REITOH COLD STORAGE INC., WE LEAD GROUP HOLDINGS INC., ELENCE MARINE AND INDUSTRIAL CORPORATION, MBPS CABLING CORPORATION, GARUDA CONSTRUCTION CORPORATION, BCP DERMATOLOGICAL CORPORATION, AUDIO VISEO SOLUTIONS CORPORATION, DUNAMIS IMPORT-EXPORT PHILS. INC., ALEN V DRAGON CORPORATION, MEDEV MEDICAL DEVICES CORPORATION, CHRYSALIS CONSTRUCTION AND TRADING CORPORATION, PAPISSS INC., ICON REEFER CORPORATION, JRT CONSTRUCTION AND TRADING CORPORATION, DATALINK SOLUTIONS TECHNOLOGY AND CONSULTANCY INC., ABBE TECHNOLOGY SOLUTIONS INC., EXEQUIEL BALANDAY ADORA, KEN N RIE TRANSPORT INC., R2B2 REALTY & DE

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES COURT OF TAX APPEALS QUEZON CITY SPECIAL SECOND DIVISION REITOH COLD STORAGE CTA CASE NO. 10420 INC., WE LEAD GROUP HOLDINGS, INC., ELENCE Members: MARINE AND INDUSTRIAL CORPORATION, MBPS BACORRO-VILLENA, Acting Chairperson, and CABLING CORPORATION, CUI-DAVID, JJ. GARUDA CONSTRUCTION CORPORATION, BCP DERMATOLOGICAL CORPORATION, AUDIO VIDEO SOLUTIONS CORPORATION, DUNAMIS IMPORT-EXPORT PHILS. INC., ALEN V DRAGON CORPORATION, MEDEV MEDICAL DEVICES CORPORATION, CHRYSALIS CONSTRUCTION AND TRADING CORPORATION, PAPISSS INC., ICON REEFER CORPORATION, JRT CONSTRUCTION AND TRADING CORPORATION, DATALINK SOLUTIONS TECHNOLOGY AND CONSULTANCY INC., ABBE TECHNOLOGY SOLUTIONS INC., EXEQUIEL BALANLAY ADORA, KEN N RIE TRANSPORT INC., R2B2 & REALTY DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, G2K CORPORATION, MAXX ENERGIE VENTURES CORP., and

DECISION CTA Case No. 10420 Reitoh Cold Storage Inc., et al. vs. Bureau of Internal Revenue Page 2 of49 X--------------------------------------------------------------------X POWERSOURCE PHILIPPINES, INC., Petitioners, -versus- BUREAU OF INTERNAL Promulgated: REVENUE, Respondent. -----A-PR--1-9-20-23-~-- J; ('J , .. , X-------------------------- ----- --------X DECISION CUI-DAVID, J.: Before the Court is a Petition for Review 1 filed by petitioners by way of Mandamus2 under Rule 65 of the Revised Rules of Court, as amended, praying that the Court "mandate respondent to issue the Certificate of Tax Delinquencies/Tax Liabilities (CTD) and Acceptance Payment Form (APF) in favor of petitioners so that they may be deemed to have fully complied with all the conditions set forth in the Tax Amnesty Act, including the payment of their amnesty tax, their tax delinquency may be considered settled, and the tax amnesty granted becomes final and irrevocable." THE PARTIES Petitioner Exequiel Balanlay Adora is a sole proprietor with office address at 3F Room 303-305 Caroline Building, Brgy. 178 Kika Camarin, Caloocan City.3 He is represented by Maureen Braza,4 with office address at Unit 203 STG Corporate Centre Building, No. 76 Timog Avenue, Quezon City.s The other petitioners are domestic corporations with the following addresses and authorized representatives: 1 Division Docket (Docket)- Vol. I, pp. 12-620, with annexes. 2 /d., Petition for Review, par. 4, p. 13. J /d., p. 16. 4 Id.. Annex P-17, Special Power of Attorney. pp. 80-81. 5 /d., p. 16 and p. 80.

DECISION CTA Case No. 10420 Reitoh Cold Storage Inc., et a!. vs. Bureau of Internal Revenue Page 3 of49 x--------------------------------------------------------------------x Taxpayer Address Authorized Representative 1 Reitoh Cold Storage Inc. Km 30 National Maureen Braza6 Highway, Amante Street, Bo. Poblacion, San Pedro, Laguna 2 We Lead Group Holdings Unit 2102 Robinsons Maureen Braza7 Corporate Inc. Galleria Center Ortigas Avenue, Edsa cor. Quezon City 3 Elence Marine and Bldg. 9 Unit315 Urban Maureen BrazaS Industrial Corporation Deca Homes Vitas Street, Tondo, Manila 4 MBPS Cabling 2156-D P. Florentino Maureen Braza9 Corporation Street, Sampaloc, Manila 5 Garuda Construction 8760 Santo! Street, Maureen BrazalO Corporation San Antonio Village, Makati City 6 BCP Dermatological Dela Paz Building, Maureen Braza11 Corporation 1570 Dapitan Street, Zone 047, Brgy. 481 Sampaloc, Manila 7 Audio-Video Solutions Unit 3301 Atlanta Gina Mandigmai2 Corporation Center, 31 Annapolis St., Greenhills, San Juan City 8 Dunamis Import-Export Room 202 Esna Bldg., Maureen Braza13 Philippines Incorporated No. 30 Timog Avenue, Brgy. Laging Handa, Quezon City 9 Alen v. Dragon 51 Maharlika Hi-Way Maureen Brazai� Corporation Sta. Anastacia, Sto Tomas, Batangas 10 Medev Medical Devices Red Flower MJ46 Maureen BrazaIs Corporation Compound, Sta. Ana Drive Sun Valley, Paraftaque 11 Chrysalis Construction 2404 Tenorio Street, Maureen Braza16 and Trading Corporation San Andres Bukid, Manila 12 Papisss Inc. Villa Mariquita Maureen Brazai7 Subdivision, Lumbangan, Nasugbu, Batan_gas 6 /d., Annex P-1, Board Resolution, p. 49. 7 /d., Annex P-2, Secretary's Certificate, pp. 50-51. 8 /d., Annex P-3, Secretary's Certificate, pp. 52-53. 9 /d., Annex P-4, Secretary's Certificate, pp. 54-55. 10 !d., Annex P-5, Secretary's Certificate, pp. 56-57. 11 /d., Annex P-6, Secretary's Certificate, pp. 58-59. 12 /d., Annex P-7, Secretary's Certificate, pp. 60-61. 13 /d., Annex P-8, Secretary's Certificate, pp. 62-63. 14 /d., Annex P-9, Secretary's Certificate, pp. 64-65. 15 /d., Annex P-10, Secretary's Certificate, pp. 66-67. 16 /d., Annex P-11, Secretary's Certificate, pp. 68-69. 17 /d., Annex P-12, Secretary's Certificate, pp. 70-71.

DECISION CTA Case No. 10420 Reitoh Cold Storage Inc., et al. vs. Bureau of Internal Revenue Page 4 of49 X--------------------------------------------------------------------X Taxpayer Address Authorized Representative 13 Icon Reefer Corporation Unit 3QC, ODC Gina Mandigma'" International Plaza, 219 Salcedo Street, Legaspi Village, Makati City (formerly 11/F Vernida IV Bldg., 128 Alfaro Street, Salcedo Village, Makati City) 14 JRT Const. and Trading 082 Sta. Cruz Street, Gina Mandigma'9 Corporation Ilawod Poblacion, Bato, Catanduanes 15 OATALINK Solutions Sticra Signal Village, Maureen Braza2o Technology and Katuparan, Taguig City Consultancy Inc. cjo Philippine Korea Technological Center, Taguig City 16 ABBE Technology UG-29 Cityland Maureen Braza21 Solutions Inc. Pioneer Condominium, 128 Pioneer Street, Highway Hills, Mandaluyong City 17 KEN N RIE Transport, Brgy. San Pioquinto, Maureen Braza22 Inc. Malvar, Batangas 18 R2B2 Realty & Penthouse, R&L Maureen Braza23 Development Center, 1695 Baler Corporation Street, Makati City 19 G2K Corporation Unit 3301 Atlanta Gina Mandigma24 Center, 31 Annapolis Street, Greenhills, San Juan City 20 Maxx Energie Ventures Unit 3301 Atlanta Gina Mandigma2s Corporation Center, 31 Annapolis Street, Greenhills, San Juan City 21 Powersource Philippines, lOF The Athenaeum Maureen Braza26 Inc. Bldg., 160 L.P. Leviste Street, Salcedo Village, Makati City Respondent Bureau of Internal Revenue (BIR) is the government agency charged with, among other powers and duties, the collection of all national internal revenue taxes. It has the power to decide disputed assessments, refunds of internal revenue taxes, fees or other charges, penalties imposed in relation thereto, or other matters arising under the 1997 18 /d., Annex P-13, Secretary's Certificate, pp. 72-73. 19 /d., Annex P-14, Secretary's Certificate, pp. 74-75. 20 /d., Annex P-15, Secretary's Certificate, pp. 76-77. 21 !d., Annex P-16, Secretary's Certificate, pp. 78-79. 22 /d., Annex P-18, Secretary's Certificate, pp. 82-83. 23 /d., Annex P-19, Secretary's Certificate, pp. 84-85. 24 !d., Annex P-20, Secretary's Certificate, pp. 86-87. 25 /d., Annex P-21, Secretary's Certificate, pp. 88-89. 26 /d., Annex P-22, Secretary's Certificate, pp. 90-92.

DECISION CTA Case No. 10420 Reitoh Cold Storage Inc., et al. vs. Bureau of Internal Revenue Page 5 of49 x--------------------------------------------------------------------x National Internal Revenue Code (NIRC), as amended (Tax Code), and other laws administered by it, with office address at BIR National Office Building, BIR Road, Diliman, Quezon City. THE FACTS On February 14,2019, Republic Act (RAJ No. 11213 or the Tax Amnesty Act (TAA), was approved and became effective on April 24, 2019. It covered all unpaid internal revenue taxes for the taxable year 2017 and prior years concerning (1) estate tax and (2) tax on delinquencies. On April24, 2019, Revenue Regulations (RR) No. 4-201927 came into effect to implement the TAA and provide guidelines on the processmg of tax amnesty applications on tax delinquencies. Petitioners received from respondent the following notices: Taxpayer BIR Notices Issuing BIR Issuing BIR Issued Office Officer 1 Reitoh Cold Notice for Informal Revenue Revenue Storage Inc. Conference dated District Office District Officer March 13, 20192s (ROO) No. 57- Antonino L. Biiian City, !lagan Laguna 2 We Lead Group Formal Letter of Revenue Region OIC-Regional Holdings Inc. Demand and (RR) No. 7A- Director Albino Assessment Notice Quezon City M. Galanza dated October 25, 201929 3 Elence Marine Notice for Informal ROO No. 29- Revenue and Industrial Conference Tondo/San District Officer Corporation (undatedpo Nicolas, Manila Teresita Y. Lumayag 4 MBPS Cabling Notice for Informal ROO No. 32- Revenue Corporation Conference dated Quiapo, District Officer January 7, 202031 Sampaloc, San Jose G. Luna Miguel, Sta. Mesa, Manila 5 Garuda Preliminary ROO No. 49- Regional Construction Assessment Notice North Makati Director Glen Corporation dated July 2, A. Geraldino 201832 27 lmplementing Rules and Regulations (IRR) of Republic Act No. 11213, Otherwise Known as the "Tax Amnesty Act", Providing for the Guidelines on the Processing ofTax Amnesty Application on Tax Delinquencies. 28 Docket- Vol. I, Petition for Review, Annex P-23, pp. 93-94. 29 /d., Annex P-24, pp. 95-101. 30 !d.. Annex P-25, p. 102. 31 /d., Annex P-26, pp. 103-108. 32 /d., Annex P-27, pp. 109-114.

DECISION CTA Case No. 10420 Reitoh Cold Storage Inc., et al. vs. Bureau of Internal Revenue Page 6 of49 x--------------------------------------------------------------------x Taxpayer BIR Notices Issuing BIR Issuing BIR Issued Office Officer 6 BCP Notice for Informal ROO No. 32- Revenue Dermatological Conference dated Quiapo, District Officer Corporation December 26, Sampaloc, San Jose G. Luna 201933 Miguel, Sta. Mesa, Manila 7 Audio-Video Formal Letter of Revenue Region Assistant Solutions Demand dated (RR) No. 7- Regional Corporation January 10, Quezon City Director Albino 201934 M. Galanza 8 Dunamis Notice for Informal ROO No. 39- Revenue lmport-Export Philippines Conference dated South, Quezon District Officer March 9, 202035 City Arnulfo A. Incorporated Galapia 9 Alen V. Dragon Formal Letter of Revenue Region Regional Corporation Demand dated (RR) No. 9A- Director Gerry October 2, 201936 CaBaMiRo 0. Dumayas 10 Medev Medical Notice for Informal ROO No. 52- Revenue Devices Conference dated Paraftaque City District Officer Corporation May 31, 201937 Antonio J. Mangubat, Jr. 11 Chrysalis Notice for Informal ROO No. 34- Revenue Construction Conference dated Paco- District Officer Atty. Helen D. and Trading July 19, 201838 Pandacan-Sta. Vista Corporation Ana-San Andres, Manila 12 Papisss Inc. Notice for Informal ROO No. 58- Revenue Conference dated West, Batangas District Officer May 24, 201939 Atty. Elmer F. Carolina 13 Icon Reefer Formal Letter of RR No. 8A- Regional Corporation Demand dated Makati Director November 28, Maridur v. 201940 Rosario 14 JRT Canst. and Notice for Informal ROO No. 69- Revenue Trading Conference dated Virac, District Officer Corporation September 23, Catanduanes Princini B. 201941 Parco 15 OATALINK None42 Solutions Technology and Consultancy Inc. 16 ABBE Notice for Informal ROO No. 41- Revenue Technology Conference dated Mandaluyong District Officer Solutions Inc. City Atty. 33 /d.. Annex P-28. pp. 115-119. 34 !d.. Annex P-29, pp. 120-128. 35 !d.. Annex P-30, pp. 129-132. 36 /d.. Annex P-31, pp. 133-135. 31 !d.. Annex P-32, pp. 136-137. 38 /d.. Annex P-33, pp. 138-140. 39 !d.. Annex P-34, pp. 141-142. "!d.. Annex P-35, pp. 143-144. 4'/d.. Annex P-36, pp. 145-147. 42 JRT Const. and Trading Corporation did not receive any notice from the BIR but filed a Monthly Remittance Return of Creditable Income Taxes Withheld (Expanded) or BIR Fonn No. 1601-E received by the BIRon February 12,2020 with "late filing/late payment penalties computed" annotation, id., Annex P-37, pp. 148-159.

DECISION CTA Case No. 10420 Reitoh Cold Storage Inc., et al. vs. Bureau of Internal Revenue Page 7 of49 X--------------------------------------------------------------------X Taxpayer BIR Notices Issuing BIR Issuing BIR Issued Office Officer October 11, Deogracias T. 201943 Villar, Jr. 17 Exequiel Request for Lease ROO No. 27- Revenue Officer Balanlay Adora Contract re: Caloocan City Jolina Penalty Suwalawan Assessment (undated)44 18 KEN N RIE None45 Transport, Inc. 19 R2B2 Realty & Letter dated ROO No. 49- Revenue Development January 16, 2020 North Makati District Officer Corporation re: request for Frederico Q. computation of Pilarca penalty for unpaid fringe benefits taxes46 20 G2K Final Decision on RR No. 78-East Regional Corporation Disputed NCR Director Assessment dated Romulo Aguila, March 25, 202047 Jr. 21 Maxx Energie Formal Letter of RR 7-Quezon Ventures Demand dated City Corporation January 12, 201648 22 Powersource Notice for Informal ROO No. 47- Revenue Philippines, Inc. Conference dated East Makati District Officer May 18, 202049 Renata L. Ruiz To avail of the benefits of the TAA, petitioners accomplished their Tax Amnesty Returns on Delinquencies (TAR or BIR Form 2118-DA), APFs (BIR Form 0621-DA), and bank deposit slips. so Petitioners followed up with respondent regarding the issuance of their respective CTDs and duly endorsed APFs. Respondent acted upon petitioners' requests m the following manner: ~ 43 /d., Annex P�38, pp. 160-162. "/d., Annex P-39, pp. 163-166. 45 KEN N RIE Transport, Inc. did not receive any notice from the BIR but filed a Monthly Remittance Return of Creditable Income Taxes Withheld (Expanded) or BIR Fonn No. 1601-E received by the BIRon February 21,2020 with "late filing" stamp, id., Annex P-40, pp. 167-177. 46 /d., Annex P-41, p. 178. 41 /d, Annex P-42, pp. 179-180. 48 /d., Annex P-43, pp. 181-182. Without signature page attached. 49 /d., Annex P-44, pp. 183-185. 50 /d., Annexes P-145 to 209, pp. 498-585.

DECISION CTA Case No. 10420 Reitoh Cold Storage Inc., et a!. vs. Bureau of Internal Revenue Page 8 of49 X--------------------------------------------------------------------X Taxpayer BIRAction Issuing BIR Issuing BIR Taxpayer's Office Officer Receipt Reitoh Cold Denial Letters dated Date Storage Inc. RDO No. Revenue August 9, 201951 and 57-West District Officer August 9, We Lead Group Laguna Atty. Timm B. 201953 Holdings Inc. September 17, (Biiian) Renomeron September 7, 201954 2019: 52 assessment RR No. 7A- Regional Quezon City Director Albino December is not yet considered M. Galanza 27,201958 February delinquent 13, 202059 Denial Letters dated December 27, 2019,55 and February 13, 2020: 56 not qualified pursuant to Revenue Memorandum Circular (RMC) No. 57-2019, Ql. Denial Letter dated RDO No. Revenue February 3, 2020:57 40-Cubao District Officer not yet a delinquent Corazon R. account RR No. 6- Balin as Manila Elence Marine None and Industrial Corporation Denial Letters dated Regional July 28, MBPS Cabling July 28, 2020, 60 202063 Corporation Director Atty. September September 22, Jethro M. 22, 202064 2020 6t and October Sabariaga 16, 2020: 62 not considered a delinquent account; no records of tax delinquency/ deficien cy/liability; and not a case of "withholding tax liabilities arising from failure to remit taxes withheld" 51 /d.. Annex P-210A, pp. 587-588. 52 /d., Annex P-21 0, p. 586. 53 Par. 18, Petition for Review, Docket- Vol. I, p. 34, vis-il-vis par. 6, Memorandum for Petitioners, Docket- Vol. II, p. 795. 54 /d. 55 Petition for Review, Annex P-211, Docket- Vol. I, p. 589. 56 /d., Annex P-212, pp. 590-591. 57 /d., Annex P-212A, p. 592. 58 Par. 18, Petition for Review, Docket- Vol. I, p. 34, vis-ii-vis par. 6, Memorandum for Petitioners, Docket- Vol. II, p. 795. 59 /d. 60 /d., Annex P-213, pp. 593-595; Annex P-214A, pp. 597-599. 61 /d., Annex P-214, p. 596. 62 /d., Annex P-2148, p. 600. 63 Par. 18, Petition for Review, Docket- Vol. I, p. 34, vis-ii-vis par. 6, Memorandum for Petitioners, Docket- Vol. II, p. 796. 64 Par. 18, Petition for Review, Docket- Vol. I, p. 35, vis-il-vis par. 6, Memorandum for Petitioners, Docket- Vol. II, p. 796.

DECISION CTA Case No. 10420 Reitoh Cold Storage Inc., et a!. vs. Bureau of Internal Revenue Page 9 of49 x--------------------------------------------------------------------x Taxpayer BIRAction Issuing BIR Issuing BIR Taxpayer's Office Officer Receipt Garuda Denial Letter dated Date Construction RDO No. Revenue Corporation September 30, 49-North District Officer September Makati City Frederico Q. 30, 202066 BCP 2020: 65 "subject Pilarca Dermatological RR No. 6- August 3, Corporation taxes" not covered by Manila 202068 Audio-Video the TAA ROO No. October 12, Solutions 39-South, 202070 Corporation Denial Letter dated Quezon City Dunamis December Import-Export August 3, 2020: 67 RR No. 88- 5, 201972 Philippines South NCR October 23, Incorporated subject withholding 201976 RR No. 6- A!en V. Dragon taxes not covered by Manila Corporation Medev Medical the TAA Devices Corporation None Chrysalis Letter dated October Revenue Construction and Trading 12, 2020: 69 request District Officer Corporation for APF-Signature Arnulfo A. and demand to Galapia sign/follow up on tax amnesty request for approval are forwarded to Legal Division of RR No. 7A-Quezon City None Denial Letter dated Regional December 5, 2019:71 subject EWT not Director Atty. covered by the TAA Jethro M. Denial Letters dated October 7, 2019 73 Sabariaga and October 18, 2019: 74 assessment has not yet attained finality since it was able to file timely protest/request for reinvestigation 65 /d., Annex P-215, p. 603. 66 Par. 18, Petition for Review, Docket- Vol. I, p. 35, vis-b.-vis par. 6, Memorandum for Petitioners, Docket- Vol. II, p. 796. 67 /d., Annex P-216, pp. 604-605, with missing pages and signature page. 68 Par. 18, Petition for Review, Docket- Vol. I, p. 35, vis-il-vis par. 6, Memorandum for Petitioners, Docket- Vol. II, p. 796. 69 /d., Annex P-217, p. 606. 70 Par. 18, Petition for Review, Docket- Vol. I, p. 35, vis-0.-vis par. 6, Memorandum for Petitioners, Docket- Vol. II, p. 796. 71 /d., Annex P-218, pp. 607-608, with missing signature page. 72 Par. 18, Petition for Review, Docket- Vol. I, p. 35, vis-il-vis par. 6, Memorandum for Petitioners, Docket- Vol. ll, p. 796. 73 /d., Annex P-219A, pp. 610-612; id., Annex P-219C, p. 616. 74 /d., Annex P-2198, pp. 613-615. 76 Par. 18, Petition for Review, Docket- Vol. I, p. 36, vis-il-vis par. 6, Memorandum for Petitioners, Docket- Vol. ll, p. 796.

DECISION CTA Case No. 10420 Reitoh Cold Storage Inc., et al. vs. Bureau of Internal Revenue Page 10 of49 x--------------------------------------------------------------------x Taxpayer BIRAction Issuing BIR Issuing BIR Taxpayer's Office Officer Receipt Papisss Inc. Date Icon Reefer OIC-Revenue Corporation Letter dated October RDO No. District Officer JRT Canst. and 22, 2019: 75 not 34-Paco- Caroline M. Trading Takata Corporation qualified to avail of Pandacan- DATALINK Chief, Solutions the TAA Sta. Ana- Collection Technology and Division Consultancy San Andres Ceferina M. Inc. Ong ABBE None Technology OIC-Chief, Solutions Inc. None Collection Division Exequiel None Benilda M. Balanlay Adora Nicosia None KEN N RIE Transport, Inc. Letter dated January RR No. 7B- January R2B2 Realty & East NCR 31, 202078 Development 21, 2020: 77 Corporation December forwarded to the CIR 11, 202081 for appropriate action Denial Letter dated RR No. 5- December 11,2019:79 Caloocan penalties arising from City the non-filing of returns/ open cases, self-assessed taxes and electronic Filing and Payment cases are not included m the TAA80 None Denial Letters dated RR No. 8A- July 1' June 2, 2020:82 failed Makati 202084 to provide an entitlement for the issuance of Notice of Issuance of Authority to Cancel Assessment (NIATCA) under Section 6 of RR No. 4- 20 19, in relation to III (1)E of RMO No. 33- 2018; endorsed to the 15 /d., Annex P-219, p. 609. 17 /d., Annex P-220, p. 617. 78 Par. 18, Petition for Review, Docket~ Vol. I, p. 36, vis-il-vis par. 6, Memorandum for Petitioners, Docket- Vol. II, p. 796. 79 !d., Annex P-221, p. 618, with missing pages and signature page. 80 Petition for Review, no. 17, p. 36. 81 Par. 18, Petition for Review, Docket- Vol. I, p. 36, vis-il-vis par. 6, Memorandum for Petitioners, Docket- Vol. II, p. 797. 82 Petition for Review, Annex P-222A, p. 620. 84 Par. 18, Petition for Review, Docket- Vol. I, p. 37, vis-ii-vis par. 6, Memorandum for Petitioners, Docket- Vol. II, p. 797.

DECISION CTA Case No. 10420 Reitoh Cold Storage Inc., et al. vs. Bureau of Internal Revenue Page 11 of49 X--------------------------------------------------------------------X Taxpayer BIRAction Issuing BIR Issuing BIR Taxpayer's Office Officer Receipt Date Legal Division for appropriate action Letter dated July 1, RDO No. Revenue 2020: 83 stop-filer 49-North District Officer cases are not Makati Federico Q. considered Pilarca delinquent account G2K None Corporation Maxx Energie None Ventures Corporation None Powersource Philippines, Inc. On December 14, 2020, petitioners filed a Petition for Review dated December 8, 2020. On December 21, 2020, the Court issued Summons 85 ordering respondent to submit an Answer within thirty (30) days from service. On January 5, 2021, respondent received the Summons. In the Motion for Extension of Time to File Answer86 and Final Motion for Extension of Time to File Answer,87 respondent requested an additional period of thirty (30) days from February 4, 2021, or until March 6, 2021, and thereafter, a further extension of fifteen (15) days from March 6, 2021, or until March 21, 2021, to file an Answer. The Court granted both Motions in its Orders dated February 8, 2021,88 and March 18, 2021,89 respectively. On May 19, 2021, the Court received respondent's Answer9o filed via registered mail on March 19, 2021, with the following special and affirmative defenses: 83 Id.. Annex P-222. p. 619. 85 Docket- Vol. II. pp. 621-622. 86 Docket- Vol. II. pp. 625-630. 87 Docket- Vol. II, pp. 632-636. 88 Docket- Vol. II, p. 631. 89 Docket- Vol. II, p. 638. 90 Docket- Vol. II, pp. 639-655.

DECISION CTA Case No. 10420 Reitoh Cold Storage Inc., et a!. vs. Bureau of Internal Revenue Page 12 of49 x--------------------------------------------------------------------x a. The Court has no jurisdiction over the instant petition; b. A collateral attack on presumably valid administrative issuance is not allowed; and c. The approval of the application for tax amnesty should be in accordance with RA No. 11213; thus, mandamus is not tenable. On May 20, 2021, the Court issued a Notice of Pre-Trial Conference91 and set the case for pre-trial on June 14, 2021. In compliance with the Court's order, respondent filed a Pre-Trial Brief92 on June 8, 2021, while petitioners filed a Motion to Admit Petitioners' Pre-Trial Brie.f3 with the attached Pre-Trial Brief94 on June 14, 2021. On May 24, 2021, the Court received petitioners' Motion 1. To Declare Respondent in Default 2. For Judgment on the Pleadings95 filed through registered mail on April 20, 2021, to which respondent posted a Comment/ Opposition96 on May 25, 2021, and received by the Court on May 26, 2021. On June 14, 2021, the Court issued a Resolution 97 denying petitioners' Motion 1. To Declare Respondent in Default 2. For Judgment on the Pleadings for lack of merit and noted petitioners' counsel's change of address. During the pre-trial conference, the Court granted petitioners' Motion to Admit Petitioners' Pre-Trial Briefwith the attached Pre-Trial Brief in the interest of justice. It referred the case to the Philippine Mediation Center-Court of Tax Appeals (PMC-CTA) for mediation on July 7, 2021.98 On July 7, 2021, petitioners filed a Manifestation99 stating that there is no need to proceed with the mediation proceedings considering that the issues, in this case, are purely a question of law. On even date, the Court received the PMC-CTA's "Back to Court" report100 since petitioners refused mediation. 91 Docket- Vol. 11. pp. 657-660. 92 Docket- Vol. 11. pp. 696-700. 93 Docket- Vol. II, pp. 707-709. 94 Docket- Vol. II. pp. 710-734. 95 Docket- Vol. II, pp. 661-665. 96 Docket~ Vol. II, pp. 670-694, with annexes. 97 Docket- Vol. II. pp. 702-706. 98 Docket- Vol. II, Minutes of the Hearing, p. 735; Order dated June 14, 2021, p. 736; Resolution dated June 17, 2021, p. 739. 99 Docket- Vol. 11. pp. 740-742. 100 Docket- Vol. 11. p. 743.

DECISION CTA Case No. 10420 Reitoh Cold Storage Inc., et al. va. Bureau of Internal Revenue Page 13 of49 x--------------------------------------------------------------------x On July 28, 2021, the Court issued a Resolution101 noting petitioners' Manifestation and set the pre-trial conference on September 29, 2021. Still, it was cancelled and reset to January 17, 2022, given the physical closure of the Court under Supreme Court Administrative Circular No. 56-2021. 1o2 The pre-trial set on January 17, 2022, was again cancelled and reset to March 9, 2022, due to the court's physical closure brought about by rising COVID-19 cases.103 On February 21, 2022, petitioners filed a Motion to Submit Memorandum104 praying that the Court directs the parties to file their respective memoranda alleging that the only issue, in this case, involves a question of law. On March 1, 2022, the Court promulgated a Resolution1os ordering respondent to file a comment/ opposition within five (5) days from receipt. On March 8, 2022, respondent filed a Comment 106 interposing no objection to petitioners' Motion to Submit Memorandum. In its Resolution 107 dated March 25, 2022, the Court granted petitioners' Motion to Submit Memorandum and ordered the parties to submit their respective memoranda within fifteen (15) days from receipt. Respondent's Memorandum108 was filed on April 11, 2022, while the Memorandum for Petitioners109 was filed on April 18, 2022. In the Resolution dated April 26, 2022, 11o the Court submitted the present case for decision. Hence, this Decision. ~ 101 Docket- Vol. 11. pp. 749-750. 102 Docket- Vol. 11. Notice of Resetting dated October IS. 2021. pp. 751-752. 103 Docket- Vol. II, Notice of Resetting dated February 9, 2022, pp. 753-754. Memorandum Circular No. 10-2022. 104 Docket- Vol. II, p. 755 to 757. 105 Docket- Vol. II, p. 760 to 761. 106 Docket- Vol. II, p. 764 to 766. 107 Docket- Vol. II, p. 768 to 772. 108 Docket- Vol. II, pp. 773 to 789. 109 Docket- Vol. II, pp. 793 to 816. 110 Docket-Vol.ll,p. 817.

DECISION CTA Case No. 10420 Reitoh Cold Storage Inc., eta!. vs. Bureau of Internal Revenue Page 14 of49 X--------------------------------------------------------------------X ISSUES Petitioners put forth the following issues111 for the Court's resolution, to wit: I Whether or not a Petition for Certiorari under the Rules of Court, Rule 65, Section 1 filed with the Court of Tax Appeals is the correct remedy. II Whether or not respondent has the ministerial duty to issue a Certificate of Tax Delinquency and Acceptance Payment Form in favor of petitioners for taxable year 2017 and prior years even if the assessment notices or similar documents are issued after the effectivity of the implementing rules and regulations. III Whether or not petitioners are entitled to avail themselves of the benefits of the Tax Amnesty Law, even if respondent refused to sign their Certificate of Tax Delinquency and Acceptance Payment Form, as it is respondent's ministerial duty to issue a Notice of Issuance of Authority to Cancel Assessment (NIATCA) in petitioners' favor after they filed their TARs and APFs as well as paid the amnesty taxes. IV Whether or not petitioners have no other plain, speedy and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law. The issues may be summed up into whether or not respondent BIR may be compelled by mandamus to issue in favor of petitioners the Certificates of Tax Delinquencies/Tax Liabilities and Acceptance Payment Forms under RA No. 11213 or the Tax Amnesty Act. Petitioners' arguments: Petitioners argue that it is the ministerial duty of the BIR to issue a CTD and APF in their favor for the taxable year (TY) 2017 and prior years, even if the assessment notices or similar documents are issued after the effectivity of the implementing rules and regulations (IRR). Petitioners claim that they are entitled to avail of the benefits of the TAA, even if respondent refuses to issue the CTDs and sign the APFs, as it 1s \1 111 Grounds, Petition for Review, Docket- Vol. I, p. 37, vis-ti-vis Statement of the Issues, Memorandum for Petitioners, Docket- Vol. II, p. 797-798.

DECISION CTA Case No. 10420 Reitoh Cold Storage Inc., et a!. vs. Bureau of Internal Revenue Page 15 of49 X--------------------------------------------------------------------X respondent's ministerial duty to issue a Notice of Issuance of Authority to Cancel Assessment (NIATCA) in petitioners' favor after they filed their TARs and APFs and paid their amnesty taxes. However, in their Memorandum, petitioners allege for the first time that a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Revised Rules of Court is the correct remedy. According to petitioners, the denial of the requests for the issuance of the NIATCA in their favor after they filed their TARs and APFs and paid the amnesty taxes is a decision of the Commissioner of Internal Revenue (CIR) arising under the NIRC and its related laws; hence, the Court of Tax Appeals (CTA) is the proper court for the filing of a Petition for Review, pursuant to A.M. No. 05- 11-07-CTA or the Revised Rules of the Court of Tax Appeals (RRCTA), specifically, Section 3, Rule 4 thereof. Further, petitioners cite the case of Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Hambrecht & Quist Philippines, Inc., 112 wherein the Supreme Court held that the CTA's jurisdiction is not limited to cases that involve decisions of the CIR on matters involving assessments or refunds but also covers other cases arising from the NIRC113 "where the power is exercised in an arbitrary and despotic manner by reason of passion or hostility."11 4 Petitioners assert that the CTA's judicial power to determine whether there is grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction on the part of respondent is enshrined in the Constitution, as enunciated in Department of Transportation v. Philippine Petroleum Sea Transport Association, et al. 115 Further, "(a) petition for certiorari is proper where the impugned dispositions, as in this case, are tainted with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction." 116 Petitioners maintain that they can apply for tax amnesty under Section 17(d) of the TAA. Petitioners explain that the previous tax amnesty law (RA No. 9480) excluded tax cases that were already the subject of final and executory judgments by the courts and withholding tax agents with respect to their ~ 112 G.R. No. 169225. November 17.2010, cited in CIR v. Philippine Aluminum Wheels Inc.. CTA EB No. 994 (CTA Case No. 7817), May 19. 2014. 113 WPP Marketing Communications, Inc. v. CJR, CTA Case No. 9704, June 5, 2020. 114 /d. 115 G.R. No. 230107. July 24. 2018. 116 Rural Bank afCa/inog (Iloilo). Inc. v. CA. G.R. No. 146519, August 8, 2005.

DECISION CTA Case No. 10420 Reitoh Cold Storage Inc., et a!. vs. Bureau of Internal Revenue Page 16 of49 X--------------------------------------------------------------------X withholding tax liabilities; during the deliberation of the TAA, the legislators included these tax liabilities. Petitioners claim that Section 19 of the TAA provides that the taxpayer who wishes to avail of the Tax Amnesty on Delinquencies shall file a sworn Tax Amnesty on Delinquencies Return with a Certification of Delinquency and pay the amnesty tax, after which the respondent shall issue the APF. Section 5(A) of RR No. 4-2019, or the IRR of the TAA also provides that the taxpayer who wishes to avail of the Tax Amnesty on Delinquencies shall file a TAR, an APF and CTD issued by respondent. Hence, petitioners argue that respondent is mandated and obligated to issue their respective CTDs and APFs to allow them to complete the other requirements of the TAA and eventually avail themselves of its benefits. Petitioners insist that there is nothing more left but for respondent to issue the CTDs and APFs to those who have already complied with the provisions of the TAA, as held in the case of CS Gannent, Inc. v. Commissioner ofInternal Revenue. 117 However, respondent ignored or denied their request for the issuance of the CTDs and APFs on the ground that under RR No. 4-2019, the coverage of the TAA is only for tax delinquencies with assessment notices or similar documents issued on or before the effectivity date of RR No. 4-2019. In effect, petitioners posit that respondent imposed additional conditions for availing of the tax amnesty when it issued RMC No. 57-2019. 11s Petitioners also state that the TAA does not impose a cut-off date of April 24, 2019 or the condition that the assessment notices have become final and executory on or before April 24, 2019, which RMC No. 57-2019 does. Petitioners aver that the law cannot be amended by a mere regulation since an administrative agency may not enlarge, alter or restrict the provisions of the statute being administered, 119 even on the pretext of clarifying specific issues by imposing other conditions not found in the law itself. Such restrictions or conditions, according to petitioners, should be declared null and void and should not prevent petitioners from exercising what is their legal right. In relation thereto, petitioners cited the cases of Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Philippine ~ 117 G.R. No. 182399. March 12, 2014. 118 Clarifies Certain Issues on Tax Amnesty on Delinquencies under Revenue Regulations No. 4-2019 which Implemented Title IV of Republic Act No. 11213 or the Tax Amnesty Act, May 22, 20 I9. 119 Pilipinas Kao Inc. v. Court ofAppeals, G.R. No. I05014, December 18, 200 I.

DECISION CTA Case No. 10420 Reitoh Cold Storage Inc., eta!. vs. Bureau of Internal Revenue Page 17 of49 x--------------------------------------------------------------------x Aluminum Wheels, Inc 120 and CS Garment, Inc. v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue.121 Petitioners further submit that it is clear from Section 20 ofthe TAA that respondent shall issue the NIATCA to petitioners availing of the Tax Amnesty on Delinquencies within fifteen (15) calendar days from submission of the APF and the TAR. Petitioners opine that they have no other plain, speedy, and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law. Petitioners state that they only have until December 31, 2020 to avail themselves of the TAA under RR No. 15-2020 and RMC No. 61- 2020. In their Memorandum, petitioners state that they may lose the right to avail of Tax Amnesty on Delinquencies unless they can seek a judicial determination by way of certiorari as to whether respondent's actions constitute grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction. Respondent's arguments: Respondent contends that the Court has no jurisdiction over the instant petition, praying that the alleged decision denying the application for tax amnesty be reversed. Respondent points out that the same is among its discretionary powers which the Court cannot properly pass upon. Respondent counters that RMC No. 57-2019 was issued in accordance with its rule-making power or quasi-legislative power; it is a circular issued under its power to interpret, clarify, or explain tax laws and to decide tax cases under Section 4 of the NIRC. RMC No. 57-2019 provides the reckoning date of the finality of tax assessment or delinquent accounts for purposes of availing tax amnesty in accordance with RA No. 11213. Respondent adds that with RMC No. 57-2019 issued in the exercise of respondent's quasi-legislative function, the regular courts and not this Court has jurisdiction to render the said RMC null and void. In support, respondent cites Smart Communication, Inc. (SMART) and Pilipino Telephone Corporation (PILTEL) v. National Telecommunication Commission (NTC), 122 1- UTAK, et al. v. Bureau of Internal Revenue and Joel L. Tan- 120 G.R. No. 216161, August 9, 2017. t/ 121 /d. 122 G.R. No. 151908, August 12,2003.

DECISION CTA Case No. 10420 Reitoh Cold Storage Inc., et al. vs. Bureau of Internal Revenue Page 18 of49 x--------------------------------------------------------------------x Torres, 123 and British American Tobacco v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue,124 Respondent further argues that the nullification of a provision of RMC No. 57-2019 that petitioners pray for is a collateral attack on a presumably valid administrative issuance, which is not allowed. Correspondingly, respondent mentioned the cases of Dasmarifias Water District v. Monterey Foods Corporation,12s Tan v. Bausch & Lomb, Inc.,126 and San Miguel Brewery v. Magno127 as the basis thereof. Respondent asserts that Section 19 of the TAA128 provides explicitly the reckoning date when and where to file and pay the application for tax amnesty. Respondent insists that the TAA requires that the tax liability should be final and executory or delinquent at the time of its effectivity. Thus, since its implementing rules and regulations or RR No. 4-2019 took effect on April 24, 20 19, the same should be the reckoning date of the finality or delinquency of the tax liability sought to be applied for amnesty. More, respondent argues that based on the records, the tax assessments against petitioners are not yet delinquent or have not yet attained finality as of April24, 2019; thus, they are not qualified to avail of the tax amnesty in accordance with the law. According to respondent, petitioners failed to allege that there is a compelling legal duty on its part to approve the application for tax amnesty without a proper legal basis; hence, the petition is dismissible. Respondent concludes that the petition failed to allege that it gravely abused its power when it denied the application for tax amnesty due to lack of legal basis. Citing Carabeo v. Court of Appeals et a/.,129 the abuse of discretion must be so patent � 123 CTA Case No. 8101, July 21, 2010, citing Smart Communications, Inc. et. a/., v. NTC, G.R. No. 151908, August 12, 2003; Globe ond ISLA COM v. Court ofAppeals ond NTC, G.R. No. 152063, August 12, 2003. 124 G.R. No. 163583, August 20, 2008. 125 G.R. No. 175550, September 17, 2008. 126 G.R. No. 148420, December 15,2005,478 SCRA 115, 123-124, citing Olsen ondCo. v. A/danese, G.R. No. L-18740, April 28, 1922. 127 G.R. No. L-21879, September 29, 1967. 128 SEC. 19. Availment ofthe Tax Amnesty on Delinquencies; When and Where to File and Pay.- Any person, natural or juridical, who wishes to avail of the Tax Amnesty on Delinquencies shall, within one (1) year from the effectivity of the Implementing Rules and Regulations of this Act, file with the appropriate office of the Bureau oflntemal Revenue, which has jurisdiction over the residence or principal place of business of the taxpayer, a sworn Tax Amnesty on Delinquencies Return accompanied by a Certification of Delinquency. The payment of the amnesty tax shall be made at the time the Return is filed. (Emphasis added) 129 G.R. Nos. 178000 and 178003, December 4. 2009.

DECISION CTA Case No. 10420 Reitoh Cold Storage lnc., et al. vs. Bureau of Internal Revenue x--------------------------------------------------------------------x and gross as to amount to an evasion of positive duty or to a virtual refusal to perform the task enjoined or to act at all in contemplation of law. What has been bestowed to the CIR by law is not only the power to approve tax amnesty but also the discretion when or when not to exercise it. THE RULING OF THE COURT The CTA has iurisdiction over petitions (or certiorari, prohibition, and/or mandamus under Rule 65 of the Revised Rules o(Court. We shall first discuss the basis of the CTA's certiorari power under Rule 65 of the Revised Rules of Court. It is settled that jurisdiction over the subject matter of a case is conferred by law and determined by the allegations in the complaint which comprise a concise statement of the ultimate facts constituting the plaintiffs cause of action.l3o The averments in the complaint and the character of the relief sought are the ones to be consulted.l31 In other words, what determines the nature of the action and which court has jurisdiction over it are the allegations in the complaint, and the character of the relief sought. 132 The designation or caption is not controlling more than the allegations in the complaint.l33 While this petition is captioned as "Petition for Review," an examination of petitioners' allegations, arguments, and relief sought reveals that it is a Petition for Mandamus, to wit: 4. This Petition for Review is filed by way of Mandamus under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court seeking to command Respondent to issue a Certificate of Tax Delinquency/Tax Liabilities (CTD), and Acceptance Payment Form (APF) protect the rights of the Petitioners pursuant to Republic Act No. 11213 or the Tax Amnesty Act, Section 17(d). 130 Pad/an v. Dinglasan, G.R. No. 180321, March 20,2013. 131 !d. "'Vi/lena v. Payoyo. G.R. No. 163021, Apri127. 2007. 133 Hernudd v. Lofgren, G.R. No. 140337. September 27, 2007.

DECISION CTA Case No. 10420 Reitoh Cold Storage Inc., et a!. vs. Bureau of Internal Revenue Page 20 of49 x--------------------------------------------------------------------x 19. Petitioners were prevented from availing of the benefits of the Tax Amnesty Law. Despite filing with the Respondent's appropriate office which has jurisdiction over the residence or principal place of business of the taxpayer, a sworn Tax Amnesty on Delinquencies Return accompanied by a Certification of Delinquency (CTD), as well as the Acceptance Payment Form (APF), Respondent refused and continues to refuse to issue Petitioners' respective CTD and APF: ... PRAYER WHEREFORE ... It is respectfully prayed of this Honorable Court to mandate respondent to issue the CTD and APF in favor of petitioners in order that they may be deemed to have fully complied with all the conditions set forth in the Tax Amnesty Law, including the payment of their amnesty tax, their tax delinquency may be considered settled, and the tax amnesty granted becomes final and irrevocable. The Supreme Court ruled that the caption of the pleading should not be the governing factor, but rather the allegations in it should determine the nature of the action, because even without the prayer for a specific remedy, the courts may nevertheless grant the proper relief as may be warranted by the facts alleged in the complaint and the evidence introduced.I34 Here, petitioners alleged in their Memorandum that a Petition for Certiorari under Rule 65 is the correct remedy135 but maintain the same prayer for mandamusi36 as reflected in their Petition for Review.I37 Given the foregoing, the Court treats the instant Petition for Review as a Petition for Mandamus. Besides, in the Resolution dated March 25, 2022, the Court has already resolved that this Petition for Review is a Petition for Mandamus, and it has the authority to issue auxiliary writs of certiorari, mandamus, and prohibition as ruled \1 in the case of The City ofManila, et al. v. Han. Grecia-Cuerdo, et al. (Grecia-Cuerdo):I3B 134 Evangelista v. Santiago, G.R. No. 157447, April29, 2005, citing Chacon Enterprises v. Court ofAppeals, G.R. No. L-46418, September 29, 1983. "' Docket- Vol. II, par. 4, p. 798; pars. 9-11; pp. 801-802. 136 /d., pp. 815-816. For easy reference, petitioners' prayer in its Memorandum reads: "WHEREFORE, with Petitioner's availment of the tax amnesties on delinquencies pursuant to Republic Act No. 11213, otherwise known as the Tax Amnesty Act, it is respectfully prayed ofthis Honorable Court to mandate Respondent to issue the CTD and APF in favor of Petitioners in order that they may be deemed to have fully complied with all the conditions set forth in the, including the payment of their amnesty tax, their tax delinquency may be considered settled, and the tax amnesty granted becomes final and irrevocable." 137 Docket- Vol. I, p. 47. ns G.R. No. 175723, February 4, 2014.

DECISION CTA Case No. 10420 Reitoh Cold Storage Inc., et al. vs. Bureau of Internal Revenue x--------------------------------------------------------------------x ... (While] there is no express grant of such power, with respect to the CTA, Section 1, Article VIII of the 1987 Constitution provides, nonetheless, that judicial power shall be vested in one Supreme Court and in such lower courts as may be established by law and that judicial power includes the duty of the courts of justice to settle actual controversies involving rights which are legally demandable and enforceable, and to determine whether or not there has been a grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction on the part of any branch or instrumentality of the Government. Indeed, in order for any appellate court to effectively exercise its appellate jurisdiction, it must have the authority to issue, among others, a writ of certiorari. In transferring exclusive jurisdiction over appealed tax cases to the CTA, it can reasonably be assumed that the law intended to transfer also such power as is deemed necessary, if not indispensable, in aid of such appellate jurisdiction. There is no perceivable reason why the transfer should only be considered as partial, not total. Furthermore, Section 6, Rule 135 of the present Rules of Court provides that when by law, jurisdiction is conferred on a court or judicial officer, all auxiliary writs, processes and other means necessary to carry it into effect may be employed by such court or officer. (Emphasis supplied) Although what is involved in Grecia-Cuerdo is a petition for certiorari, the Supreme Court clarified that under Section 6, Rule 135139 of the Rules of Court, the Court's authority extends to the issuance of all writs and processes essential for the exercise of its powers in cases within its appellate jurisdiction. Echoing its pronouncement in Grecia-Cuerdo, the Supreme Court, in the case of Banco de Oro, et al. v. Republic of the Philippines, et al., 140 declared in no uncertain terms that petitions for certiorari against the acts and omissions of quasi- judicial agencies, i.e., CIR, should be filed with the CTA, vzz.: ~ u9 SEC. 6. Means to carryjurisdiction into effect. -When by law jurisdiction is conferred on a court or judicial officer, all auxiliary writs, processes and other means necessary to carry it into effect may be employed by such court or officer; and if the procedure to be followed in the exercise of such jurisdiction is not specifically pointed out by law or by these rules, any suitable process or mode of proceeding may be adopted which appears comfortable to the spirit of the said law or rules. 140 G.R. No. 198756. August 16. 2016.

DECISION CTA Case No. 10420 Reitoh Cold Storage Inc., et a!. vs. Bureau of Internal Revenue Page 22 of49 x--------------------------------------------------------------------x Section 7 of Republic Act No. 1125, as amended, is explicit that, except for local taxes, appeals from the decisions of quasi-judicial agencies (Commissioner of Internal Revenue, Commissioner of Customs, Secretary of Finance, Central Board of Assessment Appeals, Secretary of Trade and Industry) on tax-related problems must be brought exclusively to the Court of Tax Appeals. ...within the judicial system, the law intends the Court of Tax Appeals to have exclusive jurisdiction to resolve all tax problems. Petitions for writs of certiorari against the acts and omissions of the said quasi-judicial agencies should, thus, be filed before the Court of Tax Appeals.l41 (Emphasis supplied) Given the foregoing, this Court has jurisdiction over petitions for certiorari, prohibition and/ or mandamus against the acts and omissions of the BIR. We shall now determine the timeliness of the Petition. Petitioners failed to file this Petition on time. Section 4, Rule 65 of the Rules of Court provides that: SEC. 4. When and where petition filed.- The petition shall be f"lled not later than sixty (601 days from notice of the judgment, order, or resolution. In case a motion for reconsideration or new trial is timely filed, whether such motion is required or not, the sixty (60) day period shall be counted from notice of the denial of said motion. (Emphasis supplied) In the case of Oasis Park Hotel v. Leslee G. Navaluna, et al. (Oasis Park}, 142 the Supreme Court emphasized that to establish the sixty (60) day timeline for the filing of the petition, the date of receipt of the assailed judgment, final order, or resolution must be stated in the petition; otherwise, the petition for certiorari must be dismissed, vzz.: 141 The Supreme Court "[applied] by analogy the ruling In National Water Resources Board v. A. LAng Network, Inc., exclusive appellate jurisdiction over quasi-judicial agencies under Rule 43 of the Rules of Court, petitions for writs of certiorari, prohibition or mandamus against the acts and omissions of quasi-judicial agencies, like petitioner, should be filed with it.' 142 G.R. No. 197191, Novcmbcr21,20!6.

DECISION CTA Case No. 10420 Reitoh Cold Storage Inc., et a!. vs. Bureau of Internal Revenue Page 23 of49 x--------------------------------------------------------------------x The Court, in Vinuya v. Romulo, expounded on the importance of stating the material dates in a petition for certiorari: As the rule indicates, the 60-day period starts to run from the date petitioner receives the assailed judgment, final order or resolution, or the denial of the motion for reconsideration or new trial timely filed, whether such motion is required or not. To establish the timeliness of the petition for certiorari, the date of receipt of the assailed judgment, final order or resolution or the denial of the motion for reconsideration or new trial must be stated in the petition; otherwise, the petition for certiorari must be dismissed. The importance of the dates cannot be understated, for such dates determine the timeliness of the filing of the petition for certiorari. As the Court has emphasized in Tambong v. R. Jorge Development Corporation: There are three essential dates that must be stated in a petition for certiorari brought under Rule 65. First, the date when notice of the judgment or final order or resolution was received; second, when a motion for new trial or reconsideration was filed; and third, when notice of the denial thereof was received. Failure of petitioner to comply with this requirement shall be sufficient ground for the dismissal of the petition. Substantial compliance will not suffice in a matter involving strict observance with the Rules. .... (Emphasis supplied) Indeed, failure to state the material dates in a petition for mandamus or certiorari is sufficient ground for the dismissal of the Petition under Section 3, Rule 46 of the Rules of Court,l 43 in relation to Rule 65 thereof.144 Here, petitioners filed the Petition for Review, which We treat as a Petition for Mandamus, on December 14, 2020, without any statement of material dates. Thus, the Court is unable to determine whether it was filed within the 60-day reglementary period. Upon perusal of petitioners' evidence, the Court finds that the dates indicated under the heading "date of receipt of BIR response" are dates of respondent's denial letters, not the actual receipt. The date of petitioner Exequiel Balanlay Adora's denial letter was erroneously stated in the Petition and Memorandum 143 SEC. 3. Contents andfiling ofpetition; effect ofnoncompliance with requirements.-... �' In actions filed under Rule 65, the petition shall further indicate the material dates showing when notice of the judgment or final order or resolution subject thereof was received, when a motion for new trial or reconsideration, if any, was filed and when notice of the denial thereof was received.... The failure of the petitioner to comply any of the requirements shall be sufficient ground for the dismissal of the petition. (Emphasis supplied) 144 Wenceslao, et al. v. Makati Development Corporation. G.R. No. 230696, August 30, 2017.

DECISION CTA Caae No. 10420 Reitoh Cold Storage Inc., et a!. vs. Bureau of Internal Revenue Page 24 of49 X--------------------------------------------------------------------X as December 11, 2020, when it should be December 11, 201 9. Moreover, only eleven (11) petitioners received denial letters, while the others did not rece1ve any response from respondent.145 Petitioners denial letters were dated between August 9, 2019 and October 12, 2020. If the Court counts the 60-day period from the date of the latest denialletter, 146 petitioners had until December 11, 2020, to file a Petition for Mandamus or Certiorari. However, the Petition was filed only on December 14, 2020; thus, not one of petitioners has timely filed the Petition. Accordingly, the dismissal of the instant Petition for being time-barred is proper. However, even if the Petition has been timely filed, it must still be dismissed for being moot and academic. The instant petition has been rendered moot and academic by the expiration of the period (or the ava.ilment of Tax Amnesty on Delinquencies. Section 19 of the TAA provides the period for availing of the tax amnesty on delinquencies, viz: SEC. 19. Availment ofthe Tax Amnesty on Delinquencies; When and Where to File and Pay. - Any person, natural or juridical, who wishes to avail of the Tax Amnesty on Delinquencies shall, within one (1) year from the effectivity of the Implementing Rules and Regulations of this Act, file with the appropriate office of the Bureau of Internal Revenue, ... , a sworn Tax Amnesty on Delinquencies Return accompanied by a Certification of Delinquency. The payment of the amnesty tax shall be made at the time the Return is filed. (Emphasis supplied) On April 5, 2019, RR No. 4-2019 147 was issued to implement the provisions of the TAA. It states that all persons with internal revenue tax liabilities for the taxable year 2017 ~ 145 Petition for Review, par. 18, Docket- Vol. I, pp. 34-37; Memorandum for Petitioners, par. 6, Docket- Vol. II, pp. 795-797. l46Jd. 147 Implementing Rules and Regulations (IRR) of Republic Act No. 11213, Otherwise Known as the "Tax Amnesty Act", Providing for the Guidelines on the Processing of Tax Amnesty Application on Tax Delinquencies.

DECISION CTA Case No. 10420 Reitoh Cold Storage Inc., et al. vs. Bureau of Internal Revenue Page 25 of49 X--------------------------------------------------------------------X and prior years may avail of the Tax Amnesty on Delinquencies within one (1) year from its effectivity. 148 On March 16, 2020, RR No. 5-2020 was issued amending RR No. 4-2019. It explicitly provides that the period for the availment of the Tax Amnesty on Delinquencies is until April 23, 2020. Thereafter, RMC No. 33-2020 dated March 24, 2020 149 was issued, moving the deadline for the availment from April 23, 2020 to May 23, 2020. On April 7, 2020, RMC No. 38-2020 150 was issued, extending the deadline from May 23, 2020 to June 8, 2020. Meanwhile, on April 29, 2020, RR No. 11-2020151 was issued, extending the availment period of the Tax Amnesty on Delinquencies from April 23, 2020 to June 22, 2020.152 On June 9, 2020 and June 19, 2020, respectively, RMC No. 61-2020153 and RR No. 15-2020 154 were issued, further extending the availment period from June 22, 2020 to December 31, 2020. 155 Lastly, on December 17, 2020, RR No. 32-2020156 was tvtJ issued, extending the availment period until June 30, 2021. 157 No further extension of the deadline was issued thereafter. 148 SEC. 3. Coverage.- All persons, whether natural or juridical, with internal revenue tax liabilities covering taxable year 2017 and prior years, may avail of Tax Amnesty on Delinquencies within one (I) year from the effectivity of these Regulations, ... 149 Extends Deadline on Availment of Tax Amnesty on Delinquencies Under Revenue Regulations (RR) No. 4-2019 as Amended by RR No. 5-2020. �15 Further Extension of Deadline on Availment of Tax Amnesty on Delinquencies under Revenue Regulations (RR) No. 4-2019 as Amended by RR No. 5-2020 in Relation with Revenue Memorandum Circular (RMC) No. 33-2020 dated March 24, 2020. 151 Amends Section 2 of Revenue Regulations No. 10-2020 Relative to the Extension of Statutory Deadlines and Timelines for the Filing and Submission of any Document and the Payment ofTaxes Pursuant to Section 4 (z) of Republic Act No. 11469, Otherwise Known as "Bayanihan to Heal as One Act," April29, 2020. 152 /d., Section 2, line 34. 153 Further Extension of Deadline on Availment of Tax Amnesty on Delinquencies under Revenue Regulations (RR) No. 4-2019 as Amended by RR No. 5-2020 in Relation with Revenue Memorandum Circular (RMC) No. 33-2020 dated March 24,2020, RMC No. 38-2020 dated April 7, 2020 and RR No. 11-2020 dated April29, 2020. 154 Further Amendments to Revenue Regulations No. 4-2019, as Amended, on Tax Amnesty on Delinquencies, June 19, 2020. 155 /d., SEC. 2. Amendment to Section 3. - Section 3 of RR No. 4-2019, as amended, is hereby further amended to read as follows: "SECTION 3. COVERAGE.- Any person, .. may avail of Tax Amnesty on Delinquencies within one (I) year from the effectivity of these Regulations or until December 31. 2020..... However. the said date may be extended if the circumstances warrant an extension such as in case of country-wide economic or health reasons." (Underscoring on the original) 156 Further Amendments to Revenue Regulations No. 4-2019, as Amended, on Tax Amnesty on Delinquencies, December 17,2020. 157 /d., SEC. 2. Amendment to Section 3.- Section 3 of RR No. 4-2019, as amended, is hereby further amended to read as follows:

DECISION CTA Case No. 10420 Reitoh Cold Storage Inc., et a!. vs. Bureau of Internal Revenue Page 26 of49 x--------------------------------------------------------------------x Hence, when petitioners filed the Petition on December 14, 2020, the effectivity of the extended Tax Amnesty on Delinquencies was about to end on December 31, 2020. In Express Telecommunications Co., Inc., v. AZ Communications, Inc. (Express Telecommunications}, 158 the Supreme Court explained when a case becomes moot, viz.: A case or issue is considered moot and academic when it ceases to present a justiciable controversy by virtue of supervening events, so that an adjudication of the case or a declaration on the issue would be of no practical value or use. In such instance, there is no actual substantial relief which a petitioner would be entitled to, and which would be negated by the dismissal of the petition. Courts generally decline jurisdiction over such case or dismiss it on the ground of mootness. This is because the judgment will not serve any useful purpose or have any practical legal effect because, in the nature of things, it cannot be enforced. (Emphasis supplied) In this case, the supervening issuance of RR No. 32-2020 finally extended the deadline for the availment of the Tax Amnesty on Delinquencies until June 30, 2021, and the subsequent expiration of the period has mooted the present case. Only Congress, in exercising its legislative powers, can extend or fix the effectivity date of the law. As the Supreme Court held, "[i]f the law is too narrow in scope, it is for the Legislature rather than the courts to expand it."I59 It must be stressed that even if the Court disregards the belated filing of the Petition and grants petitioners' prayer, such would be of no practical use since the availment period of the Tax Amnesty on Delinquencies has already expired. As held in Express Telecommunications, no actual substantial relief can be granted to petitioners as the judgment will serve no useful purpose or have any practical legal effect because, in the nature of things, it cannot be enforced. Apart from being moot and academic, the Petition also lacks merit. "SECTION 3. COVERAGE. All persons, ... , may avail of Tax Amnesty on Delinquencies within one (I) year from the effectivity of these Regulations or until June 30.2021, under any of the instances listed below. However, the said date may be extended if the circumstances warrant an extension such as in case of country-wide economic or health reason/s." (Emphasis on the original) 158 G.R. No. 196902, July 13, 2020. 159 Lacson v. Roque, G.R. No. L�6225, 92 Phil. 456,464, January 10, 1953, citing Cornejo v. Naval. G.R. No. L-33648,

DECISION CTA Case No. 10420 Reitoh Cold Storage Inc., et al. vs. Bureau of Internal Revenue Page 27 of49 X--------------------------------------------------------------------X Petitioners failed to satisfy the essential requisites of a Petition for Mandamus. Petitioners pray that the Court mandate respondent to issue the subject CTDs and duly endorsed APFs in their favor to avail of the Tax Amnesty on Delinquencies under RA No. 11213. Section 3, Rule 65 of the Revised Rules of Court provides: SEC. 3. Petition for mandamus. - When any tribunal, corporation, board, officer, or person unlawfully neglects the performance of an act which the law specifically enjoins as a duty resulting from an office, trust, or station, or unlawfully excludes another from the use and enjoyment of a right or office to which such other is entitled, and there is no other plain, speedy and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law, the person aggrieved thereby may file a verified petition in the proper court, alleging the facts with certainty and praying that judgment be rendered commanding the respondent, immediately or at some other time to be specified by the court, to do the act required to be done to protect the rights of the petitioner, and to pay the damages sustained by the petitioner by reason of the wrongful acts of the respondent. The petition shall also contain a sworn certification of non-forum shopping as provided in the third paragraph of Section 3, Rule 46. (Emphases supplied) Accordingly, before a writ of mandamus may be issued, the following requisites must concur: (1) petitioner must show a clear legal right to the act demanded; (2) respondent must have the duty to perform the act because the same is mandated by law; (3) respondent unlawfully neglects the performance of the duty enjoined by law; (4) the act to be performed is ministerial, not discretionary; and (5) there is no other plain, speedy, and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law. 160 The Petition in this case is utterly devoid of merit. As discussed hereunder, the remedy of mandamus is improper. 160 Philippine Statistics Authority (Formerly National Statistics Office) and Philippine Statistics Authority-Legazpi City v. Fero/ino, G.R. No. 238021, June 14, 2021; Molingin v. Sandagan, eta/., G.R. No. 240056, October 12, 2020; Datu Malingin (Lemuel Talingting Y Simborio), et al., v. POJ Sandagan, eta/., G.R. No. 240056, October 12,2020.

DECISION CTA Case No. 10420 Reitoh Cold Storage Inc., et al. vs. Bureau of Internal Revenue Page 28 of49 X--------------------------------------------------------------------X First: Petitioners should have proved a clear legal right to the issuance of the CTDs and duly endorsed APFs. Petitioners insist that they have a legal right to be issued their respective CTDs and APFs because they are eligible to apply for tax amnesty under Section 17 (d)l61 of the TAA, viz.: SEC. 17. Coverage. - There is hereby authorized and granted a tax amnesty herein called the Tax Amnesty on Delinquencies, which shall cover all national internal revenue taxes such as, but not limited to, income tax, withholding tax, capital gains tax, donor's tax, value-added tax, other percentage taxes, excise tax and documentary stamp tax collected by the Bureau of Internal Revenue, including value- added tax and excise taxes collected by the Bureau of Customs for taxable year 20 17 and prior years. For purposes of this Act, the Tax Amnesty on Delinquencies may be availed of in the following instances: (a) Delinquencies and assessments, which have become final and executory ... ; (d) Withholding tax agents who withheld taxes but failed to remit the same to the Bureau of Internal Revenue. (Emphasis supplied) Section 3 of RR No. 4-2019, 162 which implements the above provision of the TAA, states: SEC. 3. Coverage. - All persons, whether natural or juridical, with internal revenue tax liabilities covering Tax Code, as amended, may avail of Tax Amnesty on Delinquencies within one (1) year from the effectivity of these Regulations, !63 under any of the following instances: A. Delinquent Accounts as of the effectivity of these Regulations, including the following: 1. Delinquent Accounts with application for compromise settlement ... ; 161 Item 4, Statement of the Facts, Memorandum for Petitioners. 162 SUBJECT: Implementing Rules and Regulations of Republic Act No. 11213, Otherwise Known as the "Tax Amnesty Act," Providing for the Guidelines on the Processing of Tax Amnesty Application on Tax Delinquencies, Revenue Regulations No. 04-19, April 5, 2019. 163 RR No. 4-2019 was published on April9, 2019, and took effect on April24, 2019.

DECISION CTA Case No. 10420 Reitoh Cold Storage Inc., et al. vs. Bureau of Internal Revenue Page 29 of49 x--------------------------------------------------------------------x 2. Delinquent Withholding Tax liabilities arising from non-withholding of tax; and D. Withholding tax liabilities of withholding agents arising from their failure to remit withheld taxes. (Emphasis supplied) Further, Section 19 of the TAA provides the period for availing of the tax amnesty, viz: SEC. 19. Availment ofthe Tax Amnesty on Delinquencies; When and Where to File and Pay. - Any person, natural or juridical, who wishes to avail of the Tax Amnesty on Delinquencies shall, within one (1) year from the effectivity of the Implementing Rules and Regulations of this Act, file with the appropriate office of the Bureau of Internal Revenue, ... , a sworn Tax Amnesty on Delinquencies Return accompanied by a Certification of Delinquency. The payment of the amnesty tax shall be made at the time the Return is filed. (Emphasis supplied) Whereas RMC No. 57-2019 clarifies the reckoning date, and defines who is qualified to avail of the tax amnesty, viz.: Ql. Who are qualified to avail of the Tax Amnesty on Delinquencies? Al. All persons, whether natural or juridical, with delinquent internal revenue tax liabilities covering taxable year 2017 and prior years, on or before April 24, 2019, may avail of Tax Amnesty on Delinquencies within one year from the effectivity of RR No. 4-2019, under any of the following instances: A. Delinquent accounts: 1. Delinquent Accounts, whether without or with application for compromise settlement, ... ; 2. Delinquent withholding tax liabilities arising from non-withholding of tax; and D. Withholding tax liabilities of withholding agents arising from their failure to remit withheld taxes. (Section 3, RR No. 4-20 19) (Emphasis supplied).

DECISION CTA Case No. 10420 Reitoh Cold Storage Inc., et al. vs. Bureau of Internal Revenue Page 30 of49 x--------------------------------------------------------------------x Here, respondent argues that the lawl64 demands that the tax liability be final and executory or delinquent at the time of its effectivity. Thus, since the IRR 165 took effect on April 24, 20 19, the same should be the reckoning date of the finality or delinquency of the tax liability sought to be applied for amnesty. Respondent further argues that the tax assessments against petitioners were not yet delinquent or have not yet attained finality as of April 24, 2019. Thus, they are not qualified to avail of the tax amnesty. We agree with respondent. To reiterate, petitioners anchor their entitlement to apply for a tax amnesty on Section 17 (d)1 66 of the TAA relative to the tax liabilities of withholding tax agents who withheld taxes but failed to remit the same to the BIR. Based on Section 17(d) of the TAA, as implemented by Section 3 ofRR No. 4-2019, and clarified under Q1/A1 ofRMC No. 57-2019, there are two (2) instances when the TAA may be availed of in case of withholding tax liabilities for the taxable year 2017 and prior years, to wit: (1) Delinquent withholding tax liabilities ansmg from the failure to withhold taxes or non-withholding oftaxes; 167 and (2) Withholding tax liabilities arising from the failure to remit withheld taxes to the BIR.l68 RMC No. 57-2019 explains that the delinquentwithholding tax liabilities arising from the failure to withhold must be delinquent on or before April24, 2019. 169 A delinquent account pertains to a tax due from a taxpayer arising from the audit of the BIR, which had been issued Assessment Notices that have become final and executory.J7o ~ 164 Referring to RA No. 11213 orthe Tax Amnesty Act. 165 Referring toRR No. 4-2019 that became etTective on April24, 2019. 166 Item 4, Statement of the Facts, Memorandum for Petitioners. 167 QI/Al(A)(2), RMC No. 57-2019. 168 QI/AI(D), RMC No. 57-2019. 169 QI/Al, RMC No. 57-2019. 170 Section 2 (A) of RR No. 4-2019 defines a delinquent account to mean as follows: A. Delinquent Account- shall pertain to a tax due from a taxpayer arising from the audit of the Bureau of Internal Revenue (BIR) which had been issued Assessment Notices that have become final and executory due to the following instances: I. Failure to pay the tax due on the prescribed due date provided in the Final Assessment Notice (FAN)/Fonnal Letter of Demand (FLD) and for which no valid Protest, whether a request for reconsideration or reinvestigation, has been filed within thirty (30) days from receipt thereof; ... B. Assessment Notice- ... This tenn includes Final Assessment Notice (FAN)/Fonnal Letter of Demand (FLD) and Final Decision on Disputed Assessment (FDDA).

DECISION CTA Case No. 10420 Reitoh Cold Storage Inc., eta!. vs. Bureau of Internal Revenue X--------------------------------------------------------------------X However, the requirement that tax liabilities must be delinquent does not apply to withholding tax liabilities arising from the failure to remit withheld taxes which may be the subject of Tax Amnesty on Delinquencies at any stage/time of investigation as long as the amount is properly determined by the BIR. 171 Further, Tax Amnesty on Delinquencies can be availed of even if no Assessment Notice has become final and executory on or before April24, 2019, if the tax liabilities pertain to unremitted tax withheld by withholding agents.1 72 A judicious review and study of petitioners' evidence submitted together with the instant Petition reveal that petitioners' deficiency withholding taxes were due to failure to withhold taxes or non-withholding of taxes. 173 Contrary to the averments in the Petition, none of the petitioners appear to be liable for failure to remit or non-remittance of withheld taxes.l74 To qualify for tax amnesty, petitioners withholding tax liabilities must be delinquent or have attained finality as of April24, 2019. More importantly, petitioners must have been issued a Final Assessment Notice (FAN)/Formal Letter of Demand (FLD) or Final Decision on Disputed Assessment (FDDA) that has become final and executory as of April24, 2019.175 Here, out of twenty-two (22) petitioners, only six (6) have attached to the Petition a copy of the FAN/FLD or FDDA; eleven (11) claimed to have received only Notices of Informal Conference (NIC); 176 two (2) received letters from respondent in response to their request for penalty assessment or computation; two (2) did not receive any communication from respondent; and one (1) received a Preliminary Assessment Notice (PAN).m The six (6) petitioners with Assessment Notices attached to the Petition are: Petitioners Notice Received Date We Lead Group FLD/FAN October 25, 2019 Holdings, Inc. Audio-Video Solutions FLD January 10,2019 Cornoration 171 Q7/A7, id 172 Q9/A9(2); QS AS, RMC No. 57-2019. 173 Section 3 (A)(2) ofRR No. 4-2019 and clarified under QI/A I A(2) of RMC No. 57-2019. 174 Section 17 (d) of the TAA and Section 3 (D) of RR No. 4-2019. 175 Section 2 (A), RR No. 4-2019. 176 RMC No. 57-2019: Q8/A8. The tax liabilities as informed during the informal conference are not yet considered delinquent and cannot be the subject of tax amnesty on delinquencies except when the tax liability pertains to unremitted withheld taxes. 177 Par. 15, Petition for Review, Docket- Vol. I, pp. 20-22.

DECISION CTA Case No. 10420 Reitoh Cold Storage Inc., et al. vs. Bureau of Internal Revenue Page 32 of49 x--------------------------------------------------------------------x Alen V. Dragon Corp. FLO October 2, 2019 Icon Reefer Corp. FLO November 28, 2019 G2K Corp. FDDA March 25, 2020 Maxx Energie FLO January 12, 2016 Ventures Corporation Only petitioners Audio-Video Solutions Corporation and Maxx Energie Ventures Corporation have been issued FLDs before April 24, 20 19. However, they failed to prove that the FLDs were unprotested and that their tax liabilities have become delinquent as of April24, 2019. Neither did they provide proof that their protest to the FLDs, if any, had been withdrawn on or before April 24, 20 19 _178 Similarly, the tax liabilities of the other twenty (20) petitioners are not yet delinquent. The documents they attached to the Petition confirm that there is no final and executory assessment against any one of them as of April 24, 2019, that can qualifY them for the tax amnesty. Indeed, records reveal that respondent denied the issuance of the CTDs and the endorsement of the APFs because petitioners' tax liabilities have yet to become delinquent; 179 they were self-assessed tax liabilities for TYs 2018 and 20 19, hence, not covered by the TAA;18o they were not qualified under RMC No. 57-2019, particularly in Q26 and A26;181 they were open stop-filer cases, hence, not covered under RR No. 4-20 19; 182 178 RMC No. 57-2019: Q22. Will the tax liabilities covered by a FAN which was timely protested yet withdrawn on or before Apri\24, 2019 be considered delinquent account qualified for tax amnesty? A22. If the protest was withdrawn on or before April 24, 2019, the tax liabilities shall be considered delinquent from the date of lapse of the period to protest, as if there is no protest filed. The taxpayer shall be qualified to avail of the tax amnesty on delinquencies provided the delinquent accounts pertain to taxable year 2017 and prior years and the period to protest lapsed on or before April24, 2019. 179 Docket- Vol. I. pp. 586-588; pp. 593-600; pp. 604-605; pp. 607-608; p. 609; pp. 610-612; pp. 613-615; p. 616; p. 618; p. 619. 180 Id.. pp. 590-592. 181 Docket- Vol. I. pp. 594-595; pp. 598-599. RMC No. 57-2019: Q26. Under RR 4-2019, Preliminary Assessment Notice (PAN)/Notice for Informal Conference (NIC) or equivalent document is sufficient document of the taxpayer to support the tax liabilities pertaining to unremitted tax withheld. What are those equivalent document being referred to? A26. Equivalent document can be any of the following, provided the same was issued on or before April 24, 2019, and the taxable period involved are 2017 and prior years: a. Letter to the withholding agent demanding remittance of the amount not remitted based on the withholding tax returns filed; b. Letter to the withholding agent demanding the remittance of tax withheld based on the Commission on Audit (COA) reports, for those subject to COA audit; c. Preliminary Collection Letter demanding the payment of tax withheld declared per returns filed 182 RMC No. 57-2019: Ql4. Are open stop-filer cases included in the amnesty? A 14. No, these are not covered under RR No. 4-2019.

DECISION CTA Case No. 10420 Reitoh Cold Storage Inc., et al. vs. Bureau of Internal Revenue Page 33 of49 x--------------------------------------------------------------------x they were only at the informal conference stage; 183 among others. Presented below are the BIR notices or communications to petitioners and respondent's action to their request for CTD release and APF endorsement, viz.: Petitioner BIRAction Reitoh Cold Storage Inc. Denial Letter dated August 9, 2019:184 The deficiency expanded withholding tax was assessed due to failure to withhold. Assessment is not BIR Notice Received - yet considered a delinquent account. NIC dated March 13, 2019 Denial Letter dated September 17, 2019:185 The assessment on deficiency withholding tax was due to non-withholding and not due to non-remittance. Hence, the assessment has yet to become delinguent. Further, only a NIC dated March 13, 2019, was issued and received by Reitoh. We Lead Group Denial Letter dated December 27,2019:186 Holdings Inc. Not qualified to avail of the Tax Amnesty Program (RA No. 11213). Previous letters were sent informing We Lead that it may settle its tax liability through compromise settlement or abatement of penalties in accordance with the provisions of RR No. 30-2002. BIR Notice Received - FLD and Assessment Denial Letter dated February 13, 2020:187 Notice dated October 25, Under RMC No. 57-2019, We Lead has unpaid self- 2019 assessed tax returns filed through EFPS for the taxable years 2018 and 2019. It is required to pay the total basic tax due, and penalties shall be imposed as stated in the NIRC of 1997. Elence Marine and Denial Letter dated February 3, 2020:188 Industrial Corporation Pursuant to Section 2A.l of RR No. 4-2019, its delinquency tax for 2016 is not a delinquent account because it still has a valid protest. Even if no valid protest was submitted by it, the effectivity of RR No. 4-2019 was April 24, 2019. There is no delinquent account as of April 24, 2019, because the Formal Letter of Demand was issued only on October 25, 2019. None BIR Notice Received - 183 RMC No. 57-2019: QS. If the taxpayer is amenable to the deficiency tax resulting from the audit conducted pertaining to taxable year 2017 and prior years, as presented during the informal conference, can the tax liabilities be settled through availment of tax amnesty on delinquencies? AS. The tax liabilities as informed during the informal conference are not yet considered delinquent and cannot be the subject of tax amnesty on delinquencies except when the tax liability pertains to unremitted withheld taxes. 184 Annex P-210A, Petition for Review, Docket- Vol. I, pp. 587-588. 185 Annex P-210, id., p. 586. 186 Annex P-211. id.� p. 589 187 ld.. Annex P-212, pp. 590-591. 188 1d., Annex P-212A. p. 592.

DECISION CTA Case No. 10420 Reitoh Cold Storage Inc., et al. vs. Bureau oflnternal Revenue Page 34 of49 X--------------------------------------------------------------------X Petitioner BIRAction Undated NIC MBPS Cabling Denial Letter dated July 28, 2020:189 Corporation The assessment for EWT resulted from MBPS Cabling Corp.'s failure to withhold taxes on the payment of BIR Notice Received - services, food, commissions, and professional fees. NIC dated January 7, This is not a case of "withholding tax liabilities arising 2020 from failure to remit taxes withheld," as provided in Section 3(0) ofRR No. 4-2019. Likewise, records of the Collection Division revealed that MBPS Cabling Corp. has no records of tax delinquencyJdeficiency/liability account. At the same time, verification with the Legal Division showed no criminal case for tax evasion and other criminal offenses under Chapter II of Title X and Section 275 of the Tax Code, as amended, is pending against MBPS Cabling Corp., nor any final and executory judgment rendered by the courts against it. Garuda Construction Denial Letters dated September 22, 2020 190 and Corporation October 16, 2020:191 Absence of delinguent account, Qending case, final BIR Notice Received - and executory judwent, and eguivalent document in PAN dated July 2, 2018 case of unremitted tax withheld, as required under RR No. 4-2019. Denial Letter dated September 30, 2020:192 There is no valid aQQlication and comQliance for Tax Amnestv as subject taxes are not covered by the RA No. 11213. BCP Dermatological Denial Letter dated August 3, 2020:193 Corporation Subject withholding taxes are not covered by the TAA. BIR Notice Received - NIC dated December 26, 2019 Audio-Video Solutions None Corporation BIR Notice Received - FLO dated January 10, 2019 Dunamis Import-Export Letter dated October 12, 2020:194 Philippines Incorporated Request for APF-Signature and demand to sign/follow up on tax amnesty request are forwarded to Legal BIR Notice Received - Division of RR No. 7A-Quezon City NIC dated March 9, 2020 189 /d., Annex P-213, pp. 593-595; Annex P-214A, pp. 597-599. 190 /d., Annex P-214, p. 596. 1" /d., Annex P-2148, p. 600. 192 /d.., Annex P-215, p. 603. 193 /d., Annex P-216, pp. 604-605, with missing pages and signature page. 1"Jd., Annex P-217, p. 606.

DECISION CTA Case No. 10420 Reitoh Cold Storage Inc., et a!. vs. Bureau of Internal Revenue Page 35 of49 x--------------------------------------------------------------------x Petitioner BIRAction Alen v. Dragon None Corporation BIR Notice Received - FLD dated October 2, 2019 Medev Medical Devices Denial Letter dated December 5, 2019:195 Corporation Medev's case is not a delinquent account that would fall under Section 17 (A) of RA No. 11213, nor is it BIR Notice Received - covered by Section 17 (D) of the same law and NIC dated May 31,2019 reproduced under Section 3 (D) of RR No. 4-2019. Tax Amnesty can be availed only by those: (1) with delinquent internal revenue tax liabilities covering TY 2017 and prior years; and (2) the related assessment notices have become final and executory on or before 24 April 2019. In this case, there was no assessment notice yet that has become final and executory. As of June 7, 2019, the case is still under an Informal Conference. Further, the EWT liabilities arises from non- withholding of interest expense of Medev; thus, there is failure to withhold taxes on the said expense, and not failure to remit withheld taxes. Chrysalis Construction Denial Letters dated October 7, 2019,196 October 18, and Trading 2019197 and October 22, 2019:198 Corporation The subject assessment for taxable year 2016 issued against Chrysalis has not yet attained finality since the taxpayer was able to file timely QrotestLrequest for BIR Notice Received - reinvestigation. Moreover, the said FAN was issued NIC dated July 19,2018 only after the effectivity of RR No. 4-2019. Finally, verification with the records of the Legal Division would show that there is no pending criminal case filed against Chrysalis/its responsible officers for tax evasion and other criminal offenses under Chapter II of Title X and Section 275 of the Tax Code, as amended, nor any final and executory judgment rendered by the courts against the taxpayer. Papisss Inc. None BIR Notice Received - NIC dated May 24,2019 Icon Reefer Corporation None BIR Notice Received - FLD dated November 28, 2019 JRT Canst. and Trading None Corporation 195 !d., Annex P-218, pp. 607-608, with missing signature page. 196 /d., Annex P-219A, pp. 610-612; id., Annex P-219C, p. 616. 197 /d., Annex P-219B, pp. 613-615. 198 /d., Annex P-219, p. 609.

DECISION CTA Case No. 10420 Reitoh Cold Storage Inc., et al. vs. Bureau of Internal Revenue Page 36 of49 X--------------------------------------------------------------------X Petitioner BIRAction BIR Notice Received - NIC dated September 23, 2019 DATALINK Solutions None Technology and Consultancy Inc. BIR Notice Received - None ABBE Technology Letter dated January 21, 2020:199 Solutions Inc. Forwarded to the CIR for appropriate action. BIR Notice Received - NIC dated October 11, 2019 Exequiel Balanlay Adora Denial Letter dated December 11, 20 19:2oo Penalties arising from the non-filing of returnsLo2en BIR Notice Received - cases, self-assessed taxes and electronic Filing and Request for Lease Pavment cases are not included in the TAA20I Contract re: Penalty Assessment (undated) None KEN N RIE Transport, Inc. BIR Notice Received - None R2B2 Realty & Denial Letters dated June 2, 2020:202 R2B2 failed to provide entitlement for the issuance of Development Notice of Issuance of Authority to Cancel Assessment (NIATCA) pursuant to Section 6 of RR No. 4-2019, in Corporation relation to III (1)E of RMO No. 33-2018; endorsed to the Legal Division for appropriate action BIR Notice Received - Letter dated July 1, 2020:203 Letter dated January Stop-filer cases are not covered under RR No. 4-2019 16, 2020 re: request for as they are not considered "delinguent accounts" for computation of penalty purposes of the implementation of RA No. 11213. for unpaid fringe None benefits taxes G2K Corporation BIR Notice Received - FDDA dated March 25, 2020 Maxx Energie Ventures None Corporation BIR Notice Received - 199 ld.. Annex P-220, p. 617. 200 /d., Annex P-221, p. 618, with missing pages and signature page. 201 Petition for Review, no. 17, p. 36. 202 Petition for Review, Annex P-222A, p. 620. 20' /d., Annex P-222, p. 619.

DECISION CTA Case No. 10420 Reitoh Cold Storage Inc., et al. vs. Bureau of Internal Revenue Page 37 of49 x--------------------------------------------------------------------x Petitioner BIR Action FLO dated January 12, 2016 Powersource None Philippines, Inc. BIR Notice Received - NIC dated Mav 18 2020 Clearly, petitioners have no legal right to the issuance of the CTDs and the endorsement of the APFs. Second: Respondent has the duty to perform the act because the same is mandated by law. Third: Petitioners Jailed to prove that respondent neglected to perform any ministerial duty. Fourth: The issuance of CTDs, APFs, and NIATCAs lS a discretionary function of respondent, not a ministerial one. Petitioners claim that they are entitled to avail of the benefits of the TAA as respondent has the ministerial duty to issue in their favor the CTDs, APFs, and NIATCAs after they filed their TAR and APF, albeit without the required endorsement and paid the amnesty tax. The Court disagrees. A writ of mandamus cannot be availed of against an official or government agency whose duty requires the exercise of discretion or judgment.204 A writ of mandamus will not issue either to compel officials to do something which is not their duty to do or which it is their duty not to do or to give to the applicant anything to which he or she is not entitled by law.2os Respondent's authority under the TAA includes determining who is qualified to avail of the tax amnesty under 204 First Class Cadet Aldrin Jeff P. Cudia v. The Superintendent ofthe Philippine Military Academy, G.R. No. 211362, February 24,2015. 205 UyKiaoEngv. Nixon Lee, G.R. No. 176831, January 15,2010.

DECISION CTA Case No. 10420 Reitoh Cold Storage Inc., et al. vs. Bureau of Internal Revenue Page 38 of49 x--------------------------------------------------------------------x the TAA, which is a discretionary function and not merely a ministerial one. A determination that reqmres a review of evidentiary matters and an application of the law and administrative guidelines is considered a discretionary, quasi-judicial function, demanding an exercise of independent judgment on the part of certain public officers.206 Having ascertained from the factual circumstances of the case that petitioners' tax liabilities are not covered under the TAA and its implementing regulations, respondent cannot be compelled to introduce exceptions to the coverage of the TAA nor disregard its provisions. Noteworthy is the case of CIR v. Transfield Philippines, Inc., 207 wherein the Supreme Court explained the nature of a tax amnesty: A tax amnesty operates as a general pardon or intentional overlooking by the State of its authority to impose penalties on persons otherwise guilty of evasion or violation of a revenue or tax law. It is an absolute forgiveness or waiver by the government of its right to collect what is due it and to give tax evaders who wish to relent a chance to start with a clean slate. A tax amnesty, much like a tax exemption, is never favored nor presumed in law. The grant of a tax amnesty is akin to a tax exemption; thus, it must be construed strictly against the taxpayer and liberally in favor of the taxing authority. (Emphasis and underscoring supplied) Respondent is guided by the provisions of the TAA, its IRR as found in RR No. 4-2019 and RMC No. 57-2019, and other related issuances about tax amnesty in exercising its discretion and finally denying petitioners' request for the release of the CTDs and endorsed APFs. Section 5(C) of RR No. 4-2019 provides the step-by-step procedures that taxpayers, like petitioners, must undertake in availing of the TAA, viz.: C. PROCEDURES- The taxpayer-applicant shall: Step 1. Secure the Certificate of Delinquencies/Tax Liabilities from the concerned SIR Office as specified below: 206 See Lihaylihay v. The Treasurer ofthe Philippines Roberto C. Tan, eta/., G.R. No. 192223, July 23, 2018. 207 G.R. No. 211449. January 16,2019.

DECISION CTA Case No. 10420 Reitoh Cold Storage Inc., et a!. vs. Bureau of Internal Revenue Page 39 of49 x--------------------------------------------------------------------x Step 2. Present the duly accomplished TAR made under oath and APF, together with the other required documents, to the concerned RDO/LTD/LTCED for endorsement of the APF and pay the tax amnesty amount with the AABs or RCOs, whichever is applicable, by presenting the RDO/LTD/LTCED-endorsed or approved APF: Step 3. Submit/file immediately to the RDO/LTD/LTCED where the taxpayer is registered, in triplicate copies, the duly accomplished TAR, made under oath, together with the complete documentary requirements and proof of payment, which in no case shall be beyond the one (1) year availment period. The taxpayer/applicant shall be furnished with a copy, stamped as received, of said TAR and APF. Availment of Tax Amnesty on Delinquencies shall be considered fully complied with upon completion of the above enumerated steps within the one (1) year availment period. (Emphasis supplied) On the other hand, RMO No. 23-2019 outlines the basis for issuing the required CTD to the taxpayer.2os From the foregoing, a CTD showing taxpayers' tax delinquencies/liabilities based on the records209 must first be secured from the concerned BIR office having custody or jurisdiction over the taxpayer. A CTD is issued upon determination and verification that the taxpayer's liabilities are delinquent and covered under the TAA. Only upon the issuance of a CTD may a taxpayer be assessed the tax liabilities as indicated above.2JO The taxpayer shall then accomplish a sworn TAR and APF and present them, with the CTD, to the concerned RDO/LTD/LTCED for endorsement. The RDO/LTD/LTCED shall endorse the APF upon receipt of the CTD and sworn TAR, which shall then be presented for payment by the taxpayer with the applicable AABs or RCOs. The sworn TAR, endorsed APF, CTD, and proof of payment shall be submitted to the concerned RDO /LTD/ LTCED for receiving. 211 Here, petitioners avoided the first step in availing of the TAA. They failed to secure their respective CTDs and the duly endorsed APFs before paying the tax amnesty amount. ~ 208 Policies, Guidelines and Procedures in the Processing of Applications for Tax Amnesty on Delinquencies Pursuant to Republic Act (RA) No. 11213 Otherwise Known as the "Tax Amnesty Act," May 8, 2019. 209 Annex "C" ofRR4-2019; Annex "A" ofRMO 23-2019. 210 Part II, Items I and 2, RMO No. 23-2019. 211 Part II, Items 3 to 6, RMO No. 23-2019.

DECISION CTA Case No. 10420 Reitoh Cold Storage Inc., et al. vs. Bureau of Internal Revenue Page 40 of49 x--------------------------------------------------------------------x Hence, contrary to petitioners' claim, they failed to comply with the TAA requirements and to qualify for the tax amnesty. Given the exacting provisions of the TAA, the application for tax amnesty is not a readily demandable entitlement. Respondent acted pursuant to law and existing regulations when it denied petitioners' requests for CTDs, duly endorsed APFs, NIATCAs, and applications for tax amnesty. Absent proof that the rules and regulations are issued beyond respondent's authority or there is a conflict between the TAA and its IRR, respondent's duty has been deemed fulfilled.212 In the absence of a clear legal right on the part of petitioners and the corresponding ministerial duties required by law on respondent that they neglected to perform, a writ of mandamus, being an extraordinary remedy that requires a showing of extraordinary facts,213 cannot be issued. Fifth: Petitioners have other plain, speedy, and adequate remedies in the ordinary course oflaw. Settled is the rule that the special civil action for certiorari, prohibition, or mandamus under Rule 65 of the Revised Rules of Court is available to an aggrieved party only when "there is no plain, speedy, and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law." Otherwise, the petition will not prosper even if the alleged ground is grave abuse of discretion.214 The thrust of the requisite on exhaustion of administrative remedies is that the courts must allow administrative agencies to carry out their functions and discharge their responsibilities within the specialized areas of their respective competence.215 To this end, administrative agencies are afforded a chance to correct any previous error committed in their forum. Furthermore, reasons of law, comity, and convenience prevent the courts from entertaining cases proper for determination by administrative agencies.216 \f/ 212 See People v. Jolliffe, G.R. No. L-9553, May 13, 1959. 213 Bordomeo, et al. v. Court ofAppeals, eta/., G.R. No. 161596, february 20, 2013; See Lamb v. W.H. Phipps, G.R. No. L-7806, July 12. 1912; Garcia v. Sweeney, G.R. No. 1693, February 5, 1904. 214 Bethel Realty and Development Corp. v. Housing and Land Use Regulatory Board, eta/., G.R. No. 184482, July 4, 2012. 215 Ejera v. Merta, eta/., G.R. No. 163109, January 22, 2014, citing Universal Robina Corp. (Corn Division) v. Laguna Lak� Development Authority, G.R. No. 191427, May 30,2011. 216 Gonzales v. Court ofAppeals, G.R. No. 106028, May 9, 2001.

DECISION CTA Case No. 10420 Reitoh Cold Storage Inc., et al. vs. Bureau of Internal Revenue Page 41 of49 x--------------------------------------------------------------------x In this case, petitioners should have exhausted all other available remedies. A motion or request for reconsideration is a plain, speedy, and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law. An appeal to the Revenue Regional Director or the CIR is the assailed letters also an available remedy. Records show that Revenue Officer,217 were signed and sent to petitioners by the RDOs, Assistant Regional Director,21s and Regional Directors. Recourse to the Regional Director and the CIR, who have the authority to review the actions of their subordinates, is similarly available in this case. Another remedy, as suggested in the letter dated December 27, 20192 19 to petitioner We Lead Group Holdings, Inc., signed by Regional Director Albino M. Galanza of RR7A- Quezon City, is compromise settlement or abatement of penalties under RR No. 30-2002. In the case of Lopez v. the City of Manila,22o the Supreme Court ruled that where a remedy is available within the administrative machinery, this should be resorted to before resort can be made to courts, not only to allow the administrative agency to decide the matter by itself correctly but also to prevent unnecessary and premature recourse to courts. Failure to exhaust administrative remedies provided by law, by weight of established jurisprudence, is fatal to one's cause of action. Lest we forget, the law intends to allow the administrative agency to rectify the errors it may have lapsed into before resorting to the courts of justice can be had. The procedural shortcut taken by petitioners finds no justification either in law or jurisprudence, and it is fatal to their Petition. Accordingly, since petitioners have other plain, speedy, and adequate remedies in the ordinary course of law, the instant Petition for Mandamus is an incorrect remedy. 217 1n the case of petitioner Exequiel Balan lay Adora, Docket- Vol. I, p. 163. 218 In the case of petitioner Audio-Video Solutions Corporation, id., pp. 120-125. 219 /d., p. 589. 220 G.R. No. 127139, February 19, 1999.

DECISION CTA Case No. 10420 Reitoh Cold Storage Inc., et al. vs. Bureau of Internal Revenue Page 42 of49 x--------------------------------------------------------------------x Petitioners likewise failed to satisfq the essential requisites of a Petition for Certiorari. Section 1, Rule 65 of the Revised Rules of Court, provides that: Section 1. Petition for certiorari. - When any tribunal, board or officer exercising judicial or quasi-judicial functions has acted without or in excess of its or his jurisdiction, or with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction, and there is no appeal or any plain, speedy, and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law, a person aggrieved thereby may file a verified petition in the proper court, alleging the facts with certainty and praying that judgment be rendered annulling or modifying the proceedings of such tribunal, board or officer, and granting such incidental reliefs as law and justice may require. The petition shall be accompanied by a certified true copy of the judgment, order or resolution subject thereof, copies of all pleadings and documents relevant and pertinent thereto, and a sworn certification of non-forum shopping as provided in the third paragraph of section 3, Rule 46. (Ia) (Emphasis supplied) In essence, for a petition for certiorari to prosper, the following essential requisites221 must concur: 1. The writ is directed against a tribunal, a board, or any officer exercising judicial or quasi-judicial functions; 2. Such tribunal, board, or officer has acted without or in excess ofjurisdiction, or with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction; and 3. There is no appeal or any plain, speedy, and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law. First: The issuance of the letters denying petitioners' requests for CTDs, APFs, or NIATCAs (denial letters) is not a judicial or quasi- judicial act ofthe respondent. ~ 221 Alfredo Tagle v. F-~Juiloble PC! Bank, G.R. No. 172299, April22, 2008, citing Landbank ofthe Philippines v. Court ofAppeals, 456 Phil. 755; Sanchez v. Court ofAppeals, 345 Phil. 155.

DECISION CTA Case No. 10420 Reitoh Cold Storage Inc., et al. vs. Bureau of Internal Revenue Page 43 of49 x--------------------------------------------------------------------x As part of the Executive Department of the government, the BIR is vested with powers to assess and collect taxes. To some extent, it also exercises quasi-judicial and subordinate legislative functions. Respondent's quasi-judicial function is clear under Section 4 of the NIRC of 1997, as amended, to wit: Sec. 4. Power of the Commissioner to Interpret Tax Laws and to Decide Tax Cases. - The power to interpret the provisions of this Code and other tax laws shall be under the exclusive and original jurisdiction of the Commissioner, subject to review by the Secretary of Finance. The power to decide disputed assessments, refunds of internal revenue taxes, fees or other charges, penalties imposed in relation thereto, or other matters arising under this Code or other laws or portions thereof administered by the Bureau of Internal Revenue is vested in the Commissioner, subject to the exclusive appellate jurisdiction of the Court of Tax Appeals. (Emphasis supplied) Quasi-judicial or administrative adjudicatory power vests upon the administrative agency the authority to adjudicate the rights of persons before it. It involves the power to hear and determine questions of fact and, after such determination, to decide in accordance with the standards laid down by law issues that arise in the enforcement and administration thereof. In the performance of quasi-judicial and, of course, judicial acts, there must be a law that gives rise to some specific rights of persons or property from which the adverse claims are rooted, and the controversy ensuing therefrom is brought before a tribunal, board, or officer clothed with power and authority to determine the law and adjudicate the right of the contending parties.222 In the instant case, petitioners assert that the denial of their requests for the issuance of NIATCA after they filed their TARs and APFs and paid the amnesty taxes is a decision ofthe CIR arising under the NIRC and its related laws.223 The Court disagrees. 222 The Department ofTrade and Industry, eta/., v. Danilo B. Enriquez, G.R. No. 225301, June 02,2020. 223 Memorandum for Petitioners, paragraph 5, Docket- Vol. II, p. 798.

DECISION CTA Case No. 10420 Reitoh Cold Storage Inc., eta!. vs. Bureau of Internal Revenue Page 44 of49 x--------------------------------------------------------------------x As indicated above, the denial letters did not come from the CIR, and they are not decisions ofthe CIR arising under the NIRC and its related laws. Thus, contrary to petitioners' claim, the denial of their requests for CTDs, APFs, andfor NIATCAs is neither a decision nor a quasi-judicial act of the CIR. Second: Respondent did not act with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction when the subject denial letters were issued. A Petition for Certiorari under Rule 65 is intended for the correction of errors of jurisdiction only or grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction.224 To successfully bring to court a Petition for Certiorari, petitioners must be able to allege in the pleading that respondent committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction in the issuance of the questioned decision, resolution, or order. What constitutes "grave abuse of discretion" was discussed by the Supreme Court in the case of Tan v. Spouses Antazo,22s to wit: ... it is well-settled that a petition for certiorari against a court which has jurisdiction over a case will prosper only if grave abuse of discretion is manifested. The burden is on the part of the petitioner to prove not merely reversible error, but grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess ofjurisdiction on the part of the public respondent issuing the impugned order. Mere abuse of discretion is not enough; it must be grave. The term grave abuse of discretion is defined as a capricious and whimsical exercise of judgment so patent and gross as to amount to an evasion of a positive duty or a virtual refusal to perform a duty enjoined by law, as where the power is exercised in an arbitrary and despotic manner because of passion or hostility. (Emphasis and underscoring supplied) "Grave abuse of discretion" implies such capncwus and whimsical exercise of judgment as to be equivalent to lack or excess of jurisdiction; simply put, power is exercised in an arbitrary or despotic manner by reason of passion, prejudice, or personal hostility; and such exercise is so patent or so gross as to amount to an evasion of a positive duty or a virtual refusal 224 People ofthe Philippines v. Court ofAppeals, G.R. No. 142051,468 Phil. I, 10, February 24, 2004. 225 G.R. No. 187208, February 23,2011.

DECISION CTA Case No. 10420 Reitoh Cold Storage Inc., eta!. vs. Bureau of Internal Revenue Page 45 of49 x--------------------------------------------------------------------x either to perform the duty enjoined or to act at all m contemplation of law.226 The Revenue Officer, RDOs, Assistant Regional Director, and Regional Directors merely responded to petitioners' various requests when they signed and issued the subject denial letters. A careful review of the letters shows that they are not the "judgment, order or resolution" that may be assailed and raised before this Court under Rule 65. They are regular communication or correspondence issued by BIR officials in reply to a taxpayer's request, as they must act promptly on letters and requests received from taxpayers.227 Moreover, petitioners did not allege the specific acts or omissions constituting grave abuse of discretion on the part of respondent BIR and the concerned officials in the issuance of the assailed letters. Petitioners merely state:228 10. The judicial power to determine whether or not there is grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess ofjurisdiction on the part of Respondent reposed in the CTA is enshrined in the Constitution ... 11. Thus, "(a) petition for certiorari is proper where the impugned dispositions, as in this case, are tainted with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction. Nonetheless, even if there is such an allegation in the Petition, the Court concludes that no grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess ofjurisdiction can be attributed to respondent in holding that petitioners are not covered by the TAA and in issuing the denial letters. As to the third requisite, We already ruled that petitioners have other plain, speedy, and adequate remedies in the ordinary course of law. Hence, We need to refrain from belaboring the same requisite again. Clearly, a Petition for Certiorari is not a proper remedy. ~ 226 Cuison v. Court ofAppeals, 351 Phil. 1089, 1102 (1998); Lalican v. Han. Vergara, 342 Phil. 485,495 (1997); Pure Foods Corp. v. National Labor Relations Commission, G.R. No. 78591, March 21, 1989, 171 SCRA 415, 426; Palma v. Q & S Inc., 123 Phil. 958, 960 (1966). 227 Section 5, Republic Act No. 6713, February 20, 1989, ''Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards for Public Officials and Employees." 228 Memorandum for Petitioners, pars. 10 and II, Docket- Vol. II, pp. 801-802.

DECISION CTA Case No. 10420 Reitoh Cold Storage Inc., et al. vs. Bureau of Internal Revenue Page 46 of49 x--------------------------------------------------------------------x The Petition is marred with procedural or formal infirmities. At this juncture, it is also well to add that the Court noted procedural or formal infirmities in filing the Petition for Mandamus or Certiorari under Rule 65. The assailed denial letters attached to the Petition are all photocopies. The assailed denial letters attached to the Petition pertaining to eleven (11) petitioners are neither duplicate originals nor certified true copies, in violation of Section 1, Rule 65,229 in relation to Section 3, Rule 46. 230 The Petition lacks the proper Verification and Certification of Forum Shopping. Petitioners failed to attach the original or certified true coptes of their respective Secretary's Certificate, Board Resolution, and/or Special Power ofAttorney. While the Petition contains a sworn Verification and Certification of Non-Forum Shopping executed by Ms. Maureen Braza and Ms. Gina Mandigma, the alleged authorized representatives of petitioners, the proof of their authority to sign the Verification and Certification, t.e., Special Power of 229 SEC. 1. Petition for Certiorari.- ... The petition shall be accompanied by a certified true copy of the judgment, order or resolution subject thereof, copies of all pleadings and documents relevant and pertinent thereto, and a sworn certification of non-forum shopping as provided in the third paragraph of Section 3, Rule 46. 230 Section 3, Rule 46 provides: SEC. 3. Contents and filing of petition; effect of noncompliance with requirements.- ... [The petition] shall be ...accompanied by a clearly legible duplicate original or certified true copy of the judgment, order, resolution, or ruling subject thereof, such material portions of the record as are referred to therein, and other documents relevant or pertinent thereto . ... The failure of the petitioner to comply with any of the foregoing requirements shall be sufficient ground for the dismissal of the petition. (Emphasis supplied)

DECISION CTA Case No. 10420 Reitoh Cold Storage Inc., et a!. vs. Bureau of Internal Revenue Page 47 of49 x--------------------------------------------------------------------x Attorney,23t Board Resolution,232 artd Secretary's Certificate,233 are mere photocopies. This casts doubt as to the validity of the representatives' authority to file this petition on behalf of petitioners. In Shipside Incorporated v. Court of Appeals, et al.,234 the Supreme Court stated specific rules regarding verification artd certification against forum shopping, to wit: ... , the lack of certification against forum shopping is generally not curable by the submission thereof after the filing of the petition. Section 5, Rule 45 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure provides that the failure of the petitioner to submit the required documents that should accompany the petition, including the certification against forum shopping, shall be sufficient ground for the dismissal thereof. The same rule applies to certifications against forum shopping signed by a person on behalf of a corporation which are unaccompanied by proof that said signatory is authorized to file a petition on behalf of the corporation. (Emphasis supplied) From the foregoing, when the certification against forum shopping is not accompartied by proof that the signatory thereof is authorized to file the petition on behalf of the corporation, the same is sufficient ground for the dismissal of the action. Petitioners failed to ]Otn as respondents the officers who signed and issued the assailed denial letters. Section 5, Rule 65 of the Revised Rules of Court reads: SEC. 5. Respondents and costs in certain cases.- When the petition filed relates to the acts or omissions of a judge, court, quasi-judicial agency, tribunal, corporation, board, officer or person, the petitioner shall join, as private respondent or respondents with such public respondent or respondents, the person or persons interested in sustaining the proceedings in the court; and it shall be the duty of such private respondents to appear and defend, both in his or their own behalf and in behalf of the public respondent or respondents affected by the proceedings, 231 Supra, note 4. 232 Supra, note 6. 233 Supra, notes 7-26. 234 G.R. No. 143377. February 20,2001.

DECISION CTA Case No. 10420 Reitoh Cold Storage Inc., eta!. vs. Bureau of Internal Revenue Page 48 of49 X--------------------------------------------------------------------X and the costs awarded in such proceedings in favor of the petitioner shall be against the private respondents only, and not against the judge, court, quasi-judicial agency, tribunal, corporation, board, officer or person impleaded as public respondent or respondents. (Emphasis supplied) From the foregoing, when the petition relates to the acts or omissions of a quasi-judicial agency, petitioners shall join, as private respondent or respondents with such public respondent or respondents, the person or persons interested in sustaining the proceedings in the court. Petitioners merely impleaded the agency, the BIR, and not the responsible officials who issued and signed the assailed denial letters and whose alleged acts or omissions have caused petitioners to file this Petition. In sum, there is an abundance of procedural and substantive reasons which are fatal to petitioners' case. The Supreme Court, in many instances, has exercised leniency in applying the rules to dismiss the petition based on mere technicalities. However, petitioners' numerous violations of the rules only show their conscious disregard for the procedure. Nonetheless, even if the Court ignores petitioners' non- compliance with the above essential and formal requisites of the Petition for Mandamus or Certiorari under Rule 65 of the Revised Rules of Procedure, the Petition still fails for having been filed out-of-time and for being moot and academic. WHEREFORE, finding the instant Petition to be without merit, aside from being time-barred and moot, the same is DISMISSED. SO ORDERED. ~dnd LANEE S. CUI-DAVID Associate Justice !CONCUR: r

DECISION CTA Case No. 10420 Reitoh Cold Storage Inc., et al. vs. Bureau of Internal Revenue Page 49 of49 X--------------------------------------------------------------------X 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's Division. ~ f}IS:sq,.une Justice 2nct ....,...,,.v.. Acting Chairperson CERTIFICATION Pursuant to Section 13 of Article VIII of the Constitution, and the Second Division Acting 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's Division. Presiding Justice