BARRIO FIESTA MANUFACTURING CORPORATION v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES COURT OF TAX APPEALS QUEZON CITY SECOND DIVISION BARRIO FIESTA CTA CASE NO. 10213 MANUFACTURING CORPORATION, Members: Petitioner, RINGPIS-LIBAN, Chairperson, MODESTO-SAN PEDRO, and FERRER-FLORES, Jl. -versus- COMMISSIONER OF Promulgated: INTERNAL REVENUE, MM! l 7 2025 Respondent. -------~~~~-~-1-~-x x------------------------------------------------------------------------ DECISION RINGPIS-LIBAN, ].: Before the Court is a Petition for Review1 filed by petitioner Barrio Fiesta Manufacturing Corporation on November 13, 2019 praying for the cancellation and withdrawal of the Warrant of Distraint and/or Levy (WDL) and the alleged assessments upon which it is based involving deficiency tax assessments in the total amount of One Hundred Fifty-Five Million Nine Hundred Sixteen Thousand Nine Hundred Thirty-Eight and 18/100 Pesos (P155,916,938.18), inclusive of increments. THE PARTIES Petitioner Barrio Fiesta Manufacturing Corporation is a corporation duly registered under the laws of the Philippines, with address at 17F Lazaro St., Canumay West, Valenzuela City, Metro Manila.2 It is duly registered with the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) with Company Registration N/v" 1 Docket, Vol. I, pp. 7-37. 2 Par. 2, Admitted Facts, Joint Stipulation ofFacts and Issues (JSFI), Docket- Vol. II, p, 645.

DECISION CTA Case No. 10213 CS146893.3 It is also registered with the BIR as VAT-registered taxpayer as shown in its Certificate of Registration (COR) No. 4RC0000996004 with Tax Identification Number (TIN) 000-286-365-000.4 Respondent Commissioner of Internal Revenue is sued in his official capacity, having been duly appointed and empowered to perform the duties of his office.5 THE FACTS On November 14, 2014, respondent issued the Letter ofAuthority (LOA) No. LOA-024-2014-00000548 (SN: eLA201100074815), authorizing Revenue Officer (RO) Felicitas Rivera and Group Supervisor (GS) Lea Bustonera to examine the books and accounts and other accounting records of petitioner for all internal revenue taxes, including documentary stamp tax (DST) and other taxes, for the period from January 1, 2013 to December 31,2013.6 Respondent also issued Second Request for Presentation of Records dated January 13, 20157 and Final Notice dated March 3, 2015.8 Petitioner submitted its supporting documents in its letters dated November 25, 2014, March 30, 2015 and July 30,2015.9 In the meantime, the BIR issued Revenue Travel Assignment Order (RTAO) No. 54-2016 dated March 8, 2016,10 transferring RO Felicitas Rivera, among others, from Revenue District Office (RDO) No. 24- Valenzuela City to RDO No. 27- Caloocan City. Consequently, pursuant to Memorandum ~~ Assignment (NIOA) No. MOA0242014LOA11311 dated May 4, 2016 signed by the Head, Investigating Office, Jose Maria L. Hernandez,11 the continuation of the audit/investigation and examination of petitioner's tax liabilities for taxable year 2013 was reassigned to RO Luzviminda S. Dilag and GS Brigida C. De Perio. On June 14, 2017, petitioner received the Preliminary AJSessment Notice (PAN) with Details ofDiscrepanry dated June 6, 2017 issued by Regional Direct~ 3 Par. 5, Admitted Facts, JSFI, Docket- Vol. II, p, 645; and Exhibit "P-1", Docket- Vol. I, pp. 460 to 469. 4 Par. 7, Admitted Facts, JSFI, Docket- Vol. II, p, 646; and Exhibit "P-2", Docket- Vol. I, p. 470. 5 Par. 4, Admitted Facts, JSFI, Docket- Vol. II, p, 645. 6 Par. 8, Admitted Facts, JSFI, Docket - Vol. II, p, 646; and Exhibit "P-4", Docket - Vol. I, p. 473; and Exhibits "R-1" and "R-1-A", Docket- Vol. II, pp. 859 to 860. 7 Exhibit "R-2", Docket- Vol. II, p. 861. 8 Exhibit "R-3", Docket- Vol. II, p. 862. 9 Exhibits "R-4", "R-4-A'' and "R-5", Docket- Vol. II, pp. 863 to 865. 10 Exhibit "P-21", Docker- Vol. II, pp. 556 to 558. 11 Exhibit "P-20", Docket- Vol. II, p. 555; and Exhibit "R-10", Docket- Vol. II, p. 870.

DECISION CTA Case No. 10213 of Revenue Region No. 5- Caloocan City, Myrna S. Leonida,12 finding it liable for alleged deficiency income tax, VAT, EWT and WTC, inclusive of interest, for taxable year 2013, in the total amount of P147,611,747.36. Petitioner filed its reply to PAN on June 29, 2017. 13 On August 17, 2017, petitioner received two (2) Formal LetterJ of Demand (FLDs) with Demand NumberJ 36672 and 21899 and AJJeJJment Notices, all dated July 31, 2017 issued by issued by OIC- Regional Director, lYiyrna S. Leonida,14 assessing petitioner of deficiency income tax, VAT, EWT and WTC inclusive of interest for taxable year 2013. On September 18, 2017, petitioner filed its Request for ReinveJtigation against the VAT assessment,15 which was granted by the BIR in its letter dated November 23, 2017.16 On January 9, 2018, the BIR issued another lYIOA No. MOA0242014LOA3213617 addressed to RO Indira D. Ganias and GS Brigida C. De Perio for the reinvestigation filed by petitioner. Thereafter, respondent issued another LOA No. 024-2018-00000490 (SN: eLA201600042064) dated September 17, 2018 18 issued by Regional Director of Revenue Region No. 5 - Caloocan City, J\Ianuel V. J\lapoy, authorizing RO Indira D. Ganias and GS Brigida De Perio, for reinvestigation of petitioner's tax liabilities for taxable year 2013. On June 19, 2019, respondent issued the Final Decision on Disputed Assessment (FDDA) with DetaiiJ ofDiscrepanry,19 assessing petitioner of deficiency income tax, VAT, EWT and WTC inclusive of interest, for taxable year 2013, in the total amount of P119,295,005.74. On October 15, 2019, petitioner received WDL No. RRS-2-AMS-DA- 10-01-19-2112(024) dated October 1, 201920 issued by the BIR for alleged deficiency internal revenue taxes for taxable year 2013 in the total amount of P119,295,005.74. The present Petition for Review (with Urgent Motion to Suspend the Collection of Tax and Dispense with Pqyment of Bond and Motion to Direct ReJpondent to Submit the BIR Records) was filed on November 13,2019./ 12 Exhibits "P-5" and "P-5-1", Docket- Vol. I, pp. 474 to 477; and Exhibits "R-14" and "R-14-A", Docket- Vol. II, pp. 881 to 885. 13 Exhibits "P-6" and "P-6-1", Docket- Vol. I, pp. 478 to 482. 14 Exhibit "P-7", Docket- Vol. I, pp. 483 to 487; and Exhibits "R-15", "R-15-A", "R-15-B", "R-15-C", "R-15- D", "R-15-E" and "R-15-F", Docket- Vol. II, pp. 886 to 896. 15 Exhibits "P-9" and "P-9-1, Docket- Vol. I, pp. 488 to 500 and Docket- Vol. II, pp. 501 to 502. 16 Exhibits "R-16", Docket- Vol. II, p. 897. 17 Exhibits "R-17", Docket- Vol. II, p. 898. 18 Exhibit "P-11", Docket- Vol. II, p. 503; and Exhibit "R-18", Docket- Vol. II, p. 899. 19 Exhibit "R-19", Docket- Vol. II, pp. 900 to 905. 20 Exhibits "P-3" and "P-3-1", Docket- Vol. I, p. 471. 21 Docket- Vol. I, pp. 7 to 41.

DECISION CTA Case No. 10213 Within the period granted by the Court,22 on Janum; 10, 2020, respondent filed his Answer.23 After due proceedings and trial, the case was submitted for decision on May 21, 2024.24 THE ISSUES The parties summarized the 1ssues to be resolved by this Court as follows: "A. Whether or not Petitioner is liable for the alleged deficiency income tax, VAT, EWT, and WTC in the total amount of One Hundred Fifty-Five Million Nine Hundred Sixteen Thousand Nine Hundred Thirty-Eight Pesos and 18/100 (P155,916,938.18), inclusive of surcharge and interests, as stated in the WDL, or One Hundred Nineteen Million Two Hundred Ninety Five Thousand Five Pesos and 74/100 (P119,295,005.74), inclusive of surcharge and interest, as stated in the Final Decision on Disputed Assessment; B. Whether or not LOA-024-20418-0000490/SN: eL-\20160042064 and LOA-024-2014-00000548/SN: eLA20110074815 dated September 17, 2018 and November 14, 2014, respectively, are null and void; and C. Whether or not this Honorable Court has jurisdiction over the case." 25 Petitioner's arguments: Petitioner argues that the assessment is void for lack of a valid LOA; that the assessment is void due to respondent's violation of petitioner's right to due process; that the collection is void since it is anchored on a void assessment; and that petitioner is not liable for the alleged deficiency income tax, VAT, EWT and WTC for taxable year 2013 in the total amount of P155,916,938.18, inclusive of surcharge and interests(v' 22 Respondent's Urgent Motion for Extension of Time to File Answer to Petition for Review with Entry of Appearance as Counsel dated December 6, 2019 and Resolution dated December 13, 2019, Docket- Vol. I, pp. 311 to 313 and 330 to 331, respectively. 23 Docket - Vol. I, pp. 334 to 338. 24 Minute Resolution dated May 21, 2024. 25 Summary of Issues to be Resolved, JSFI, Docket- Vol. II, p. 646.

DECISION CTA Case No. 10213 Respondent's counter-arguments: Respondent contends that the amount of tax liability as embodied in the FDDA dated June 19, 2019 should be the basis of the filing of the Petition for Review by the petitioner and not the amount indicated in the FLD; that the two (2) LOAs are valid and not void; that the Court cannot take cognizance of this case for lack of jurisdiction as the filing of the Petition for Review is premature and fatally defective for failure to state a cause of action; and that the petitioner's tax assessment underwent the proper procedure as laid down by the Tax Code of 1997, as amended and petitioner was afforded due process and several opportunities to refute the assessment. THE COURT'S RULING The Petition for Review is meritorious. The Court has jurisdiction over the present case. Jurisdiction over the subject matter is required for a court to act on any controversy. It is conferred by law and not by the consent or waiver upon a court. As such, if a court lacks jurisdiction over an action, it cannot decide the case on the merits and must dismiss it. 26 To inquire into the existence of jurisdiction over the subject matter is the primary concern of a court, for thereon would depend the validity of its entire proceedings.n Sections 7(a)(1) and 11 (first paragraph) of Republic 1\ct (RA) No. 1125,28 as amended by RA No. 9282,29 provide as follows, to wit: "SEC. 7. JuriJdiction. - The CTA shall exercise: (a) Exclusive appellate jurisdiction to review by appeal, as herein provided: (1) Decisions of the Commissioner of Internal Revenue in cases involving disputed assessments, refunds of internal revenue taxes, fees or other charges, penalties in relation thereto, or other matters arising under the National Internal Revenue Code or other lawiv"' 26 CE Casecnan Water & Energy Co., Inc. vs. Province ofNueva Ecija, G.R. No. 196278, June 17, 2015. 27 Commissioner of Internal Revenue vs. Villa and The Court of Tax Appeals, G.R. No. L-23988, January 7, 1968. 28 AN ACT CREATING THE COURT OF TAX APPEALS. 29 AN ACT EXPANDING THE JURISDICTION OF THE COURT OF TAX APPEALS (CTA), ELEVATING ITS RANK TO THE LEVEL OF A COLLEGIATE COURT WITH SPECIAL JURISDICTION AND ENLARGING ITS MEMBERSHIP, AMENDING FOR THE PURPOSE CERTAIN SECTIONS OF REPUBLIC ACT NO. 1125, AS AMENDED, OTHERWISE KNOWN AS THE LAW CREATING THE COURT OF TAX APPEALS, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES.

DECISION CfA Case No. 10213 administered by the Bureau of Internal Revenue;" (Emp!wJe.r and under.rmring .rupp!ied) "SEC. 11. IVho Mqy Appeal,- Mode qf Appeal,� Ef/ect q/ Appeal. - Any party adversely affected by a decision, ruling or inaction of the Commissioner of Internal Revenue... may file an appeal with the CTA within thirty (30) days after the receipt of such decision or ruling or after the expiration of the period fixed by law for action as referred to in Section 7(a)(2) herein." (Empha.reJ added) Based on the foregoing provisions, it is clear that the appellate jurisdiction of this Court is not limited to cases which involve decisions of respondent, on matters relating to assessments or refunds. The second part of the provision covers other cases that arise out of the NIRC or related laws administered by respondent.30 In Philippine Journalists, Inc. vs. Commissioner of Internal Revelltte (Philippine Journalists case)? the Supreme Court held as follows, to wit: "The appellate jurisdiction of the CTA is not limited to cases which involve decisions of the Commissioner of Internal Revenue on matters relating to assessments or refunds. The second pan of the provision covers other cases that arise out of the NIRC or related laws administered by the Bureau of Internal Revenue. The wording of the provision is clear and simple. It gives the CTA the jurisdiction to determine if the warrant of distraint and levy issued by the BIR is valid and to rule if the Waiver of Statute of Limitations was validly effected." (Emphm'iJ and tmden-mring added) The validity of a WDL is an issue that falls under "other matters arisingfrom the National Internal Revenue Code (NIRC)" that is within the jurisdiction of this Court to decide upon. Considering that in the present Petition for Re;1ien;, what is being primarily assailed is the WDL No. RRS-2-AiviS-DA-1 0-01-19-2112(024) dated October 1, 2019 32 issued by BIR, the same then can be taken cognizance of by this Court. Moreover, Section 11 of RA No. 1125, as amended by lZ__,-\ ]'-;o. 9282, states, in part, as follows: "SEC. 11. Who Mqy Appeal,� lvlode q/Appeal,� Efjed q//1ppea!. - Any party adversely affected by a decision, ruling or inaction of the Commissioner of Internal Revenue ... may file an appeal with the CTA within thirty (30) days after the receipt of such decision o~ �3 Commissioner of Internal Revenue vs. Hambrecht & Quist Philippines/ Inc., G.R. No. 169225, November 17, 2010. 31 G.R. 162852, December 16, 2004. 32 Exhibits "P-3" and "P-3-1", Docket- Vol. I, p. 471.

DECISION CfA Case No. 10213 ruling or after the expiration of the period fixed by law for action as referred to in Section 7(a)(2) herein." (Emphases added) Petitioner had thirty (30) days from receipt of the WDL No. RRS-2- AMS-DA-10-01-19-2112(024) dated October 1, 2019 on October 15,2019 or until November 14, 2019, within which to file its appeal before Lhis Court. Correspondingly, the filing of the present Petition for Review on November 13, 201933 was timely made, thereby vesting this Court with jurisdiction thereover. The subject tax assessments are void, because the RO who conducted the original investigation of petitioner was not duly authorized to do so. An LOA is the authority given to the appropriate RO assigned to perform assessment functions. It empowers or enables said RO to examine the books of account and other accounting records of a taxpayer for the purpose of collecting the correct amount of tax.34 The LOA commences the audit process and informs the taxpayer that it is under audit for possible deficiency tax assessment.35 There must be a grant of authority before any RO can conduct an examination or assessment. Equally important is that the RO so authorized must not go beyond the authority given. In the absence of such authority, the assessment or examination is a nullity.36 The importance of the lack of the RO's authority to conducr an audit cannot be overemphasized because it goes into the validity of the assessment. The lack of authority of the ROs is tantamount to the absence of a l ~OA itself which results to a void assessment. Being a void assessment, the same bears no fruit. 37 In AFP General Insurance Corporation vs. Commissioner if Intem(/1 1Zel;enzte,38 the Supreme Court held: "The power to assess necessarily includes the authori t ~- to examine any taxpayer for purposes of determining the correct amount of tax due from him. Verily, the law vests the BIR with general pr )',, :/ 33 Docket- Vol. I, pp. 7 to 41. 34 Himlayang Pilipino Plans, Inc. vs. Commissioner ofInternal Revenue, G.R. No. 241848, ~1J'.' 1'1, 2021. 35 Commissioner of Internal Revenue vs. De La Salle University, Inc., et seq., G.R. Nos. E.�� \ 198841, and 198941, November 9, 2016. 36 Commissioner ofInternal Revenue vs. Sony Philippines, Inc., G.R. No. 178697, November 1~�, 2010. 37 Himlayang Pilipino Plans, Inc. vs. Commissioner ofInternal Revenue, supra. 38 G.R. No. 222133, November 4, 2020.

DECISION CTA Case No. 10213 in reLuion tu the �asse~~ment and collection of all internal reYenue taxes.' 1-lm\TH'r, certainly, not all BIR personnel may nwtu propdo proceed to audit a taxpayer. Only 'the CIR or his duly authorized representative may authodze the examination of any t:L'\payer' and issue an assessment against him. That a reprcsentatin~ has in fact been authorized to audit a uxpa:-cr is eYidenced by the LCt\, which 'empowers a designated [rjl'\T!lue [oJ ft!ccr to examine, \�crify, and scrutinize a taxpayer's books and records i11 rcbtion to his internal rcn�nue tax liabilities for a p:micul:lr pni, 1d.' In cases where the BIR conducts an audit without a valid LOA, or in excess of the authority duly provided therefor, the resulting ass<;f:)smcnt shall be void and ineffectual. xxx." (Emplh!.i'C.i' illl!i 1!11!/cn,�ori;;~ cidd,rl) In CommiJJioJJ!'I' r!/ l!!!ema/ Rel'flllte l'J. i\1cDona/d'J PbilippimJ Real()' Corp.,'') the Supreme Court cucgorically ruled the practice of reassigning or transferring t"C\'enuc officers originally named in the LO.\ and substituting them with ne\v tT\'enuc officers ro continue the audit or investigation without a separate or amended L( ).\ (i) \�i,>lates the taxpayer's right to due process in tax audir m investigation; (ii) usuq)s the statutor)� power of the CIR or his duly authorized represent:ttin� to grant the pm\Tr to examine the hooks of account of a taxpa\Tr~ :tml (iii) d<ws n<Jt C<lmpl:� \\'ith c:-;isring Bm. rules and regulations, p:trticul:trh IZ\1( l '\1;. LV)II d:ttnl ~cptcmhcr.?.O, 1<J<)(), ln the present c:tse, the fir:-;t I,0.\ issued against petitioner is LO.\ i\o. LO.\-U2-f-2Ul~~-0()0()1).=i-J.8 (SN: eL\201100074815) dated November 14, 2014'111 signed b:� ( )JC- Regional Director of Revenue Region No. 5- Caloocan City, c;s ( ;crardo lZ. l;loremlo. authori:;,ed RO Felicitas Rivera and Lea Bustoncra, to examine the hooks ()r accounrs and other accounting records of petitioner for all imernal t"C\'enue ra:-;es for the period covering January 1, 2013 to December 31,2013. llr>\\T\Tr, the l~ll\ tr:tn:�d'nrcd RO h:licitas RiYera, among others, from 1\L'\Tnuc District ( lt't!cc (Rl)( l) '\cJ . .?.-~- \'alcn:;,uela Ciry to RDO :-\o . .?.7 - C:alo<Jcan C:it\� as ~hm\�n in ET \() :\o. :i-J.-201 (J dated \larch 8, 211 I C1. 11 \ccordingl:�, pursu:t11t to\!()\ :\cJ . .\1().\()2-1-201-J.U).\]1311 dated \Ia:� -J., .?.01(J signed by the !lead, Inn�srigating ()ffice,Jose ~!aria L. Hernande:;,, 1 ~ the C<Jlltinuati<Jl1 <>f rlw :twlit/im-csrig:nion and examination of petitioner's ta:-; liabilities for ta:\ahlc \Tar 2U13 \\'as reassigned toR() J.u:;,viminc.la S. DilmJ. and� (. l) ( ;s BriLl:ida C. De Perio. lh virtue of the said J\IOA., RO Luzviminda S. Dilm>: (J � (.J and C S Brigida C. De Perio came up with the i\1emorandlfm addressed to the / 39 G.R. No. 242670, May 10, 2021. 11l Exhibit "P-4", Docket- Vol. I, p. 473; and Exhibits "R-1" and "R-1-A", Docket- Vol. II, pp. 859 to 860. '11 Exhibit "P-21", Docker- Vol. II, pp. 556 to 558. 42 Exhibit "P-20", Docket- Vol. II, p. 555; and Exhibit "R-10", Docket- Vol. II, p. 870.

DECISION CTA Case No. 10213 I~c\Tnuc Di~trict ( )tliccr of H.[)() :-\o . .2-1-, 1' ]11-c~cntii(W_) their audit findi1wh~, and n.�commcnding that the ct~c he forwarded to .\sscssment Di,-ision for lT\'ie\\. and fm the issuance of P.\:\. C)n the basis of the said 1\lemorand!!m, the P .\:t'\ dated _june (J, .2() 17 \\�:ts issued by Regional Director of Revenue Region No. 5- Caloocan City, i\Iyrna S. Leonida, against petitioner.-!-! In sum, the authority of RO Luzviminda S. Dilag and GS Brigida C. De Perio was by virtue of i\10.\ No. i\IOA0242014LOA11311 dated i\Iay 4, 2016, which became the basis for the issuance of the Aiemorandllm and the assessment notices. This wa~ confirmed by RO Indira D. Ganias during her cross- exanlination, thus:.J" ".\TTY. Rl�J): C~. \[:-;. \\ iiill':':', In ,.<lur judicial affid:l\�ir, in \�()ur an~\\�cr ro C~lll':'Ii<IIJ "-<I. S, \<Ill nlcilli<lncd thar rhe c1~e ,,�a~ rc-a~signed to :1 diffncni Rcn:nuL� ( )tlicer. RO C. \NL\S: . \. Yes. .\TTY. R]]): (~. 0! amely, 1.uz,�iminda Dilag and Brigida Deterio? RO G.\NL-\S: . \. Yes. .\TTY. R I .:1): C~. l)() \<lll confirm rhar it \\�as re-assigned to RO Lu~:Yiminda Dilag and CS Brigida Dcrerio? RO c;_\NL\S: . \. Yes . . \TTY. RJ�:D: Q. So after it \Vas re-assigned to RO Luzviminda Dilag and GS Brigicb Dcrcrio, would you kno\v if there are any actions from rhis Rcn~nuc Officer and Group SupetTisor? RO C . \NL\S: . \. \ccordi11g to nw judicial affida,,it, with my ans\ver to Question '-'<1. IN, .I~ pcr BIR tTC<lrds, the petitioner still docs not submit IhL� C<ltilJ)kic d<ICLttnl'lltS that's ,,�]w Rc\-cnue CHtlcer 1,u/.\ iminda Dilag and (;roup Supcn,isor Brigida Dcterio prepared a Rcn�nuc .\mlit Report which sen�cd a~ the basis for / '13 Exhibit "R-26" (not marked), BIR Records (Exhibit "R-29" [not marked]), pp. 597 to 605. 44 Exhibits "P-5" and "P-5-1", Docket- Vol. I, pp. 474 to 477; and Exhibits "R-14" and "R-14-A", Docket- Vol. II, pp. 881 to 885. 45 TSN dated October 12, 2023, at pp. 8 to 10, and 13 to 15.

DECISION CTA Case No. 10213 the issu:1ncc of Preliminary ,\ssessment Notice and Final "\ssessmen t Notice. XXX XXX XXX .\TTY. RLD: (~. ()kay .\k Witness, \\"ith that in n1ind, considering that RO Dilag and C~ Dcrerio prepared the ,\udit Report as the basis for the issuance of Preliminary ~Assessment Notice, so revenue officials who prepared the P"\N are also Revenue Officer Luzviminda Dilag and Croup ~upen�isor Brigida Deterio, is that correct? RO C.\NL\S: i\. yes. .\TT\'. RED: Q. Further the prepm<ltion of the Final "\sscssment or the Formal Lett cr () r Dem:l nd \\'<lS also prepared by Re\Tn ue 0 fficer 1.uzyiminda Dihg and Croup ~upet�yisor Brigida Detcrio, is that u >t-rccr a is'>;., RC) c;_\i\1.\~: .\. YL'S . .\TTY. RED: Q. Howcn~r J\Is. \vitncss, do you agree that Revenue Officer I .uz1�iminda Dilag and Group Supervisor Brigida Deterio are not named in the Letter of },uthority dated November 14, 2014( RO C.\NL\S: .\. Yes, rhey arc not named. \TTY. 1\I�T): (~. Thank 1 l>Ll, .\!:-;, \\'itncss. The next LJUCstion is, you also mcntiom�d rhat t"or rhe reassignment of the case to Re1�cnue C) CCicn l.uz,�iminda Dilag and Group Supcn�isor Brigida Deterio, a 1\lcmorandum of "\ssignment was issued. RO C.\~L\~: .\. Yes. XlTY. RED: Q. \'Vas there a Letter of "\uthorit\" issued 111 relation to the said i\lcmoL1nclum of .\ssignment? RO C.\NL\S: .\. ~o, n1a':m1." .\ \IC) \ is not CL]lli\�alcnt to an l JJ.\, and, therefore, does not cure the lack of authoritY of J{()] .uz,�imimla S. Dilag and GS Brigida C. De Perio. ~ . l

DECISION CTA Case No. 10213 In view of the finding that the RO who conducted the examination of petitioner's books of accounts and other accounting records for taxable year 2013, and who also recommended the issuance of the said PAN for the same period, does not have the necessary authority to do so, the subject tax assessments issued against petitioner are inescapably void and without effect. The second LOA, i.e., LOA No. 024-2018-00000490 (SN: eLA201600042064) dated September 17, 201846 issued by Regional Director of Revenue Region No. 5 - Caloocan City, Manuel V. Mapoy, authorizing RO Indira D. Ganias and GS Brigida De Perio for reinvestigation of petitioner's tax liabilities for taxable year 2013, did not cure the defect, since the original investigation has already ceased. Notably, when the said second LOA was issued, the subject PAN, and FLD, as well as the corresponding Assessment Notices,47 have already been issued to petitioner, and the latter has already submitted its Requestfor Reinvestigation48 against the said FLD. Thus, if at all, the second LOA merely authorized the reinvestigation of petitioner, but not the original investigation. Correspondingly, the result of the absence of a LOA is the nullity of the examination and assessments based on the violation of the petitioner's right to due process. WHEREFORE, the present Petition for Review is GRANTED. The assailed WDL dated October 1, 2019, and the FLDs and AJJessJJJe!lt Notices, both dated July 31,2017, as well as the FDDA dated June 19,2019, all issued by the BIR against petitioner, for taxable year 2013, are CANCELLED and SET ASIDE. SO ORDERED. ~. ~ .--1Y' '--- WE CONCUR� MA. BELEN M. RINGPIS-LIBAN Associate Justice 46 Exhibit "P-11", Docket- Vol. II, p. 503; and Exhibit "R-18", Docket- Vol. II, p. 899. 47 Exhibit "P-7", Docket- Vol. I, pp. 483 to 487; and Exhibits "R-15", "R-15-A", "R-15-B", "R-15-C", "R-15- D", "R-15-E" and "R-15-F", Docket- Vol. II, pp. 886 to 896. 48 Exhibits "P-9" and "P-9-1, Docket- Vol. I, pp. 488 to 500 and Docket- Vol. II, pp. 501 to 502.

DECISION CTA Case No. 10213 c~a1: ~R~-~~~ Associate Justice ATTESTATION I attest that the conclusions in the above Decision were reached in consultation before the case was assigned to the writer of the opinion of the Court. 0v. ~ '-""? '---- MA. BELEN M. RINGPIS-LIBAN Associate Justice Chairperson CERTIFICATION Pursuant to Article VIII, Section 13 of the Constitution, and the Division Chairperson's Attestation, it is hereby certified that the conclusions in the above Decision were reached in consultation before the case was assigned to the writer of the opinion of the Court. Presiding Justice