CTA Case No. 2227 (Resolution)

RF.T'URT.lC O;F THE PHILIPPI~ES (.,Cll.i'RT OF TAX APPE~LS QUEZON CITY RURll.L B � t"l\: OF OSi IO ( Batang as ) , I NC., � Petitioner, - ve-rsus - C. T. l . Ct ~E No. 2227 COlvH.:LSS ION:Sn OF INTERNAL RE.:VENUE , es po ndent . x- - - - - - - - - - - -x RESOLUTION Petitioner Rural Bank of .i: osario (Ba tangas )", Inc . , appeals from respondent ' s decision denying its claim for refund of ~ll , ll6 . oo , representing alleged erro - neous payment of income tax for the year 1968. A mo - tion to dismiss was fil ed by respondent Commissioner of Internal 1i.evenue on t he ground that this Co urt has no jurisdiction to take cognizance of this case on the ground that this petition \ITas filed after the expira- tion of the thir t y- day period vTithin wh ich to institute an appeal to this Court. The records show that petitioner is a duly organ - ized corporation cre a ted under ah, governed by Republic Act No. 720 , as aoended , \vith business address at Ro - _j . sar io , Batangas . On April 15, 1969 , petitioner filed its �income tax return for 1968 and paid under protest the corresponding tax thereon in the amount of i=ll , ll6. oo. Subsequently , on January I _LJ- , 1970 , peti - tioner filed a claim for the refund of the tax �it paid .

RESOLUTION - �, CTil. CASE No . 2227 ' 2 The said clairri for refund is premised on the gro und that the corporation is exempt from payment of income t�x for 1968 under Section 14 of Republic Act No . 720 , as amended . In a letter dated l"'lay 28 , 1970 , respondent denied the claim for r�~fund wh ich respondent claims to have been receiVed by petitioper on July 17, 1970. Petitioner, however , denies receipt of respondent ' s letter denying the �.claim for refund . The present petition for revievJ was filed on Harch 10, 1971. Subsequently , on June 18 , 1971 , respondent ' filed a motion to dismiss the petition on the ground th~t this court has no jurisdiction to take cognizance of the instant case for the reason that the thirty- day period �v1ithin which appeal to this court may be insti - tuted had already expired at the time appeal ioTas tai{e n. The bone Oi contention in this incident is whether or not petitioner received the letter� dated 1~1ay 28, 19'70 , denying its claim for r�9fund. It is contended on behalf of petitioner that it did not receive the � alleged lette!'. In this respect , it is on record that according to the testimony of the mailing clerk of the Bureau of Internal Revenue , supported by an entry in the l-~ailing Book of the Bureau, a letter of the Collect- or dated Nay 28 , 1970 , addressed to petitioner denying the latter. ' s request for reconsider�ation , 1.-ras released on July 16 , 1970. The mailing of the letter is further

RESOLUTION . CTA Cl~S E No. 2227 '' 3 supported by the registry receipt No . 76290. It also appears 1n the ce rt if i ca tion of t he pos tmas te r of Ro - sario ; -Batangas �, that a letter '\vith said registry re - ceip t number was delivered to petitioner , through its mana ge r , Atty . Octavio l�1acatafi..gay , on July 17, 1970. Petitioner admits t he authenticity of the entries in respondent ' s ~=te cord Book of Reg istered J:.:ails but llrges tha t 11\.,hile it maybe true that a letter of denial of petitioner 1s claim was actually made and the same was entered on respondent ' s record book of mails , the re is no shm..rin6 1--rhether it v1as t he letter denying pe ti - tioner ' s claim for refund that was actually ma iled . 11 In t his� respe ct , the entry in the aforesaid record book of ma ils re ads : "Rural Bank of os ario, I nc ., Rosario , Ba tang as , re refund for ioll , 116. 00 - 1968 - denied . 11 The l ette r of l'�..aY 28 , 1970, Exh. 1 - B, is addressed to the Rural Bank of Rosario, me ., and i s a den i a l of a claim for refund of exactly ~11 , 11 6. 00 allegedly paid erroneously for income taxes for 1968 . Thus , t he r e can hardly be any mistake that t he letter mentioned i n the entry refers to the letter of May 28 , 1970. Petitioner , h owever , further urges that there . is no proof t hat the af oresaid letter of denial was re - ceived by petitioner. In this respect, .it s hould be noted that the postmaster of Rosario , Batangas , certi -

3.3SOLV1riON - CTA CiSE No. 2227 f ies tbat re gis tere d lette r No. 76290 addr es s ed to t he petitioner vras del ivered to t he addressee through its manager , Atty. Octavio Hacatafigay , on July 17, 1970. This l e tter can scarcely be any other t han the very letter men tione d in the entry of the record book of � mails for as one will note in the entry as well as in � the testimony of Elsa Guevarra, ch ief of the �mailing sectio n of the Bureau of Internal Revenue , the letter in qllestio.n was s en t as r&gistered lette r No . 76290 . Significantly enoLJ.gh , although the certification ca te- gorically states that pe titione r ' s manager receiVed the letter i n quest io!2 .on July 17 , 1970 , pet itioner has offered no explanation as to what was the letter that ~o1as delivered to its manager on � said date . Neithe r has petitioner adduced eVidence contesting the veracity of the recitals of the certificatio n , 'I.�Thich co llld have been eas Ds che cked by it in the record of mails in Ro - sario, Batangas . Lastly, petitioner contends that t he postmas ter should have .been presented as �w it ness instead of merely producir..g a certification from him. 'rhe pre tension here i s that a mere certification is hears ay e Viden ce. The certification i s obviollSl Y presented to prove an en try in an official record made in the perf ormance of a duty by t he postmaster w.hich is a cceptable as evi.dence as an exception to the hearsay rule ( Ule 130, Section

. Rill OLUTION - CT~�~ CASE No . 2227 5 38 , Rules of Court) . It is made admissible on the grollnd of necessity and trustworthiness . Yere there no exception for official state ments of this sort , a postmaster would be found devotino the greater part of his time attending as witness in qourt or ~aking his deposition before an officer , to the detriment of public service . In the light of the eVidence presented by respond- eQt which is unrebutted by petitioner , the finding of this Court is that petitioner receiVed notice of the rtenial of its claire for refund on July 17 , 1970 , and it was too late for it to file this action for refund on J.iarch 10 , 1971�. HHEREFORE , this petition is dismissed for lack of jllrisdiction. Quezon City , Ear ch 27 , 1973 . 'vf~ COl"! CUR: fL__ t~� :i.AJ.<ON L. VANCEfA l~sociate Judge .