WILLORE PHARMA CORPORATION v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES COURT OF TAX APPEALS QUEZON CITY En Bane WILLORE PHARMA CTA E B N o. 1577 CORPORATION, (CTA Case No. 8602) Petitioner, Present: DEL ROSARJO, P.]., -versus- CASTANEDA, JR., UY, COMMISSIONER OF FABON-VICTORJNO, INTERNAL REVENUE, MINDARO-GRULLA, RJN G PIS-LIBAN, Respondent. MANAHAN, BACORRO-VILLENA, and MODESTO-SAN PEDRO,]]. P r o mulga ted: AUG 13 2~ RESOLUTION For resolution is the "Motion for Reconsideration (Decision dated 9 October 2018)" of respondent Commissioner of Internal Revenue (CIR) filed on November 8, 2018 asking the Court En Bane to reconsider its Decision dated October 9, 2018 on the following grounds: 1. The Honorable Court erred in ruling that the assessments issued against Petitioner are void; and 2. The Honorable Court erred in ruling that the Tax Verification Notice (TVN) issued against Petitioner is not valid. In a Resolution dated Februaty 18, 2019, the Court En Bane ordered Petitioner to ftle its Comment. On Iviarch 11 , 2019, Petitioner flied its Comment/Opposition arguing that the errors assigned by Respondent are bereft of merit and to sustain Respondent's line of reasoning would have the effect of giving validity to an

RESOLUTION CTA EB Nos. 1577 (CTA Case No. 8602) otherwise void assessment. As held in the Medicard case\ the proper source of authority in the performance of assessment functions is a Letter of Authority (LOA) and, thus, the absence of an LOA invalidates an assessment. Petitioner further argues that the issue pertaining to the validity of authority of the revenue officers who conducted the audit that was never raised during trial but only on appeal cannot work to make legally valid an assessment that is void at the onset. Appellate courts have ample authority to rule on matters not assigned as errors in an appeal, if these are indispensable or necessary to the just resolution of the pleaded issues.2 After considering the arguments of both parties, it is apparent to this Court that, indeed, the arguments raised by Respondent in its Motion for Reconsideration are not persuasive. We reiterate our holding in the Decision, thus: "It is apparent, therefore, that the authority relied upon by the revenue officers who conducted the audit and investigation of the taxpayer was faulty. By any account, it is not the LOA issued either by the CIR or the Revenue Regional Director, as the law requires. In this case, the authority to exarmne and verify respondent's records for taxable year 2008 was made only pursuant to TVN No. 2003 00123321 dated November 11, 2009, signed by Revenue District Officer Rey Asterio L. Tambis, which authorized Revenue Officer (RO) Clea Marie P. Pimentel and Group Supervisor (GS) Ruleo V. Badilles to conduct the said examination and verification. Considering that the revenue officer who conducted the examination was not validly authorized to do so by virtue of an LOA signed by the CIR or the Regional Director, the subject tax assessment or examination is a nullity." Considering that no argument persuasive enough to merit reconsideration has been raised, Respondent's "Motion for Reconsideration" (Decision dated 9 October 2018) is DENIED for lack of merit. 1 G.R. No. 222743, AprilS, 2017. 2 G.R. No. 143870, September 20, 2005.

RESOLUTION CTA EB Nos. 1577 (CTA Case No. 8602) Page 3 of3 SO ORDERED. Presiding Justice . CJ:c,.-.~i:;-C. CA;r-<Jo.M.A~ <;2... ERL~P.UY Associate Justice JlfANITO c. CASTANEDAfR. Associate Justice (On L.ro:;;:vr) ~ CIELITO1R1_M1\:J It.~�G.RJU~.L-L.At~ ESPERANZA R. PABON-VICTORINO Associate Justice Associate Justice ~. .1/.. e. ._ ..-J. ' - , c~ 7� /b...c...c..~~- MA. BELEN M. RINGPIS-LIBAN cATHERINE T. MANAHAN Associate Justice Associate Justice � MARlAR ustice