of Internal Revenue vs. Manila Machinery & Supply Company, G.R. No. L-25653, 28 February 1985, 135 SCRA 8, 14; Aznar v. Court of Appeals, 157 Phil. 510, 524 (1974); Consolidated Mines, Inc. v. Court of Tax Appeals, 157 Phil. 608, 631 (1974); Balbas v. Domingo, 128 Phil. 467, 472 (1967).