ZOOM CELERO COURIER, INC. v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE

J REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES COURT OF TAX APPEALS QUEZON CITY SPECIAL THIRD DIVISION ZOOM CELERO COURIER, CTA Case No. 10660 INC., Petitioner, Members: -versus- REYES-FAJARDO, Chairperson, and ANGELES,[L COMMISSIONER OF Promulgated: INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent. SEP 2 3 2026 X-----------------------------~ I~ D_Z::-_ ~ ._ '!' .: ------X RESOLUTION REYES-FAJARDO, J.: Via Decision1 dated March 19, 2026, it was found that petitioner denied receipt of the Bureau of Internal Revenue (BIR)' s Preliminary Assessment Notice and Formal Letter of Demand and Final Assessment Notice (FLD/FAN) for taxable year (TY) 2017. With said denial, jurisprudence requires respondent to produce sufficient proof of actual receipt thereof by petitioner or its duly authorized representative be produced by respondent. No such proof was adduced by respondent. Additionally, no due dates for the payment of the 2017 internal revenue taxes could be found in the BIR's FAN. These flaws impelled Us to dispose CTA Case No. 10660, in this wise: ACCORDINGLY, We RESOLVE to: a. GRANT the Petition for Review dated October 19, 2021, filed by Zoom Celero Courier, Inc.; b. NULLIFY the deficiency Income Tax, Value-Added Tax assessments, and Compromise Penalty, all for Taxable Year 2017, found by the Bureau of Internal Revenue against Zoom Celero Courier, Inc.; Docket, pp. 657-672.

RESOLUTION CTA Case No. 10660 Page 2 of4 c. INVALIDATE the Collection Letter dated July 29, 2021 and Warrant of Distraint and/ or Levy No. RR7B-WDL-2021-70-30- 093 dated July 30, 2021, for being products of a void assessment; and d. FORBID the Commissioner of Internal Revenue, his agents, or other persons acting on his behalf, from collecting on Zoom Celero Courier, Inc., the assessed deficiency Income Tax, Value- Added Tax assessments, and Compromise Penalty, all for Taxable Year 2017. SO ORDERED. In its bid 2 to overturn the Decision dated March 19, 2026, respondent argues there was sufficient proof of valid service of the PAl'J and FLD/ FAN to petitioner. For him, positive credence should be accorded on Revenue Officer Ron Ace Valenzuela (RO Valenzuela)'s recount of events and identification of documents pertaining to said service, even though lacking in personal knowledge. Particularly, the details thereof are entries in official records made by Group Supervisor Alberto M. Cruz (GS Cruz); hence, they are prima facie proof of facts stated therein, as well as a recognized exception to the hearsay rule per Section 44 (now 46),3 Rule 130 of the Rules of Court, as amended. Respondent also insists that the lack of due dates for payment of the 2017 internal revenue taxes in the FAN does not invalidate the formal assessment, banking of the lifeblood doctrine. In negation, 4 petitioner retorts that no reversible error was committed in the rendition of the Decision dated March 19, 2026. The Motion fails to impress. 2 Respondent's Motion for Reconsideration (Decision dated 19 March 2026). Id. at pp . 673- 676. 3 Section 46. Entries in official records. - Entries in official records made in the performance of his or her duty by a public officer of the Philippines, or by a person in the performance of a duty specially enjoined by law, are prima facie evidence of the facts therein stated. (44a) 4 Petitioner's Comment/ Opposition [Re: Respondent's Motion for Reconsideration dated 13 April2026]. Docket, pp. 682-684.

RESOLUTION CTA Case No. 10660 Page 3 of4 First. Respondent erred in claiming that RO Valenzuela's testimony as to the incidents regarding the BIR' s service of PAN and FLD/ FAN, along with the documents pertinent thereto are excepted from the hearsay rule. Specifically, said statements and documents did not fall under the exception thereon under Section 46,5 Rule 130 of the Rules of Court, as amended. Slew of cases6 ruled that Section 46, Rule 130 of the Rules of Court, as amended, requires satisfaction of the following conditions: (a) that the entry was made by a public officer or by another person specially enjoined by law to do so; (b) that it was made by the public officer in the performance of his duties, or by such other person in the performance of a duty specially enjoined by law; and (c) that the public officer or other person had sufficient know ledge of the facts by him [her] stated, which must have been acquired by him [her] personally or through official information. It is beyond quibble that conditions (a) and (b) are present. Specifically, the Report on Service by Mail of the PAN 7 and FLD/ FANS were prepared by GS Cruz in the performance of his duty. Ye t, condition (c) is absent because GS Cruz was not presented in court to attest that he had sufficient know ledge of the facts he stated in those reports. A fortiori, Section 46, Rule 130 of the Rules of Court, as amended, finds no application. Ther efor e, the entries in the Report on Service by Mail of the PAN and FLD / FAN are not prima facie proof of the facts stated therein. In brief, the finding that p etitioner ' s right to due process w as violated because there was no sufficient proof of service, much more, receipt of the BIR' s PAN and FLD/ FAN by petitioner or its duly authorized representative stands . . ·, Second. Respondent is mistaken in insisting that the lack of due dates for payment of taxes in the FAN does not render the formal assessment invalid. 5 Supra note 3. 6 UCPB General Insurance, Co., Inc. v. Pascual Liner, Inc., G.R. No. 242328, April 26, 2021; D.M. Consunji, Inc. v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 137873, April 20, 2001; and Spouses Africa, et al. v. Caltex (Phil.), Inc., et al., G.R. No. L-12986, March 31, 1966. 7 Exhibit " R-11." Docket, p. 336. 8 Exhibit " R-13-a." Docket, p . 347.

RESOLUTION CTA Case No. 10660 Page 4 of4 To repeat,9 Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Fitness by Design, Inc. (FDI) 10 and Republic of the Philippines, represented by the Bureau of Internal Revenue v. First Gas Power Corporation (FGPC)1 1 struck down the respective internal revenue tax assessments therein, because of lack of due dates for their corresponding payment in the BIR's FAN. The BIR's FAN issued against petitioner for TY 2017 suffers from the very same defect in the FAN found by FDI and FGPC. FDI and FGPC nullified the tax assessments because of said flaw . So must it be here. ACCORDINGLY, respondent's Motion for Reconsideration (Decision dated 19 March 2026) is DENIED, for lack of merit. The Decision dated March 19, 2026 in CTA Case No. 10660 is AFFIRMED. SO ORDERED. ~~r.~~f~~ MARIAN 1vfY F. REYES-FAJARDO Associate Justice I CONCUR: HENRY~ANGELES Associate Justice 9 Pages 12-13 of the Decision dated March 19, 2026. Docket, pp. 668-669. 10 G.R. No. 215957, November 9, 2016. 11 G.R. No. 214933, February 15, 2022.