cir vs. petron

7/18/2019 CIR vs. Petron

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/cir-vs-petron 1/23

Republic of the Philippines

Supreme CourtManila

SECOND DIVISION

COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL

REVENUE,

Petitioner,

- versus -

PETRON CORPORATION,

Respondent.

G. R. No. 185568

Present:

CARPIO, J ., Chairperson,

BRION,

PR!,"RNO, and

R#", JJ.

Pro$ul%ated:

March &', &('&

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

D E C I S I O N

SERENO, J.:

)his is a Petition for Revie* on Certiorari under Rule + of the ' Rules

of Civil Procedure filed b/ the Co$$issioner of Internal Revenue 0CIR1 assailin%

the 2ecision3'4 dated (5 2ece$ber &((6 of the Court of )a7 Appeals n Banc

0C)A n Banc1 in C)A B No. 5''. )he assailed 2ecision reversed and set aside

the 2ecision3&4dated (+ Ma/ &(( of the Court of )a7 Appeals "econd 2ivision

0C)A "econd 2ivision1 in C)A Case No. 8+&5, *hich ordered respondent Petron

Corporation 0Petron1 to pa/ deficienc/ e7cise ta7es for the ta7able /ears ' to

'6, to%ether *ith surchar%es and delin9uenc/ interests i$posed thereon.

1

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/march2012/185568.htm#_ftn1






Respondent Petron is a corporation en%a%ed in the production of petroleu$

products and is a Board of Invest$ent 0BOI1 re%istered enterprise in accordance

*ith the provisions of the O$nibus Invest$ents Code of '6 0.O. &&81 under Certificate of Re%istration Nos. 6-'(5 and 2-'58.354

The Facts

)he C)A n Banc in C)A B Case No. 5'' adopted the findin%s of fact b/

the C)A "econd 2ivision in C)A Case No. 8+&5. Considerin% that there are no

factual issues in this case, *e li;e*ise adopt the findin%s of fact b/ the C)A n

Banc, as follo*s:

As culled fro$ the records and as a%reed upon b/ the parties in their <oint

"tipulation of =acts and Issues, these are the facts of the case.

2urin% the period coverin% the ta7able /ears ' to '6, petitioner 0herein respondent Petron1 had been an assi%nee of several )a7 Credit Certificates

0)CCs1 fro$ various BOI-re%istered entities for *hich petitioner utili>ed in the

pa/$ent of its e7cise ta7 liabilities for the ta7able /ears ' to '6. )hetransfers and assi%n$ents of the said )CCs *ere approved b/ the 2epart$ent of

=inance?s One "top "hop Inter-A%enc/ )a7 Credit and 2ut/ 2ra*bac; Center 02O= Center1, co$posed of representatives fro$ the appropriate %overn$enta%encies, na$el/, the 2epart$ent of =inance 02O=1, the Board of Invest$ents

0BOI1, the Bureau of Custo$s 0BOC1 and the Bureau of Internal Revenue

0BIR1.

)a;in% %round on a BOI letter issued on ' Ma/ '6 *hich states that

@h/draulic oil, penetratin% oil, diesel fuels and industrial %ases are classified assupplies and considered the suppliers thereof as 9ualified transferees of ta7

credit,? petitioner ac;no*led%ed and accepted the transfers of the )CCs fro$ the

various BOI-re%istered entities.

Petitioner?s acceptance and use of the )CCs as pa/$ent of its e7cise ta7

liabilities for the ta7able /ears ' to '6, had been continuousl/ approved b/the 2O= as *ell as the BIR?s Collection Pro%ra$ 2ivision throu%h its surrender

and subse9uent issuance b/ the Assistant Co$$issioner of the Collection "ervice

of the BIR of the )a7 2ebit Me$os 0)2Ms1.

2





On <anuar/ 5(, &((&, respondent 3herein petitioner CIR4 issued the

assailed Assess$ent a%ainst petitioner for deficienc/ e7cise ta7es for the ta7able

/ears ' to '6, in the total a$ount of 5,((5,(58.5&, inclusive of ₱

surchar%es and interests, based on the %round that the )CCs utili>ed b/ petitioner

in its pa/$ent of e7cise ta7es have been cancelled b/ the 2O= for havin% been

fraudulentl/ issued and transferred, pursuant to its COM Resolution No. (5-(-. )hus, petitioner, throu%h letters dated Au%ust 5', ' and "epte$ber ',

', *as re9uired b/ the 2O= Center to sub$it copies of its sales invoices and

deliver/ receipts sho*in% the consu$$ation of the sale transaction to certain)CC transferors.

Instead of sub$ittin% the docu$ents re9uired b/ the respondent, on

=ebruar/ &, &((&, petitioner filed its protest letter to the @Assess$ent? on the%rounds, a$on% others, that:

a. )he BIR did not co$pl/ *ith the re9uire$ents of Revenue

Re%ulations '&- in issuin% the assess$ent letter dated <anuar/5(, &((&, hence, the assess$ent $ade a%ainst it is voidD

b. )he assi%n$entEtransfer of the )CCs to petitioner b/ the

)CC holders *as sub$itted to, e7a$ined and approved b/ the

concerned %overn$ent a%encies *hich processed the assi%n$ent inaccordance *ith la* and revenue re%ulationsD

c. )here is no basis for the i$position of the (F surchar%e

in the a$ount of ',+8(,((.(( and interest penalties in the₱

a$ount of &8(,8&(,55.5& a%ainst itD₱

d. "o$e of the ite$s included in the @assess$ent? are alread/

pendin% liti%ation and are subGect of the case entitled @Co$$issioner

of Internal Revenue vs. Petron Corporation,? C.A. HR "P No. 55(

0C)A Case No. 81 and hence, should no lon%er be included in the

@assess$ent?D and

e. )he assess$ent and collection of alle%ed e7cise ta7

deficiencies sou%ht to be collected b/ the BIR a%ainst petitioner throu%h the <anuar/ 5(, &((& letter are alread/ barred b/ prescription

under "ection &(5 of the National Internal Revenue Code.

On & March &((&, respondent, throu%h Assistant Co$$issioner d*in R.

Abella served a arrant of 2istraint andEor Jev/ on petitioner to enforce pa/$ent

of the 5,((5,(58.5& ta7 deficiencies.₱

Respondent alle%edl/ served the arrant of 2istraint andEor Jev/ a%ainst

petitioner *ithout first actin% on its letter-protest. )hus, construin% the arrant of

3



2istraint andEor Jev/ as the final adverse decision of the BIR on its protest of the

assess$ent, petitioner filed the instant petition before this Konorable Court

3referrin% to the C)A "econd 2ivision4 on April &, &((&.

On April 5(, &((&, respondent filed his Ans*er, raisin% the follo*in% as his

"pecial Affir$ative 2efenses:

8. In a post-audit conducted b/ the One-"top Inter-A%enc/ )a7

Credit and 2ut/ 2ra*bac; Center 0Center1 of the 2epart$ent of =inance 02O=1, pursuant to the Center?s 7co$ Resolution No. (5-

(-, it *as found that )CCs issued to Alliance )hread Co., Inc.,

Allstar "pinnin%, Inc., 2ia$ond Lnittin% Corp., =iber )echnolo%/

Corp., =ilstar )e7tile Industrial Corp., =JB International =iber Corp.,<ante7 Philippines, Inc., <ibte7 Industrial Corp., Master Colour

"/ste$ Corp. and "pinte7 International, Inc. *ere fraudulentl/

obtained and *ere fraudulentl/ transferred to petitioner. As a result

of said findin%s, the )CCs and the )a7 2ebit Me$os 0)2Ms1 issued b/ the Center to petitioner a%ainst said )CCs *ere cancelled b/ the

2O=D

. Prior to the cancellation of the aforesaid )CCs and )2Ms,

petitioner had utili>ed the sa$e in the pa/$ent of its e7cise ta7liabilities. ith such cancellation, the )CCs and )2Ms have no

value in $one/ or $one/?s *orth and, therefore, the e7cise ta7es for

*hich the/ *ere used as pa/$ent are no* dee$ed unpaidD

6. )he cancellation b/ the 2O= of the aforesaid )CCs and )2Ms

has the presu$ption of re%ularit/ upon *hich respondent $a/

validl/ rel/D

. Petitioner *as infor$ed b/ the 2O= of the post-audit

conducted on the )CCs and *as %iven the opportunit/ to sub$itdocu$ents sho*in% that the )CCs *ere transferred to it in pa/$ent

of petroleu$ products alle%edl/ delivered b/ it to the )CC

transferors upon *hich the )CC transfers *ere approved, *ith the

ad$onition that failure to sub$it the re9uired docu$ents *ouldresult in the cancellation of the transfers. Petitioner *as also

infor$ed of the cancellation of the )CCs and )2Ms and the reason

for their cancellationD

'(. "ince petitioner is dee$ed not to have paid its e7cise ta7

liabilities, a pre-assess$ent notice is not re9uired under "ection &&6of the )a7 CodeD

''. )he letter dated <anuar/ &(, &((& 0should be <anuar/ 5(,

&((&1, de$andin% pa/$ent of petitioner?s e7cise ta7 liabilities

4



e7plicitl/ states the basis for said de$and, i.e., the cancellation of the

)CCs and )2MsD

'&. )he %overn$ent is never estopped fro$ collectin% le%iti$ate

ta7es due to the error co$$itted b/ its a%ents 0isa/as Cebu

)er$inal Inc., vs. Co$$issioner of Internal Revenue, '5 "CRA &DAtlas Consolidated Minin% and 2evelop$ent Corporation vs.

Co$$issioner of Internal Revenue, '(& "CRA &+81. )he acceptance

b/ the Bureau of Internal Revenue of the )CCs fraudulentl/ obtainedand fraudulentl/ transferred to petitioner as pa/$ent of its e7cise ta7

liabilities turned out to be a $ista;e after the post-audit *as

conducted. Kence, said pa/$ents *ere void and the e7cise ta7es

$a/ be validl/ collected fro$ petitioner.

'5. As found in the post-audit, petitioner and the )CC transferors

co$$itted fraud in the transfer of the )CCs *hen the/ $ade appear

0sic1 that the transfers *ere in consideration for the deliver/ of petroleu$ products b/ petitioner to the )CCs transferors, for *hich

reason said transfers *ere approved b/ the Center, *hen in fact there*ere no such deliveriesD

'+. Petitioner used the )CCs fraudulentl/ obtained andfraudulentl/ transferred in the pa/$ent of e7cise ta7es declared in its

e7cise ta7 returns *ith intent to evade ta7 to the e7tent of the value

represented b/ the )CCs, thereb/ renderin% the returns fraudulentD

'. "ince petitioner *ilfull/ filed fraudulent returns, it is liable

for the (F surchar%e and &(F annual interest i$posed under

"ections &+6 and &+ of the )a7 CodeD

'8. "ince petitioner *ilfull/ filed fraudulent returns *ith intent

to evade ta7, the prescriptive period to collect the ta7 is ten 0'(1/ears fro$ the discover/ of the fraud pursuant to "ection &&& of the

)a7 CodeD and

'. )he case pendin% in the Court of Appeals 0CA-H.R. "p. No.55( 3C)A Case No. 841, and the case at bar have distinct

causes of action. )he for$er involves the invalid transfers of the

)CCs to petitioner on the theor/ that it is not a 9ualified transfereethereof, *hile the latter involves the fraudulent procure$ent of said

)CCs and the fraudulent transfers thereof to petitioner.

Ko*ever, on Nove$ber '&, &((&, respondent filed a Manifestation infor$in%

this Court that on Ma/ &, &((&, it had reduced the a$ount of deficienc/ e7cise

ta7es to &(,&5,&&+.+ as a result of its verification that so$e of the )CCs₱

*hich for$ed part of the ori%inal Assess$ent *ere alread/ included in a case

5



previousl/ filed *ith this Court. In effect, the a$ount of deficienc/ e7cise ta7es is

reco$puted as follo*s:

Tr"#$%eror &"$'( T" Sur()"r*e I#tere$t Tot"+

Alliance )hread Co. Inc. ₱ '&,(6,6&5.(( ₱ 8,(5,+''.( ₱ '8,'+,&5.&' ₱ 5+,&8,&.&'

Allstar "pinnin%, Inc. 5,&8,5'(.(( '6,85&,8.(( +,6',+68. '(,8,+'.

2ia$ond Lnittin% Corporation 58,8+,6.(( '6,56&,&5.( +,&8+,6.5 '(+,+'',856.6

=iber )echnolo%/ Corp. &,5((,''.(( '&,8(,+.( 5+,&,8.( &,&+,(&&.+(

=ilstar )e7tile Corp. +(,8,65.(( &(,565,6'.( +,6(&,(.'8 '',+,&&+.88

=JB International =iber Corp. &,5+,8.(( '&,8,5+.( 5+,,&.'+ 5,6,&.8+

<ante7 Philippines, Inc. '&,(58,'&.(( 8,('6,(8.(( ',6'&,+.&+ 55,688,65.&+

<ibte7 Industrial Corp. ',(8,5(&.(( ,5,''.(( &(,8'(,5'.& +5,68,&.&

Master Colour s/ste$ Corp. 55,555,58.(( '8,888,86.(( ++,6&&,'8.(8 +,6&&,+'.(8

"pinte7 International Inc. '+,'&,+(6.(( ,+8,&(+.(( ',6,586.' +',&8,6(.'

Tot"+ 5-,//,50.//₱ ₱ 16,5/,-.5/ ₱ -0/,/,0/0.0 ₱ /,-,0.0

2urin% the pendenc/ of the case, but after respondent had alread/

sub$itted his =or$al Offer of vidence for this Court?s consideration, he filed an@r%ent Motion to Reopen Case? on Au%ust &+, &((+ on the %round that additional

evidence consistin% of docu$ents presented to the Center in support of the )CC

transferor?s clai$s for ta7 credit as *ell as docu$ent supportin% the applicationsfor approval of the transfer of the )CCs to petitioner, $ust be presented to prove

the fraudulent issuance and transfer of the subGect )CCs. Respondent sub$its that

it is i$perative on his part to do so considerin% that, *ithout necessaril/ ad$ittin%that the evidence presented in the case of Pilipinas "hell Petroleu$ Corporation

vs. Co$$issioner of Internal Revenue, to prove fraud is not clear and convincin%,

he $a/ suffer the sa$e fate that had befallen upon therein respondent *hen thisCourt held, a$on% others, that @there is no clear and convincin% evidence that the

)a7 Credit Certificates 0)CCs1 transferred to "hell 0for brevit/1 and used b/ it in

the pa/$ent of e7cise ta7es, *ere fraudulentl/ issued to the )CC transferors and

*ere fraudulentl/ transferred to "hell.?

An @Opposition to r%ent Motion to Reopen Case? *as filed b/ petitioner

on "epte$ber 5, &((+ contendin% that to sustain respondent?s $otion *ould@s$ac; of procedural disorder and spa*n a reversion of the proceedin%s. hile

liti%ation is not a %a$e of technicalities, it is a truis$ that ever/ case $ust be

presented in accordance *ith the prescribed procedure to insure an orderl/ad$inistration of Gustice.?

On October +, &((+, this Court resolved to %rant respondent?s Motion and

allo*ed respondent to present additional evidence in support of his ar%u$ents, butdeferred the resolution of respondent?s ori%inal =or$al Offer of vidence until

after the respondent has ter$inated his presentation of evidence. "ubse9uent to

this Court?s Resolution, respondent then filed on October &(, &((+, a Re9uest for the Issuance of "ubpoena 2uces )ecu$ to the 7ecutive 2irector of the Center or

his dul/ authori>ed representative, and on October &', &((+, a "ubpoena Ad

)estificandu$ to Ms. li>abeth R. Cru>, also of the Center.

6



Petitioner filed a @Motion for Reconsideration 0Re: Resolution dated

October +, &((+1? on October &, &((+, *ith respondent filin% his @Opposition? on

Nove$ber +, &((+, and petitioner subse9uentl/ filin% its @Repl/ to Opposition? on2ece$ber &(, &((+. Petitioner?s $otion *as denied b/ this Court in a Resolution

dated =ebruar/ &6, &(( for lac; of $erit.

On March '6, &((, petitioner filed an @r%ent Motion to Revert Case to

the =irst 2ivision? *ith respondent?s @Manifestation? filed on April 8, &(( statin%

that @the 9uestion of *hich 2ivision of this Konorable Court shall hear the instantcase is an internal $atter *hich is better left to the sound discretion of this

Konorable Court *ithout interference b/ a part/ liti%ant?. On April &6, &((, this

Court denied the Motion of petitioner for lac; of $erit.

On Nove$ber , &((, the Court finall/ resolved respondent?s @=or$al

Offer of vidence? filed on Ma/ , &((+ and @"upple$ental =or$al Offer of

vidence? filed on Au%ust &, &((. On Nove$ber &&, &((, respondent filed a

@Motion for Partial Reconsideration? of the Court?s Resolution to ad$it 7hibits5' and 5'-A on the %round that he alread/ sub$itted and offered certified true

copies of said e7hibits, *hich the Court %ranted in its Resolution on <anuar/ ',&((8.

Ko*ever, on =ebruar/ '(, &((8, respondent filed a @Motion to A$end=or$al Offer of vidence? pra/in% that he be allo*ed to a$end his for$al offer

since so$e e7hibits althou%h attached thereto *ere inadvertentl/ not $entioned in

the =or$al Offer of vidence. Petitioner?s @Opposition? *as filed on March '+,

&((8. )his Court %ranted respondent?s $otion in the Resolution dated April &+,&((8 and considerin% that the parties alread/ filed their respective Me$oranda,

this case *as then considered sub$itted for decision.

On Ma/ '8, &((8, ho*ever, respondent filed an @O$nibus Motion?

pra/in% that this Court ta;e Gudicial notice of the fact that the )CCs issued b/ the

Center, includin% the )CCs in this instant case, contained the standard @Jiabilit/Clause? and that the case be consolidated *ith C)A Case No. 8'58, on the %round

that both cases involve the sa$e parties and co$$on 9uestions of la* or fact. An

@OppositionECo$$ent on O$nibus Motion? *as filed b/ petitioner on <une &8,

&((8, and @Repl/ to OppositionECo$$ent? *as filed b/ respondent on <ul/ ',&((8.

In a Resolution pro$ul%ated on "epte$ber ', &((8, this Court %rantedrespondent?s $otion onl/ insofar as ta;in% Gudicial notice of the fact that each of

the dorsal side of the )CCs contains the subGect @liabilit/ clause?, but denied

respondent?s $otion to consolidate considerin% that C.).A. Case No. 8'58 *asalread/ sub$itted for decision on April &+, &((8.3+4

The Ruling of the Court of Tax Appeals–Second Division

7





(CTA Case o. !"#$%

On (+ Ma/ &((, the C)A "econd 2ivision pro$ul%ated a 2ecision in C)A

Case No. 8+&5, the dispositive portion of *hich reads:

23EREFORE, pre$ises considered, the instant Petition for Revie* is

hereb/ DENIED for lac; of $erit. Accordin%l/, petitioner is ORDERED TO

PA4 the respondent the reduced a$ount of SI 3UNDRED MILLION SEVEN

3UNDRED SIT4 NINE T3OUSAND T3REE 3UNDRED FIFT4 T3REE

AND 51// PESOS 7P6//,6,-5-.5, representin% petitioner?s deficienc/

e7cise ta7es for the ta7able /ears ' to '6, reco$puted as follo*s:

Tr"#$%eror &"$'( T" 59 Sur()"r*e /9 I#tere$t Tot"+

Alliance )hread Co. Inc. ₱ '&,(6,6&5.(( ₱ 5,(',(. ₱ '5,+8,(.86 ₱ &6,+,8(8.+5

Allstar "pinnin%, Inc. 5,&8,5'(.(( ,5'8,5&.( +',+6+,&.+8 66,(88,&(.8

2ia$ond Lnittin%Corporation

58,8+,6.(( ,'','+8. +',(5,8.& 6,((,8.(+

=iber )echnolo%/ Corp. &,5((,''.(( 8,5&,&&. &6,,'5.& 8(,&(,6&.((

=ilstar )e7tile Corp. +(,8,65.(( '(,'',+. +,886,'.6( 8,8&6,&(.

=JB International =iber Corp. &,5+,8.(( 8,+65,85. &,'+,'+.&6 8',88,(65.(5

<ante7 Philippines, Inc. '&,(58,'&.(( 5,((,(+6.(( '5,','&&.( &6,&&&,58&.(

<ibte7 Industrial Corp. ',(8,5(&.(( 5,68,.( ',',&88.& 58,6,'+5.

Master Colour s/ste$ Corp. 55,555,58.(( 6,555,56+.(( 5,5',6(.66 ,('6,&.66

"pinte7 International Inc. '+,'&,+(6.(( 5,&6,'(&.(( '8,&6,8+(. 5+,5,'(.

Tot"+ ₱ 5-,//,50.// ₱ 6-,05,1-6.5 ₱ 8-,--,6/./ ₱ 6//,6,-5-.5

In addition, petitioner is ORDERED TO PA4 the respondent T2ENT4

FIVE PERCENT 759 LATE PA4MENT SURC3ARGE AND T2ENT4

PERCENT 7/9 DELI:UENC4 INTEREST per annu$ on the a$ount

of SI 3UNDRED MILLION SEVEN 3UNDRED SIT4 NINE

T3OUSAND T3REE 3UNDRED FIFT4 T3REE ; 51// PESOS

7 6//,6,-5-.5₱ , co$puted fro$ <une &, &((& until the a$ount is full/ paid.

SO ORDERED.34

)he C)A "econd 2ivision held Petron liable for deficienc/ e7cise ta7es on

the %round that the cancellation b/ the 2O= of the )CCs previousl/ issued to and

utili>ed b/ respondent to settle its ta7 liabilities had the effect of nonpa/$ent of the

latter?s e7cise ta7es. )hese ta7es corresponded to the value of the )CCs Petron

used for pa/$ent. )he C)A "econd 2ivision ruled that pa/$ent can onl/ occur if

the instru$ent used to dischar%e an obli%ation represents its stated value.384 It

8







further ruled that Petron?s acceptance of the )CCs *as considered a contract

entered into b/ respondent *ith the CIR and subGect to post-audit, 34 *hich *as

considered a suspensive condition %overned b/ Article ''6' of the Civil Code.364

=urther, the C)A "econd 2ivision found that the circu$stances pertainin% to

the issuance of the subGect )CCs and their transfer to Petron bri$ *ith

fraud.34 Kence, the said court concluded that since the )CCs used b/ Petron *ere

found to be spurious, respondent *as dee$ed to have not paid its e7cise ta7es and

ou%ht to be liable to the CIR in the a$ount of 8((,8,55. plus &F interests₱

and &(F surchar%es.3'(4

Petron filed a Motion for Reconsideration3''4 of the 2ecision of the C)A

"econd 2ivision, *hich denied the $otion in a Resolution dated '+ Au%ust &((.3'&4 )he court reiterated its conclusion that the )CCs utili>ed b/ Petron to pa/ the

latter?s e7cise ta7 liabilities did not result in pa/$ent after these )CCs *ere found

to be fraudulent in the post-audit b/ the 2O=. )he C)A "econd 2ivision also

affir$ed its rulin% that Petron *as liable for a &F late pa/$ent surchar%e and

&(F surchar%es under "ection &+63'54 of the National Internal Revenue Code

0NIRC1 of '.3'+4

A%%rieved, Petron appealed the 2ecision to the C)A n Banc throu%h a

Petition for Revie*, *hich *as doc;eted as C)A B No. 5''. In its Petition,

Petron alle%ed that the "econd 2ivision erred in holdin% respondent liable to pa/

the a$ount of 8((,8,55. in deficienc/ e7cise ta7es *ith penalties and₱

interests coverin% the ta7able /ears '-'6. Petron pra/ed that the said

2ecision be reversed and set aside, and that CIR be enGoined fro$ collectin% thecontested e7cise ta7 deficienc/ assess$ent.3'4

)he C)A n Banc su$$ed up into one issue the %rounds relied upon b/

Petron in its Petition for Revie*, as follo*s:

9





















hether or not the "econd 2ivision erred in holdin% petitioner liable for

the a$ount of 8((,8,55. as deficienc/ e7cise ta7es for the /ears '-₱

'6, includin% surchar%es and interest, plus &F surchar%e and &(F delin9uenc/

interest per annu$ fro$ <une &, &((& until the a$ount is full/ paid.3'84

The Ruling of the Court of Tax Appeals &n 'anc

(CTA &' Case o. $%

On (5 2ece$ber &((6, the C)A n Banc pro$ul%ated a 2ecision, *hich

reversed and set aside the C)A "econd 2ivision on (+ Ma/ &((. )he for$er

absolved Petron fro$ an/ deficienc/ e7cise ta7 liabilit/ for ta7able /ears ' to

'6. Its rulin% in favor of Petron *as anchored on this Court?s pronounce$entsin Pilipinas Shell Petroleum Corp. v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue 0Shell 1,3'4 *hich found that the factual bac;%round and le%al issues therein *ere si$ilar to

those in the present case.

In resolvin% the issues, the C)A n Banc adopted the $ain points in Shell ,

*hich it 9uoted at len%th as basis for decidin% the appeal in favor of Petron. )he

%ist of the $ain points of Shell cited b/ the said court is as follo*s:

a1 )he issued )CCs are i$$ediatel/ valid and effective and are not

subGect to a post-audit as a suspensive condition3'64

b1 A )CC is subGect onl/ to the follo*in% conditions:

i1 Post-audit in the event of a co$putational discrepanc/

ii1 A reduction for an/ outstandin% account *ith the BIR

andEor BOC

iii1 A revalidation of the )CC if not utili>ed *ithin one /ear

fro$ issuance or date of utili>ation3'4

c1 A transferee of a )CC should onl/ be a BOI-re%istered fir$ under the

I$ple$entin% Rules and Re%ulations of 7ecutive Order 0.O.1 No.

&&8.3&(4

10















d1 )he liabilit/ clause in the )CCs provides onl/ for the solidar/

liabilit/ of the transferee relative to its transfer in the event it is a part/

to the fraud.3&'4

e1 A transferee can rel/ on the Center?s approval of the )CCs? transfer and subse9uent acceptance as pa/$ent of the transferee?s e7cise ta7

liabilit/.3&&4

f1 A )CC cannot be cancelled b/ the Center, as it *as alread/ cancelled

after the transferee had applied it as pa/$ent for the latter?s e7cise ta7

liabilities.3&54

)he C)A n Banc also found that Petron had no participation in or ;no*led%e

of the fraudulent issuance and transfer of the subGect )CCs. In fact, the parties

$ade a Goint stipulation on this $atter in C)A Case No. 8+&5 before the C)A

"econd 2ivision.3&+4

In resolvin% the issue of *hether the %overn$ent is estopped fro$ collectin%

ta7es due to the fault of its a%ents, the C)A n Banc 9uoted Shell as follo*s:

hile *e a%ree *ith respondent that the "tate in the perfor$ance of %overn$ent function is not estopped b/ the ne%lect or o$ission of its a%ents, and

no*here is this truer than in the field of ta7ation, <et t)'$ pr'#('p+e ("##ot =e

"pp+'e> to ?or@ '#u$t'(e "*"'#$t "# '##o(e#t p"rt<.3&4 0$phasis

supplied.1

=inall/, the C)A n Banc ruled that Petron *as considered an innocent

transferee of the subGect )CCs and $a/ not be preGudiced b/ a re-assess$ent of

e7cise ta7 liabilities that respondent has alread/ settled, *hen due, *ith the use of

the )CCs.3&84 Petron is thus considered to have not fraudulentl/ filed its e7cise ta7

returns. Conse9uentl/, the assess$ent issued b/ the CIR a%ainst it had no le%al

basis.3&4 )he dispositive portion of the assailed (5 2ece$ber &((6 2ecision of the

C)A n Banc reads:

11

















23EREFORE, the instant petition for Revie* is hereb/ GRANTED.

Accordin%l/, the Ma/ +, &(( 2ecision and Au%ust '+, &(( Resolution of the

C)A "econd 2ivision in C)A Case No. 8+&5 entitled, Petron Corporation, petitioner vs. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, respondent , are

hereb/ REVERSED and SET ASIDE. In addition, the de$and and collection of

the deficienc/ e7cise ta7es of PETRON in the a$ount of 8((,8,55.₱

e7cludin% penalties and interest coverin% the ta7able /ears ' to '6 are

hereb/ CANCELLED and SET ASIDE, and respondent-Co$$issioner of

Internal Revenue is hereb/ ENBOINED fro$ collectin% the said a$ountfro$ PETRON.

SO ORDERED.3&64

)he CIR $oved for the reconsideration of the C)A n Banc 2ecision, but

the $otion *as denied in a Resolution dated '+ Au%ust &((.3&4

The )ssues

)he CIR appealed the 2ecision of the C)A n Banc b/ filin% a Petition for

Revie* on Certiorari under Rule + of the Rules of Court. 35(4 Petitioner assails the

2ecision b/ raisin% the follo*in% issues:

)K COR) O= )A APPAJ" COMMI))2 RR"IBJ RROR IN KOJ2INH )KA) R"PON2N) P)RON I" NO) JIABJ =OR

I)" CI" )A JIABIJI)I" =ROM ' )O '6.

ARHMN)"

I

)K C)A N BANC RR2 IN =IN2INH )KA) R"PON2N)P)RON A" NO) "KON )O KA PAR)ICIPA)2 IN )K

=RA2JN) AC)". )K =IN2INH O= )K C)A "CON22II"ION )KA) )K )A CR2I) CR)I=ICA)" R

=RA2JN)J# )RAN"=RR2 B# )K )RAN"=ROR-

COMPANI" )O R"PON2N) I" "PPOR)2 B# "B")AN)IAJ

I2NC. R"PON2N) A" INOJ2 IN )K

12









PRP)RA)ION O= =RA2 IN )K )CC"? )RAN"=R AN2

)IJI!A)ION.

II

R"PON2N) CANNO) AJI2J# CJAIM )K RIHK) O=INNOCN) )RAN"=R =OR AJ. A"

A""IHNE)RAN"=R O= )K )CC", R"PON2N) MRJ#

"CC22 )O )K RIHK)" O= )K )CCA""IHNOR"E)RAN"=ROR". ACCOR2INHJ#, I= )K )CC"

A""IHN2 )O R"PON2N) R OI2, I) 2I2 NO) ACIR

AN# AJI2 )I)J OR )K )CC".

III

)K HORNMN) I" NO) ")OPP2 =ROM COJJC)INH

)A" 2 )O )K MI")AL" O= I)" AHN)".

I

R"PON2N) I" JIABJ =OR &F "RCKARH AN2 &(F

IN)R") PR ANNM PR"AN) )O )K PROI"ION" O="C)ION" &+6 AN2 &+ O= )K NIRC. MOROR, "INC

R"PON2N)?" R)RN" R =AJ", )K A""""MN)

PR"CRIB" IN )N 0'(1 #AR" =ROM )K 2I"COR# O= )K

=AJ"I)# )KRO= PR"AN) )O "C)ION && O= )K "AMCO2.35'4

The Court*s Ruling

e DEN4 the CIR?s Petition for lac; of $erit.

Article &' of .O. &&8 defines a ta7 credit as follo*s:

AR)ICJ &'. )a7 credit shall $ean an/ of the credits a%ainst ta7es

andEor duties e9ual to those actuall/ paid or *ould have been paid to evidence*hich a ta7 credit certificate shall be issued b/ the "ecretar/ of =inance or his

representative, or the Board, if so dele%ated b/ the "ecretar/ of =inance. )he ta7

credit certificates includin% those issued b/ the Board pursuant to la*s repealed

b/ this Code but *ithout in an/ *a/ di$inishin% the scope of ne%otiabilit/ under their la*s of issue are transferable under such conditions as $a/ be deter$ined b/

the Board after consultation *ith the 2epart$ent of =inance. )he ta7 credit

certificate shall be used to pa/ ta7es, duties, char%es and fees due to the National

13





Hovern$entD Provided, )hat the ta7 credits issued under this Code shall not for$

part of the %ross inco$e of the %ranteeEtransferee for inco$e ta7 purposes under

"ection & of the National Internal Revenue Code and are therefore not ta7able:Provided, further, )hat such ta7 credits shall be valid onl/ for a period of ten 0'(1

/ears fro$ date of issuance.

nder Article 5 0G1 of the O$nibus Invest$ent Code of '6,35&4 ta7 credits

are %ranted to entities re%istered *ith the Bureau of Invest$ent 0BOI1 and are

%iven for ta7es and duties paid on ra* $aterials used for the $anufacture of their

e7port products.

A )CC is defined under "ection ' of Revenue Re%ulation 0RR1 No. -

&(((, issued b/ the BIR on ' Au%ust &(((, as follo*s:

B. )a7 Credit Certificate $eans a certification, dul/ issued

to the ta7pa/er na$ed therein, b/ the Co$$issioner or his dul/

authori>ed representative, reduced in a BIR Accountable =or$ in

accordance *ith the prescribed for$alities, ac;no*led%in% that the

%rantee-ta7pa/er na$ed therein is le%all/ entitled a ta7 credit, the $one/

value of *hich $a/ be used in pa/$ent or in satisfaction of an/ of his

internal revenue ta7 liabilit/ 0e7cept those e7cluded1, or $a/ be

converted as a cash refund, or $a/ other*ise be disposed of in the

$anner and in accordance *ith the li$itations, if an/, as $a/ be prescribed b/ the provisions of these Re%ulations.

RR -&((( prescribes the re%ulations %overnin% the $anner of issuance

of )CCs and the conditions for their use, revalidation and transfer. nder the said

re%ulation, a )CC $a/ be used b/ the %rantee or its assi%nee in the pa/$ent of its

direct internal revenue ta7 liabilit/.3554 It $a/ be transferred in favor of an assi%nee

subGect to the follo*in% conditions: '1 the )CC transfer $ust be *ith prior

approval of the Co$$issioner or the dul/ authori>ed representativeD &1 the transfer

of a )CC should be li$ited to one transfer onl/D and 51 the transferee shall strictl/

use the )CC for the pa/$ent of the assi%nee?s direct internal revenue ta7 liabilit/

and shall not be convertible to cash. 35+4 A )CC is valid onl/ for '( /ears subGect to

the follo*in% rules: 0'1 it $ust be utili>ed *ithin five 01 /ears fro$ the date of

14









issueD and 0&1 it $ust be revalidated thereafter or be other*ise considered invalid.354

)he processin% of a )CC is entrusted to a speciali>ed a%enc/ called the

One-"top-"hop Inter-A%enc/ )a7 Credit and 2ut/ 2ra*bac; Center 0Center1,created on ( =ebruar/ '& under Ad$inistrative Order 0A.O.1 No. &&8. Its

purpose is to e7pedite the processin% and approval of ta7 credits and dut/

dra*bac;s.3584 )he Center is co$posed of a representative fro$ the 2O= as its

chairpersonD and the $e$bers thereof are representatives of the Bureau of

Invest$ent 0BOI1, Bureau of Custo$s 0BOC1 and Bureau of Internal Revenue

0BIR1, *ho are tas;ed to process the )CC and approve its application as pa/$ent

of an assi%nee?s ta7 liabilit/.354

A )CC $a/ be assi%ned throu%h a 2eed of Assi%n$ent, *hich the assi%nee

sub$its to the Center for its approval. pon approval of the deed, the Center *ill

issue a 2O= )a7 2ebit Me$o 02O=-)2M1,3564 *hich *ill be utili>ed b/ the

assi%nee to pa/ the latter?s ta7 liabilities for a specified period. pon surrender of

the )CC and the 2O=-)2M, the correspondin% Authorit/ to Accept Pa/$ent of

7cise )a7es 0A)AP)1 *ill be issued b/ the BIR Collection Pro%ra$ 2ivision

and *ill be sub$itted to the issuin% office of the BIR for acceptance b/ the

Assistant Co$$issioner of Collection "ervice. )his act of the BIR si%nifies its

acceptance of the )CC as pa/$ent of the assi%nee?s e7cise ta7es.

)hus, it is apparent that a )CC under%oes a strin%ent process of verification

b/ various speciali>ed %overn$ent a%encies before it is accepted as pa/$ent of an

assi%nee?s ta7 liabilit/.

In the case at bar, the CIR disputes the rulin% of the C)A n Banc, *hich

found Petron to have had no participation in the fraudulent procure$ent and

transfer of the )CCs. Petitioner believes that there *as substantial evidence tosupport its alle%ation of a fraudulent transfer of the )CCs to Petron. 354 )he CIR

further contends that respondent *as not a 9ualified transferee of the )CCs,

because the latter did not suppl/ petroleu$ products to the co$panies that *ere the

assi%nors of the subGect )CCs.3+(4

15















)he CIR bases its contentions on the 2O=?s post-audit findin%s statin% that,

for the periods coverin% ' to '6, Petron did not deliver fuel and other

petroleu$ products to the co$panies 0the transferor co$panies1 that had assi%ned

the subGect )CCs to respondent. Petitioner further alle%es that the findin%s indicate

that the transferor co$panies could not have had such a hi%h volu$e of e7portsales declared to the Center and $ade the basis for the issuance of the )CCs

assi%ned to Petron.3+'4 )hus, the CIR i$pu%ns the C)A n Banc rulin% that

respondent *as a transferee in %ood faith and for value of the subGect )CCs.3+&4

Not findin% $erit in the CIR?s contention, *e affir$ the rulin% of the C)A

n Banc findin% that Petron is a transferee in %ood faith and for value of the

subGect )CCs.

=ro$ the records, *e observe that the CIR had no alle%ation that there *as a

deviation fro$ the process for the approval of the )CCs, *hich Petron used as

pa/$ent to settle its e7cise ta7 liabilities for the /ears ' to '6.

)he CIR 9uotes the C)A "econd 2ivision and ur%es us to affir$ the latter?s

2ecision, *hich found Petron to have participated in the fraudulent issuance and

transfer of the )CCs. Ko*ever, an/ $erit in the position of petitioner on this issue

is ne%ated b/ the <oint "tipulation it entered into *ith Petron in the proceedin%s

before the said 2ivision. As correctl/ noted b/ the C)A n Banc, herein parties Gointl/ stipulated before the "econd 2ivision in C)A Case No. 8+&5 as follo*s:

'5. )hat petitioner 0Petron1 did not participate in the

procure$ent and issuance of the )CCs, *hich )CCs *ere

transferred to Petron and later utili>ed b/ Petron in pa/$ent of its

e7cise ta7es.3+54

)his stipulation of fact b/ the CIR a$ounts to an ad$ission and, havin%

been $ade b/ the parties in a stipulation of facts at pretrial, is treated as a Gudicialad$ission. nder "ection +, Rule '& of the Rules of Court, a Gudicial ad$ission

re9uires no proof.3++4 )he Court cannot li%htl/ set it aside, especiall/ *hen the

opposin% part/ relies upon it and accordin%l/ dispenses *ith further proof of the

fact alread/ ad$itted. )he e7ception provided in Rule '&, "ection + is that an

ad$ission $a/ be contradicted onl/ b/ a sho*in% that it *as $ade throu%h a

16











palpable $ista;e, or that no such ad$ission *as $ade. In this case, ho*ever,

e7ception to the rule does not e7ist.

e a%ree *ith the pronounce$ent of the C)A n Banc that Petron has not

been sho*n or proven to have participated in the alle%ed fraudulent acts involvedin the transfer and utili>ation of the subGect )CCs. Petron had the ri%ht to rel/ on

the Goint stipulation that absolved it fro$ an/ participation in the alle%ed fraud

pertainin% to the issuance and procure$ent of the subGect )CCs. )he Goint

stipulation $ade b/ the parties conse9uentl/ obviated the opportunit/ of the CIR to

present evidence on this $atter, as no proof is re9uired for an ad$ission $ade b/ a

part/ in the course of the proceedin%s.3+4 )hus, the CIR cannot no* be allo*ed to

chan%e its stand and rene%e on that ad$ission.

Moreover, a close e7a$ination of the ar%u$ents proffered b/ the CIR in

their Petition calls for a reevaluation of the sufficienc/ of evidence in the case. )he

CIR see;s to persuade this Court to believe that there is substantial evidence to

prove that Petron co$$itted a $isrepresentation, because the petroleu$ products

*ere delivered not to the transferor but to other co$panies. 3+84 )hus, the )CCs

assi%ned b/ the transferor co$panies to Petron *ere fraudulent. Clearl/, a

recalibration of the sufficienc/ of evidence presented b/ the CIR is needed for a

different conclusion to be reached.

)he funda$ental rule is that the scope of our Gudicial revie* under Rule +

of the Rules of Court is confined onl/ to errors of la* and does not e7tend to

9uestions of fact.3+4 It is basic that *here it is the sufficienc/ of evidence that is

bein% 9uestioned, there is a 9uestion of fact.3+64 videntl/, the CIR does not point

out an/ specific provision of la* that *as *ron%l/ interpreted b/ the C)A n Banc

in the latter?s assailed 2ecision. Petitioner anchors it contention on the alle%ed

e7istence of the sufficienc/ of evidence it had proffered to prove that Petron *as

involved in the perpetration of fraud in the transfer and utili>ation of the subGect)CCs, an alle%ation that the C)A n Banc failed to consider. e have consistentl/

held that it is not the function of this Court to anal/>e or *ei%h the evidence all

over a%ain, unless there is a sho*in% that the findin%s of the lo*er court are totall/

devoid of support or are %larin%l/ erroneous as to constitute palpable error or %rave

abuse of discretion.3+4 "uch an e7ception does not obtain in the circu$stances of

this case.

17













)he CIR clai$s that Petron *as not an innocent transferee for value, because

the )CCs assi%ned to respondent *ere void. Petitioner based its alle%ations on the

post-audit report of the 2O=, *hich declared that the subGect )CCs *ere obtained

throu%h fraud and, thus, had no $onetar/ value. 3(4 )he CIR adds that the )CCs*ere subGect to a post-audit b/ the Center to co$plete the pa/$ent of the e7cise

ta7 liabilit/ to *hich the/ *ere applied. Petitioner further contends that the

Jiabilit/ Clause of the )CCs $a;es the transferee or assi%nee solidaril/ liable *ith

the ori%inal %rantee for an/ fraudulent act pertinent to their procure$ent and

transfer. )he CIR assails the contrar/ rulin% of the C)A n Banc, *hich confined

the solidar/ liabilit/ onl/ to the ori%inal %rantee of the )CCs. )hus, petitioner

believes that the correct interpretation of the Jiabilit/ Clause in the )CCs $a;es

Petron and the transferor co$panies or the ori%inal %rantee solidaril/ liable for an/fraudulent act or violation of the pertinent la*s relatin% to the transfers of the

)CCs.3'4

e are not persuaded b/ the CIR?s position on this $atter.

)he Jiabilit/ Clause of the )CCs reads:

Both the )RAN"=ROR and the )RAN"=R shall be Gointl/

and severall/ liable for an/ fraudulent act or violation of the pertinentla*s, rules and re%ulations relatin% to the transfer of this )A CR2I)

CR)I=ICA).

)he scope of this solidar/ liabilit/, as stated in the )CCs, *as clarified b/

this Court in Shell , as follo*s:)he above clause to our $ind clearl/ provides onl/ for the

solidar/ liabilit/ relative to the transfer of the )CCs fro$ the ori%inal

%rantee to a transferee. )here is nothin% in the above clause that provides

for the liabilit/ of the transferee in the event that the validit/ of the )CCissued to the ori%inal %rantee b/ the Center is i$pu%ned or *here the

)CC is declared to have been fraudulentl/ procured b/ the said ori%inal

%rantee. T)u$, t)e $o+'>"r< +'"='+'t<, '% "#<, "pp+'e$ o#+< to t)e $"+e o%

t)e TCC to t)e tr"#$%eree =< t)e or'*'#"+ *r"#tee. An/ fraud or

breach of la* or rule relatin% to the issuance of the )CC b/ the Center to

the transferor or the ori%inal %rantee is the latterQs responsibilit/ and

18







liabilit/. )he transferee in %ood faith and for value $a/ not be unGustl/

preGudiced b/ the fraud co$$itted b/ the clai$ant or transferor in the

procure$ent or issuance of the )CC fro$ the Center. It is not onl/ unGust

but *ell-ni%h violative of the constitutional ri%ht not to be deprived of

oneQs propert/ *ithout due process of la*. )hus, a re-assess$ent of ta7

liabilities previousl/ paid throu%h )CCs b/ a transferee in %ood faith andfor value is utterl/ confiscator/, $ore so *hen surchar%es and interests

are li;e*ise assessed.

A transferee in %ood faith and for value of a )CC *ho has relied

on the CenterQs representation of the %enuineness and validit/ of the )CC

transferred to it $a/ not be le%all/ re9uired to pa/ a%ain the ta7 covered

b/ the )CC *hich has been belatedl/ declared null and void, that is,

after the )CCs have been full/ utili>ed throu%h settle$ent of internal

revenue ta7 liabilities. Conversel/, *hen the transferee is part/ to the

fraud as *hen it did not obtain the )CC for value or *as a part/ to or has

;no*led%e of its fraudulent issuance, said transferee is liable for the

ta7es and for the fraud co$$itted as provided for b/ la*.3&4 0$phasis

supplied.1

e also find that the post-audit report, on *hich the CIR based its

alle%ations, does not have the effect of a suspensive condition that *ould

deter$ine the validit/ of the )CCs.

e held in Petron v. CIR 0 Petron1,354 *hich is on all fours *ith the instant

case, that )CCs are valid and effective fro$ their issuance and are not subGect to a

post-audit as a suspensive condition for their validit/. Our rulin% in Petron finds

%uidance fro$ our earlier rulin% in Shell , *hich cate%oricall/ states that a )CC is

valid and effective upon its issuance and is not subGect to a post-audit. )he

i$plication on the instant case of the said earlier rulin% is that Petron has the ri%ht

to rel/ on the validit/ and effectivit/ of the )CCs that *ere assi%ned to it. In

finall/ deter$inin% their effectivit/ in the settle$ent of respondent?s e7cise ta7

liabilities, the validit/ of those )CCs should not depend on the results of the 2O=?s

post-audit findin%s. e held thus in Petron:

As correctl/ pointed out b/ Petron, ho*ever, the issue about the

i$$ediate validit/ of )CCs and the use thereof in pa/$ent of ta7 liabilities

and duties are not $atters of first i$pression for this Court. )a;in% into

19







consideration the definition and nature of ta7 credits and )CCs, this CourtQs

"econd 2ivision definitivel/ ruled in the aforesaid Pilipinas "hell case that

the post audit is not a suspensive condition for the validit/ of )CCs, thus:

Art. ''6' tells us that the condition is suspensive *hen the

ac9uisition of ri%hts or de$andabilit/ of the obli%ation $ust a*ait theoccurrence of the condition. Ko*ever, Art. ''6' does not appl/ to the

present case since the parties did NO) a%ree to a suspensive

condition. Rather, specific la*s, rules, and re%ulations %overn the

subGect )CCs, not the %eneral provisions of the Civil Code. A$on%

the applicable la*s that cover the )CCs are O &&8 or the O$nibus

Invest$ents Code, Jetter of Instructions No. '5, O 8, RP-"

Militar/ A%ree$ent, "ec. '(8 0c1 of the )ariff and Custo$s Code,

"ec. '(8 of the NIRC, BIR Revenue Re%ulations 0RRs1, and others.

No*here in the afore$entioned la*s does the post-audit beco$e

necessar/ for the validit/ or effectivit/ of the )CCs. No*here in theafore$entioned la*s is it provided that a )CC is issued subGect to a

suspensive condition.

777 777 777

. . . 0)1he )CCs are i$$ediatel/ valid and effective

after their issuance. As aptl/ pointed out in the dissent of

<ustice Jovell Bautista in C)A B No. 8+, this is clear fro$

the Huidelines and instructions found at the bac; of each )CC,

*hich provide:

'. )his )a7 Credit Certificate 0)CC1 shall entitlethe %rantee to appl/ the ta7 credit a%ainst ta7es and duties until

the a$ount is full/ utili>ed, in accordance *ith the pertinent

ta7 and custo$s la*s, rules and re%ulations.

777 777 777

+. )o ac;no*led%e application of pa/$ent, the

One-"top-"hop )a7 Credit Center shall issue the

correspondin% )a7 2ebit Me$o 0)2M1 to the %rantee.

)he authori>ed Revenue OfficerECusto$s Collector to

*hich pa/$entEutili>ation *as $ade shall acco$plish theApplication of )a7 Credit at the bac; of the certificate and

affi7 his si%nature on the colu$n provided.

)he fore%oin% %uidelines cannot be clearer on the validit/ and

effectivit/ of the )CC to pa/ or settle ta7 liabilities of the %rantee or

transferee, as the/ do not $a;e the effectivit/ and validit/ of the )CC

dependent on the outco$e of a post-audit. In fact, if *e are to sustain the

20



appellate ta7 court, it *ould be absurd to $a;e the effectivit/ of the

pa/$ent of a )CC dependent on a post-audit since there is no conte$plation

of the situation *herein there is no post-audit. 2oes the pa/$ent $ade

beco$e effective if no post-audit is conductedS Or does the so-called

suspensive condition still appl/ as no la*, rule, or re%ulation specifies a

period *hen a post-audit should or could be conducted *ith a prescriptive periodS Clearl/, a ta7 pa/$ent throu%h a )CC cannot be both effective

*hen $ade and dependent on a future event for its effectivit/. Our s/ste$

of la*s and procedures abhors a$bi%uit/.

Moreover, if the )CCs are considered to be subGect to post-audit as a

suspensive condition, the ver/ purpose of the )CC *ould be defeated as

there *ould be no %uarantee that the )CC *ould be honored b/ the

%overn$ent as pa/$ent for ta7es. No investor *ould ta;e the ris; of

utili>in% )CCs if these *ere subGect to a post-audit that $a/ invalidate

the$, *ithout prescribed %rounds or li$its as to the e7ercise of said post-

audit.

)he inescapable conclusion is that the )CCs are not subGect to post-

audit as a suspensive condition, and are thus valid and effective fro$ their

issuance.3+4

In addition, Shell and Petron reco%ni>ed an e7ception that holds the

transfereeEassi%nee liable if proven to have been a part/ to the fraud or to have had

;no*led%e of the fraudulent issuance of the subGect )CCs. As earlier $entioned,

the parties entered into a Goint stipulation of facts statin% that Petron did not

participate in the procure$ent or issuance of those )CCs. )hus, *e affir$ the C)A

n Banc?s rulin% that respondent *as an innocent transferee for value thereof.

On the issue of estoppel, petitioner contends that the )CCs, *hich the Center

had continuall/ approved as pa/$ent for respondent?s e7cise ta7 liabilities, *ere

subse9uentl/ found to be void. )hus, the CIR insists that the %overn$ent is not

estopped fro$ collectin% fro$ Petron the e7cise ta7 liabilities that had accrued tothe latter as a result of the voidance of these )CCs. Petitioner ar%ues that the "tate

should not be preGudiced b/ the ne%lect or o$ission of %overn$ent e$plo/ees

entrusted *ith the collection of ta7es.34

e are not persuaded b/ the CIR?s ar%u$ent.

21







e reco%ni>e the *ell-entrenched principle that estoppel does not appl/ to

the %overn$ent, especiall/ on $atters of ta7ation. )a7es are the nation?s lifeblood

throu%h *hich %overn$ent a%encies continue to operate and *ith *hich the "tate

dischar%es its functions for the *elfare of its constituents. 384 As an e7ception,ho*ever, this %eneral rule cannot be applied if it *ould *or; inGustice a%ainst an

innocent part/.34

Petron, in this case, *as not proven to have had an/ participation in or

;no*led%e of the CIR?s alle%ation of the fraudulent transfer and utili>ation of the

subGect )CCs. Respondent?s status as a transferee in %ood faith and for value of

these )CCs has been established and even stipulated upon b/ petitioner.364

Respondent *as thereb/ provided a$ple protection fro$ the adverse findin%ssubse9uentl/ $ade b/ the Center.34 Hiven the circu$stances, the CIR?s invocation

of the non-applicabilit/ of estoppel in this case is $isplaced.

On the final issue it raised, the CIR contends that a &F surchar%e and a

&(F interest per annu$ $ust be i$posed upon Petron for respondent?s e7cise ta7

liabilities as $andated under "ections &+6 and &+ of the National Internal

Revenue Code 0NIRC1.38(4 Petitioner considers the ta7 returns filed b/ respondent

for the /ears ' to '6 as fraudulent on the basis of the post-audit findin% that

the )CCs *ere void. It ar%ues that the prescriptive period *ithin *hich to la*full/assess Petron for its ta7 liabilities has not prescribed under "ection &&& 0a1 38'4 of the

)a7 Code. )he CIR e7plains that respondent?s assess$ent on 5( <anuar/ &((& of

respondent?s deficienc/ e7cise ta7 for the /ears ' to '6 *as *ell *ithin the

ten-/ear prescription period.38&4

In the li%ht of the $ain rulin% in this case, *e affir$ the C)A n Banc

2ecision findin% Petron to be an innocent transferee for value of the subGect )CCs.

Conse9uentl/, the )a7 Returns it filed for the /ears ' to '6 are notconsidered fraudulent. Kence, the CIR had no le%al basis to assess the e7cise ta7es

or an/ penalt/ surchar%e or interest thereon, as respondent had alread/ paid the

appropriate e7cise ta7es usin% the subGect )CCs.

22

















23EREFORE, the CIR?s Petition is DENIED for lac; of $erit. )he C)A

n Banc 2ecision dated (5 2ece$ber &((6 in C)A B No. 5'' is

hereb/ AFFIRMED in toto. No pronounce$ent as to costs.

SO ORDERED.

23

cir vs. petron

Documents

Cir vs Luang Cta Case

CIR vs Solid Bank

CIR vs. Kudos Metal

Tambunting vs CIR

A. Brown Co. vs CIR

PBC vs CIR

CIR vs PAL

CIR vs Seagate Technology

Toshiba vs. CIR

CIR vs Manila Mining

6. Cir vs. Wintelcom

South African vs CIR

CIR vs. Fisher

Tax1-CIR vs Lhuillier

Cir vs Proctor

Pilipinas shell vs cir

CIR vs. Aichi

CIR vs. Metro Star Superama

Tax1-CIR vs Solidbank

Cir vs Seagate

04 CIR vs Filinvest

Reyes - Tolentino vs. Secretary - CIR vs. Telefunken

Philippine Health vs Cir

uip vs cir

BDO vs CIR

Manila Merchants vs. CIR

CIR vs FDR - RMACES · FDR vs CIR Alan Carter ÉTS, ... CIR vs FDR yCompare and ... [email protected] Thank you. Title: Microsoft PowerPoint - CIR vs FDR Author: acarter

65 Mitsubishi Co vs CIR

Fort Bonifacio vs CIR

18. Claparols vs. CIR

ING Bank vs. CIR

Accentute vs Cir

Cir vs Hantex

Caltex vs. Cir

Cir vs. Boac Full Text