BRILLIANT CREATIONS PUBLISHING, INC., Duly Represented herein by its Authorized Representative, Ms. Ria A. Sablon v. THE COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE (CIR), BUREAU OF INTERNAL REVENUE (BIR)

CTA Form No. 8 (For DCC) 1111111111111111111111 1111111111 1111111111 111111111 11111111111 111111111111111111 22-000645-0075 REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES COURT OF TAX APPEALS QUEZON CITY FIRST DIVISION CTA CASE N0.11043 BRILLIANT CREATIONS PUBLISHING, INC., Duly Represented herein by its Authorized Representative, Ms. Ria A. Sablon, Petitioner, -versus- NOTICE OF RESOLUTION THE COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE (CIR), BUREAU OF INTERNAL REVENUE (BIR), Respondent. To: OFFICE OF THE SOLICITOR GENERAL 134 Amorsolo Street, Legazpi Village Makati City ATTY. DAYN E B. MEDINA ATTY. SHEEHERAZADEE A. LABOR-MORAN ATTY. JUFFERSON D. VIERNES Bureau of Internal Revenue, Revenue Region No. 7A Legal Division, Room 516, Roof Deck, Fisher Mall Quezon Avenue comer Fernando Poe Jr., Avenue Quezon City ATTY. ERIC R. CORTES Unit 103, AIC Burgundy Empire Tower Sapphire Road, Ot1igas Center, Brgy. San Antonio, Pasig City 1605 GREETINGS: You are hereby notified by these presents that on November 19, 2025, a Resolution was rendered in the above-entitled case, copy of which is attached hereto. Quezon City, Philippines, November 20, 2025. Atty. Maria ~F. Chan-Te Executive Clerk of Court III

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES COURT OF TAX APPEALS QUEZON CITY FIRST DIVISION BRILLIANT CTA CASE NO. 11043 CREATIONS PUBLISHING, INC., Members: Duly Represented herein by its BACORRO-VILLENA, Acting Chairperson, and Authorized CUI-DAVID, JJ. Representative, Ms. � Ria ~� Sablon, Petitioner, -versus- THE COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL �REVENUE (CIR), BUREAU OF INTERNAL Promulgated: REVENUE (BIR), NOV 19 2025 )I q.. I5A~ Respondent. ){- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ~ - - - - - - - - - - - - - -){ RESOLUTION CUI-DAVID, J.: This resolves r espondent's Motion for Reconsideration filed on July 10, 2025, along with petitioner's Comment to Respondent's Motion for Reconsideration filed on September 18, 2025. Respondent prays that the Decision dated June 20, 2025 (the "assailed Decision''), with the following dispositive portion, be reversed and set aside: WHEREFORE, premises considered, the instant Petition for Review is hereby GRANTED. The Formal Letter of Demand with Final Assessment Notices dated June 13, 2017, the Warrant of Distraint and/or Levy No. RR7A-10-27-2022- 2420 dated November 10, 2022, and the Warrant of Garnishment dated January 18, 2023, are CANCELLED and SET ASIDE.

RESOLUTION CTA Case No. 11043 Brilliant Creations Publishing, Inc. v. The Commissioner of Interna l Revenue (CIR), Bureau' of Internal Revenue (BIR) � x------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------x Accordingly, respondent is ORDERED to REFUND in favor of petitioner the amount ofP1,102,494.22, representing the garnished amount based on a void assessment. Furthermore, respondent Commissioner of Internal Revenue or any person acting on his behalf is ENJOINED and PROHIBITED from collecting the amount of P9,833 ,631.48 from petitioner. SO ORDERED. Respondent argues that the Court erred in declaring the assessment void on the ground that the revenue officers (ROs) who conducted the audit were allegedly not authorized by a valid .Letter of Authority (LOA). Respondent contenqs that the cited jurisprudence, i.e., Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Sony Philippines, Inc. 1 (Sony), Medicard Philippines, Inc. v. Commissioner ofInternal Revenue2 (Medicard), Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. McDonald's Philippines Realty Corporation3 (McDonald's), and Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Opulent Landowners, Inc.4 (Opulent) , is not applicable as the factual �circumstances differ. Specifically, respondent asserts that the RO named in the LOA was the same individual who conducted the audit, unlike in the cited cases where unauthorized ROs performed the examination. Respondent further invokes the doctrine of stare decisis, arguing that the cited cases should not be applied, as they are not on all fours with the present case. Petitioner counters that the Motion for Reconsideration should be denied for lack of merit. Petitioner maintains that the assailed Decision is supported by substantial evidence and is in accordance with law. It emphasizes that the a udit was conducted by a substitute Group Supervisor (GS) , Alberto S. Enriquez, Jr. (Enriquez), who was not named in the LOA, thereby rendering the assessment void. Petitioner underscores that the cited jurisprudence uniformly affirms the necessity of a valid LOA,specifically naming the ROs authorized to conduct .the audit. Petitioner further points out that no document was presented to establish GS Enriquez's authority, and that the Court's factual finding on this matter is conclusive and v supported by the record. G.R. No. 178697, November 17, 20 I0 [Per J. Mendoza, Second Division]. G.R. No. 222743, Apri l 5, 20 17 [Per J. Reyes, Third Di vision]. G. R. No. 242670, May 10, 202 1 [Per J. Lopez, J., Third Di vision]. G. R. Nos. 249883- 84, January 27, 2020 [Per Resolution, Second Division).

RESOLUTION CTA Case No. 11043 Brilliant Creations Pu blishing, Inc. v. The Commissioner of Internal Revenue (CIR), Bur eau. of Internal Revenu e (BIR) Pa ge 3 of 3 X-------------- ------------ ---- ------ ---- --------- -- ------ --------------- -------------- ----X After a careful review of the arguments presented, the Court finds no compelling reason to reverse its Decision. The requirement of a valid LOA is a prerequisite for the validity of a tax assessment. Jurisprudence consistently holds that an RO must be expressly authorized by an LOA to conduct an audit. In this case, while RO Dante Tan was named in the LOA, the audit was jointly conducted with GS Enriquez, who was not authorized under the same. The absence of a replacement LOA or any document conferring authority upon GS Enriquez renders the assessment void. The Court's reliance on Sony, Medicard, McDonald 's , and Opulent is proper, as these cases similarly involved assessments m ade by unauthorized ROs. Respondent's invocation of stare decisis is misplaced. The doctrine supports the consistent application of legal principles to substantially similar factual circumstances.5 Here, the facts align with the cited jurisprudence, and the legal principle requiring a valid LOA in favor of the ROs who audited the � taxpayer and recommended the issuance of the deficiency tax assessments6 remains applicable. WHEREFORE, th e instant Motion for Reconsideration is DENIED for lack of merit. SO ORDERED. LANEE S. CUI-DAVID Associate Ju' stice I CONCUR: JEANMA . BACORRO-VILLENA See Belgica, eta/. v. Ochoa, Jr. et a/., G. R. Nos. 208566, 208493 & 209251 , November 19, 201 3 [Per J. Perlas- Bemabe, En Bane]. 6 Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Opulent Landowners, Inc., G.R. Nos. 249883-84, January 27, 2020 [Per Resolution, Second Division].