Source: http://lawlibrary.chanrobles.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=83658:57756&catid=1587&Itemid=566
Timestamp: 2019-04-19 11:10:14+00:00

Document:
G.R. No. 202066, September 30, 2014 - CBK POWER COMPANY LIMITED, Petitioner, v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent.; G.R. NO. 205353 - CBK POWER COMPANY LIMITED, Petitioner, v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent.
CBK POWER COMPANY LIMITED, Petitioner, v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent.
CBK Power Company Limited filed two petitions for review1 assailing the dismissal of its judicial claim for tax credit of unutilized input taxes on the ground of premature filing.
WHEREFORE, premises considered, respondent’s “Motion to Dismiss” is hereby GRANTED. Accordingly, the Petition for Review filed in the above-captioned case is hereby DISMISSED for having been prematurely filed.
WHEREFORE, premises considered, petitioner’s “Motion for Reconsideration” is hereby DENIED for lack of merit.
WHEREFORE, on the basis of the foregoing considerations, the Petition for Review En Banc is DISMISSED. Accordingly, the Resolutions of CTA Third Division dated January 28, 2011 and April 5, 2011 are hereby AFFIRMED.
WHEREFORE, finding no reversible error committed by this Court in the assailed Decision promulgated on February 1, 2012, petitioner’s “Motion for Reconsideration” is hereby DENIED for lack of merit.
Hence, CBK Power Company Limited filed the instant petition docketed as G.R. No. 202066.
On October 4, 2012, the Court of Tax Appeals En Banc55 denied the petition for lack of merit.
WHEREFORE, the Petition for Review filed by petitioner CBK Power Company Limited on May 06, 2011, is hereby DENIED, for lack of merit.
On January 15, 2013, it denied reconsideration for lack of merit.
WHEREFORE, the Motion for Reconsideration dated November 7, 2012, filed by petitioner is hereby DENIED, for lack of merit.
Hence, CBK Power Company Limited filed the instant petition, docketed as G.R. No. 205353, raising substantially the same arguments made in its earlier petition docketed as G.R. No. 202066.
This court noted petitioner’s reply on June 3, 2014.
(C) Period within which Refund or Tax Credit of Input Taxes shall be Made. — In proper cases, the Commissioner shall grant a refund or issue the tax credit certificate for creditable input taxes within one hundred twenty (120) days from the date of submission of complete documents in support of the application filed in accordance with Subsection (A) hereof.
A simple reading of the provision quoted above reveals that the taxpayer may appeal the denial or the inaction of the Commissioner of Internal Revenue only within thirty (30) days from receipt of the decision that denied the claim or the expiration of the 120-day period given to the Commissioner to decide the claim.
In G.R. No. 202066, petitioner filed its judicial claim on March 27, 2009, only a day after it had filed its administrative claim on March 26, 2009.
In G.R. No. 205353, petitioner filed its judicial claim on April 23, 2008 for the taxable period of January 1, 2006 to March 31, 2006, just 23 days after it had filed its administrative claim on March 31, 2008. Petitioner also filed its judicial claim on July 24, 2008 for the taxable period of April 1, 2006 to December 31, 2006, only a day after it had filed its administrative claim on July 23, 2008.
Clearly, petitioner failed to comply with the 120-day waiting period, the time expressly given by law to the Commissioner of Internal Revenue to decide whether to grant or deny its application for tax refund or credit.
Nevertheless, since the judicial claims were filed within the window created in San Roque, the petitions are exempted from the strict application of the 120-day mandatory period.
With the close of the second taxable quarter of 2006 being June 30, 2006, petitioner should have filed its administrative claim for this quarter on or before June 30, 2008, and not on July 23, 2008. This applies the clear text of Section 112(A).
Since July 23, 2008 falls within the window of effectivity of Atlas, petitioner’s administrative claim for the second quarter of 2006 was filed on time considering that petitioner filed its original VAT return for the second quarter on July 25, 2006.
We note that there were dissents submitted by other members of this court in the 2013 San Roque case.73 The ponente of a case, however, always writes a decision for this court.
WHEREFORE, the petitions docketed as G.R. Nos. 202066 and 205353 are GRANTED. Accordingly, the Court of Tax Appeals En Banc’s February 1, 2012 decision and May 24, 2012 resolution assailed in the petition docketed as G.R. No. 202066, and the Court of Tax Appeals En Banc’s October 4, 2012 decision and January 15, 2013 resolution assailed in the petition docketed as G.R. No. 205353, are REVERSED and SET ASIDE.
The consolidated cases are REMANDED to the Court of Tax Appeals for the determination and computation of the amounts valid for refund or the issuance of a tax credit certificate.
Carpio, Acting C.J., Velasco, Jr., Leonardo-De Castro, Brion, Peralta, Bersamin, Del Castillo, Villarama, Jr., Mendoza, Reyes, and Leonen, JJ., concur.
Sereno, C.J. Perez, and Perlas-Bernabe, JJ., on official leave.
** Designated Acting Chief Justice per Special Order No. 1803 dated September 24, 2014.
1 The petitions were filed pursuant to Rule 16, sec. 1 of the Revised Rules of the Court of Tax Appeals, as amended, in relation to Rule 45 of the Revised Rules of Court.
2Rollo (G.R. No. 202066), pp. 108–172.
4Rollo (G.R. No. 205353), pp. 163–245.
6Rollo (G.R. No. 202066), p. 387.
7Rollo (G.R. No. 205353), p. 258.
8Rollo (G.R. No. 202066), p. 185.
15 This resolution was signed by Associate Justices Olga Palanca-Enriquez, Amelia R. Cotangco-Manalastas, and Lovell R. Bautista. Associate Justice Lovell R. Bautista penned a dissenting opinion.
16Rollo (G.R. No. 202066), pp. 89 and 186.
18 Id. at 100 and 187. This resolution was penned by Associate Justice Olga Palanca-Enriquez, and concurred in by Associate Justice Amelia R. Cotangco-Manalastas. Associate Justice Lovell R. Bautista penned a dissenting opinion.
19Rollo (G.R. No. 202066), pp. 182–202.
20 This resolution was penned by Associate Justice Juanito C. Castañeda, Jr. and concurred in by Associate Justices Erlinda P. Uy, Caesar A. Casanova, Olga Palanca-Enriquez, and Cielito N. Mindaro-Grulla. Presiding Justice Ernesto D. Acosta penned a separate concurring opinion, concurred in by Associate Justices Esperanza R. Fabon-Victorino and Amelia R. Contangco-Manalastas. Associate Justice Lovell R. Bautista maintained his dissenting opinions.
21Rollo (G.R. No. 202066), p. 201.
(C) Period within which Refund or Tax Credit of Input Taxes shall be Made – In proper cases, the Commissioner shall grant a refund or issue the tax credit certificate for creditable input taxes within one hundred twenty (120) days from the date of submission of complete documents in support of the application filed in accordance with Subsection (A) hereof.
No suit or proceeding shall be maintained in any court for the recovery of any national internal revenue tax hereafter alleged to have been erroneously or illegally assessed or collected, or of any penalty claimed to have been collected without authority, of any sum alleged to have been excessively or in any manner wrongfully collected without authority, or of any sum alleged to have been excessively or in any manner wrongfully collected, until a claim for refund or credit has been duly filed with the Commissioner; but such suit or proceeding may be maintained, whether or not such tax, penalty or sum has been paid under protest or duress.
26Rollo (G.R. No. 202066), p. 393.
27 551 Phil. 519 (2007) [Per J. Chico-Nazario, Third Division].
28 535 Phil. 481 (2006) [Per J. Chico-Nazario, First Division].
29 G.R. No. 172378, January 17, 2011, 639 SCRA 521 [Per J. Del Castillo, First Division].
30 G.R. No. 179632, October 19, 2011, 659 SCRA 658 [Per J. Abad, Third Division].
31 G.R. No. 184823, October 6, 2010, 632 SCRA 422 [Per J. Del Castillo, First Division].
32Rollo (G.R. No. 202066), pp. 393–394.
39 Id. at 384–472, petitioner’s memorandum, and 484–498, respondent’s memorandum.
40Rollo (G.R. No. 205353), p. 244. The petition docketed as G.R. No. 205353 prayed for the referral of the case to this court En Banc.
46 This petition was docketed as CTA Case No. 7771.
47Rollo (G.R. No. 205353), p. 260.
49 This petition was docketed as CTA Case No. 7814.
50Rollo (G.R. No. 205353), p. 260.
52 This decision was penned by Associate Justice Amelia R. Cotangco-Manalastas and concurred in by Associate Justice Olga Palanca-Enriquez. Associate Justice Lovell R. Bautista penned a dissenting opinion.
53Rollo (G.R. No. 205353), pp. 262 and 385.
54 Id. at 262 and 402. This resolution was penned by Associate Justice Amelia R. Cotangco-Manalastas. Associate Justice Olga Palanca-Enriquez concurred only in the result. Associate Justice Lovell R. Bautista penned a dissenting opinion.
55 This decision was penned by Associate Justice Esperanza R. Fabon-Victorino and concurred in by Presiding Justice Ernesto D. Acosta and Associate Justices Juanito C. Castañeda, Jr., Erlinda P. Uy, Caesar A. Casanova, Olga Palanca-Enriquez, and Cielito N. Mindaro-Grulla. Associate Justice Amelia R. Contangco-Manalastas was on leave. Associate Justice Lovell R. Bautista maintained his dissenting opinions.
56Rollo (G.R. No. 205353), p. 281.
58Rollo (G.R. No. 202066), p. 552.
61 G.R. No. 187485, February 12, 2013, 690 SCRA 336 [Per J. Carpio, En Banc].
62 G.R. No. 184823, October 6, 2010, 632 SCRA 422 [Per J. Del Castillo, First Division].
63Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. San Roque Power Corporation, G.R. No. 187485, February 12, 2013, 690 SCRA 336, 398–399 [Per J. Carpio, En Banc].
64 586 Phil. 712 (2008) [Per J. Velasco, Jr., Second Division].
65Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. San Roque Power Corporation, G.R. No. 187485, February 12, 2013, 690 SCRA 336, 392–397 [Per J. Carpio, En Banc].
66Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. San Roque Power Corporation, G.R. No. 187485, October 8, 2013, 707 SCRA 66 [Per J. Carpio, En Banc].
68Rollo (G.R. No. 205353), p. 271.
69 551 Phil. 519, 537 (2007) [Per J. Chico-Nazario, Third Division].
70 586 Phil. 712, 730 (2008) [Per J. Velasco, Jr., Second Division].
72Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. San Roque Power Corporation, G.R. No. 187485, February 12, 2013, 690 SCRA 336, 397 [Per J. Carpio, En Banc].
Justice Velasco wrote a dissenting opinion, joined by Justice Mendoza and Justice Perlas-Bernabe, maintaining that this court is “duty-bound to sustain and give due credit to the taxpayers’ bona fide reliance on RR. Nos. 7-95 and 14-2005, RMC Nos. 42-03 and 49-03.” Consequently, the 120-30 period rule may be considered merely discretionary for judicial claims filed “from January 1, 1996 (effectivity of RR 7-95) up to October 31, 2005 (prior to effectivity of RR 16-2005),” and RR 16-2005, fortified in Aichi, should be applied prospectively.
The ponente wrote a separate opinion, joined by Justice Del Castillo, in that the clear text of the law provides for a mandatory and jurisdictional 120-30 period, and its erroneous application by the Commissioner in BIR Ruling DA-489-03 is not binding and conclusive upon this court.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.