BENGUET ELECTRIC COOPERATIVE,INC. (BENECO), represented by GERARDO P. VERZOSA, General Manager v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES COURT OF TAX APPEALS QUEZON CITY SPECIAL SECOND DIVISION BENGUET ELECTRIC CTA Case No. 9967 COOPERATIVE, INC. Members: BACORRO-VILLENA, Acting Chairperson, (BENECO), represented by and CUI-DAVID,JL. GERARDO P. VERZOSA, General Manager, Petitioner, -versus- / THE COMMISSIONER ON t! INTERNAL REVENUE, Promulgated: /}.!i!.)- :J. J f1l.'n'1' Respondent. 1 JAN z4 ZOZ4 )( - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - )( RESOLUTION BACORRO-VILLENA, J.: For the Court's resolution is petitiOner Benguet Electric Cooperative, Inc.'s (petitioner's/BENECO's) "Motion for Reconsideration"! (MR) filed, through registered mail, on 16 October 2023.2 Respondent Commissioner of Internal Revenue (respondent's/CIR's) "Comment/Opposition" (Comment) thereto was filed on 20 November 2023.3 In the MR, petitioner seeks the reversal of the Decision dated n September 20234 (assailed Decision) which dismissed its Petition for Review for lack of jurisdiction. The dispositive part states~f Division Docket, pp. 451-458. Received by the Court on 23 October 2023. ld., pp. 466-476. ld., pp. 431-450.

RESOLUTION CTA Case No. 9967 Benguet Electric Cooperative, Inc. (BENECO), as represented by Gerardo P. Verzosa, General Manager v. The Commissioner of Internal Revenue Page 2 of6 x--------------------------------------------------------------------------- -x WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, the Petition for Review filed by petitioner Benguet Electric Cooperative, Inc. (BENECO), represented by Gerardo P. Verzosa, General Manager on 30 October 2018 is hereby DISMISSED for lack of jurisdiction. SO ORDERED. Petitioner argues mainly that the issue of jurisdiction was never raised in its Petition for Review nor observed by the respondent in his or her Answer. Citing Licomcen, Inc. v. Abainzas, petitioner avers that the Court should limit itself to the issues stated in the Pre-Trial Order of 22 June 2020. Petitioner also points out that respondent waived his or her right to determine the timeliness of the filing of the petition since he or she failed to conduct a cross-examination on petitioner's witness. Thus, throughout the court proceedings, the issue of the Court's jurisdiction was never questioned. Petitioner further insists that its Petition for Review was timely filed. Explaining its previous actions, it posits that the Final Decision on Disputed Assessment (FDDA)6 supplanted the Formal Letter of Demand/[Final] Assessment Notice (FLD/FAN).7 Hence, the Court should consider its appeal to the FDDN as the protest and the filing thereof should be the reckoning point of the counting of the 18o-day period under Revenue Regulation (RR) No. 18-2013.9 Lastly, petitioner claims that there is nothing under Section 22810 of the National Internal Revenue Code (NIRC) ofi997, as amended, that clearly provides for the counting of the 18o-day period. With the vagueness of the said provisions, petitioner alleges that it should be granted a fresh period of 180 days from the time it filed its appeal to the FDDA to prevent injustice.� G.R. No. 199781, 18 February 2013. Exhibit "P-5", Division Docket. pp. 265-271. Exhibit "P-3", id.. pp. 241-242. Exhibit "P-5A". id.. pp. 279-237: BIR Records. pp. 683-692. Amending Certain Sections of Revenue Regulations No. 12-99 Relative to the Due Process Requirement in the Issuance of a Deficiency Tax Assessment. 10 SEC 228. Pro/esling o(.4ssessmenl.

RESOLUTION CTA Case No. 9967 Benguet Electric Cooperative, Inc. (BENECO), v. The Commissioner of Internal Revenue as represented by Gerardo P. Verzosa, General Manager Page 3 of6 x----------------------------------------------------------------------------x Cojurorsiushrdet iOdmcitndiaoinnntohtoatevienercsrrottinhhnteardtacirpasysem,et.iitsrQiseoisunnpoegotritnnfhdageieltenchdatestearo.esstlieemvrtaesnlyttlfhailawetsittashnpedetrCietogiouunlra,t ttihhouansss,t hhneoe We resolve. sdheonuyldpAecftotietnrivocinnoecnres'siudMsertRoinrfgoevrtheferasiepluaOrretuiertosp' rraearvigsiuoemuasenfnyitnsmd,ianWtgeser.iaarleacrgounmstreanitnsetdhtaot THE COURT OF TAX APPEALS (CTA) CAN RULE ON RELEVANT ISSUES FOR THE ORDERLY DISPOSITION OF THE CASE. pdjtuhaisserrptmiiuedstsieAec'ltavlittgeohhsrnoa,euteitsghmjhiunseronitCsthtdoedoiuecrriptssti'estosiunnppedurieelsoanrftotpigojrouaonnrtv,iisvitodhdereeitctdihortieobadslyniasscmeilskraitwsionosfonatotshnb.edrjIaecticnasitssoeieodtlniiksfbtueiyhtwbeijtisrehsecedetteobv.pteooayirodttinheodesf Sbo(CyurdTpteAhrree)lmSyBciedmauinCrsielpoaraoruuulslryietot,ieofowmInnneplotilehsf-rsastunsheeaitezstlleceRtdadhesatevhit.esinIastnurhpeeRerievnn.rpoucuFtilbpeisrllitsetcith:poGauftlatashttheePedPowhCbieyoliruptCphrtieonoreppfsao,TrrrtaaeixetpisorAenfsponepr,netttahheldees poPafhrittlhiipeeps iCItnnoTesAat,hccIehnliecec.ava,rselteyhainoaslfolCCorowdouemerrdmltyciitsadstiteisoogpnooreursirlicet iaooolflnnyInoritfsuestlrhuendeeaslct hanRsaoeettv, testhnhteiuupesRu:leva.vtieLsdeadnbcRyaustltheeesr not On whether the CTA can resolve an issue which was raised by the parties, we rule in the affirmative. bthoeunRdevbiUysentdhdeeRruisSlseeusceotsifostnphe1e,cCiRfioucluaerltl1y4orfoaTfisaAex.dMAb.pypNetoha.elsop,sat-hnrte-ioeC7sT-bCAuTtiAsm,naoorrt;:J" ' II G.R. No. 214933. 15 February 2022. Italics in the original: citation omitted.

RESOLUTION CTA Case No. 9967 Benguet Electric Cooperative, Inc. (BENECO), as represented by Gerardo P. Verzosa, General Manager v. The Commissioner of Internal Revenue x-------------------------------- -------------------------------------------- x dalissoporsuilteiounpoofnthreelactaesde.isTshueestenxetcoefsstahreyptroovaicshioienvereaandso: rderly SECTION 1. Rendition ofjudgment.- x x x issues nsetIicnpeusdsleaactreiydditonbgyacthhthieeevceapsaaern,titoehrsedebCruloytumrdtiasmypoaayslistniooontruloilmef tihutepitocsnaeslefr.etolattehde issues THE COUNTING OF THE 18o-DAY PERIOD COMMENCES FROM THE FILING OF THE PROTEST AND NOT FROM THE FILING OF AN ADMINISTRATIVE APPEAL. btheerFecDPkDoeAtnietiidsotnthheeerrnveeefwrhoepmmr.oeUtnetnslyftoaurnrtgduentsahteUelscyot,ouWnstueisnctgaoiounflditthsneso1tta8onobc-dleiagtyeh.paet raipopdesahlatlol The pertinent portions ofRR No. 18-2013, as quoted in the assailed Decision, shows that protest rs worded differently from an administrative appeal: frttrohehelepqelrorueweaoesfsfseo[.3tn.r]T�te".a.hs4f.toaeivDirtdeaisxFroppeLrucaOttoyea/dnxeFrsAAaipgNdsreseoenwrtsateisttsmmhitoiieannnnygtt.hpaoi-rnrrotyatTesr(shes3teeion)satvsaddmexmaspyetiasinnygftierasmrottmrioaoaryntdiifvatistledeelaeyauofitfwanhrgeoredairctiietznieeapsndstt ~CasCp(mC3:adoroooatimomd)myhmtmieedemnmdasiiCiteystiIhiscsssfsoteiissrmorfstiai:rthniooohtom(eeninminrr)veieo'.spesarrduspr'wNdaasgioptuopoiheteldtnpeayhoureesliefaltartnqyro.url'eeuittOatschhqeahnesoiuuedidtrretptieChfyzstonoooetno(ridurl3feyirortdztreh)fie,eosoiepdndsfriruavsTneaeyerasisssexdertwprfnieAgadrtrhcioaaepesootctmpseiilnioedveessanniedoiiltnaodsnsasther;ht(teCairhaovaliolTerlnletfAi(db,roib)eipee)entcwacheieresaienlttilieht,olpteovtinotarnwbatxooyatetpefhifdanttitthyrhehhhitiedneeeyesr 12 Underscoring omitted and emphasis supplied.

RESOLUTION CTA Case No. 9967 vB. eTnhgeueCtoEmlemctirsiscioCnoeorpoefraIntitveer,naInlcR. (eBvEeNnuEeCO), as represented by Gerardo P. Verzosa, General Manager x----------------------------------------------------------------------------x 1RfFro8eRLrocDo-Nrd/neFaoscTyA.iodaNp1nkee8s.rir-inaI2idtngo0ei1dorcc3anouctnoeiisotomfrnrrcamolsefmtaei,alneracrtdnhetehqesaaaudfgatermbaosiioimtnnnvseifctts,ohatrtrpsehaertdeorieoavtietFfenesDivatnoDeprafspeAcftfeiit.elgiaioranlWsntgoi,toinootntlhfhyeteirhftteihhelcfeeeeopdsrruersanoatdttorgieeenasafqgiitnunr:esoiettqsfiotuttnefhhossee,rt arfeecbeipxinoyctppahueelieitnraphrdalt:tteeesiIoc(doufiif)CncstafihhooaroceopfmnfopitmpnphmeoaryeaflotiloohstdthsntfeeeoiesescoudtihCtnscahouieohtoernremnddaCemowrtdTcoefimiiAdstsfthshiiieoliwnieioinngniinC.sthg'eh3tTotrriyoAnano(fte1wnittv8hhihtoietehrhu)t-eainypdnpdadr(ptyoir3hseetopipeadr)eustlrytdtiiee,oas(didy3tghn;soahe)oosftrstdryteoa(aaisxmyi(cs)p1smta8aeaawyoeffd)tetnaeerutirrdtpmatattnhohhyadeeneys dbiesqguriaWsnitteieodanreainnntohetweaalspsosearsiiwloeaddyDeodfecw1i8siiotohndp'4aey,tsti.otiowFnoietr:r'esminpshiassteisn,ceWtheaqt uitostheoouuldr t1SIoI8uowp(-NridetEa:myEIenCp eCOaroiroueIdIcr tegAdnrretaecncalataesreIdeI )dot ofcvNta. htueeCegvoCoamrIRiEmccatiiolsjlasyaicIotIhtnEaoeltrnetcthothrefeirceIanCditsomeonrinponeainrslaet rtwRiaveteoivv,erenIsnueacepp.,paAretraahetleea, p3Rri12PdpuRRte.7r0R1soeenoge1eA.rrc4mvl7vNpfiPeup.iooeuooidmmrenrFdsb.ifecttulrleeis2aeRio1tenAnc,k0im8seoftt1sa-hasovt1nb7Aho,rs3reC"c,ylueu,ncyooaowtcltuwopddrsplhnerhtteehrleee(aipyo,riRRrcclticbovenuoAhteheivliaodtgnyd)aioatnisumteitnr,pvrelsryNaeppreu2ttottcloealhihh1evkeo.tcm8iJeamidionsoutodten8cisuen-etocan4edbrhned(anssdd2ayRteeseeys4eebRs2or,dttSy0o)fpnhhw1eroeeoeaoN7ttcafrhhdr,mths(ioieeoaChuo.twcodhteTnnCl1htnraiAhitd2Tere2wlohi-taraA12c9nye.Eepf98h9.NtBds(Ne,H3tSoe,ao"reaooidfe,tossis)SittpugwoathedoatbhhbnbeeecTanmmtelaevmtyyyaTilyeesix1,ota(bsor,n81nx,sSeaIno8dinriMedC0oxretC2tcn)2deupof2at-oi0rnidt8adrldno1hbecetayoe6niaydoeh,yl).lf~f � 13 Underscoring omitted and emphasis supplied. Supra at note 3. Emphasis and italics in the original; citation omitted.

RESOLUTION CTA Case No. 9967 Benguet Electric Cooperative, Inc. (BENECO), as represented by Gerardo P. Verzosa, General Manager v. The Commissioner of Internal Revenue Page 6 of6 x---------------------------------------------------------------------------- x upon its receipt of the Final Decision on Disputed Assessment issued by the authorized representative of respondent Commissioner on Internal Revenue (respondent), including the option of elevating the protest to the respondent himself through a request for reconsideration. However, nowhere in said provision does it provide that a fresh 18o-day period is granted to the respondent to act on such administrative appeal. As aptly observed by the CTA EB, upholding petitioner's argument would run contrary to the clear language ofSection 228 and would unduly expand the period provided by the law. Necessarily, taxpayers must exercise their rights in the manner and within the periods provided by statute and the pertinent regulations. "It bears to stress that the perfection of an appeal within the statutory period is a jurisdictional requirement and failure to do so renders the questioned decision or decree final and executory and no longer subject to review." With the foregoing, We find no new reason to change Our stand on the points raised. ACCORDINGLY, the "Motion for Reconsideration" filed by petitioner Benguet Electric Cooperative, Inc. (BENECO), represented by Gerardo P. Verzosa, General Manager, on 16 October 2023 is hereby DENIED for lack of merit. SO ORDERED. LLENA I CONCUR: ~'t/;ntL- LANEE S. CUI-DAVID Associate Justice