CTA Case No. 3568 (Decision)

1:\?'tJ&LIC 0 V i'tiE P&m..WPINn (!OU To~ TAX ... f'P~!.J UUON C!'!il! AURELJO TA YAD, Ge ne r al Manage r, San Pedro Lagu na Transportat ion, San Pedro, Lagun a, Petitioner, - ve rs us - C.T.A . CASE NO. 356 8 COM MI SSION ER OF INT ERNAL REVENUE , Respondent. X- - - - - - - - - - - - ~ - - X DECI S I 0 N Submitted be fore us is the question of ju r is- diction rais e 1 by re sponde nt Co mm issi oner of Internal Revenu e in his special and affirmat iv e de fe ns es e mbodied in the ans wer to the petiti on for rev iew in the i nst ant c ase. It appears tha t pe ' it io ner Aurelio Tayao, gener al man age � an d �sole proprietor of th e �s an Pedro Laguna Tra nsport ati on, a bus company w1th princi pa l offices at Sa n Pedro, Lagu na, wa s as- se ssed the a mou nt of e97,3G3.07 as deficie n cy perce ntage t ax on gros s receipts as a com mo n ca rrier by l and for ~he year 1974 , inclusive of su rcharges and int erest up to June 18, 1979 under le tte r of dema n.d No. IT- 79 -0096 dated May 18, 1979. (Exh. 1, p. 156, BIR r ec . ) l �u .. /

DECISION - CTA CAS E NO. 3568 - 2- In a letter dated June 20, 1979, petitioner prot ested the aforesaid tax assessment. (Exh. 2, p. 160, BIR rec.) On April 20, 1982, Acting Com missi oner of Internal Reven ue Tomas C. Toledo denied -the said protest and reiterated his deman d for paym c nl at \ the sum of ~97,303.07, pertinent portion of the letter of denial is hereun ~ er quoted: 11 Lt vi evi of all the foregoing, y o ur protest has to be, as it i3. hereby denied, for lack of factual and legal basis. You are , therefore, urged to pay the said sum of ~97,303.07, exclusive of in cr e ments that may still be due thereon, to the nearest Collectio~ Offic~, or to tha Chief, Receivable Accounts Division, BIR National Of fice Bldg., Quezon City, within fifteen (15) da ys from receipt hereof, othe r wise th e collection thereof shall be enforced by means of the remedies prescribed by la w. This constitute~ the final decision of this Offi ce on the matter. 11 (Und e r- scoring supplied.) (Exh. 3 , pp. 174-175, BIR rec.) � Admit tedly~ said denial was received by peti- t i o n e r o n S e p t e mb e'r 1 0 , 19 8 2 � ( P a r � 2 , P e t i t i o n for Re vie w.) In a let ter dated Se pte mber 22, 1982 addressed to Acting Ccmmicsioner of Internal Revenue Tomas C. Toledo (Annex B, pp. 8-9, CTA r ec.) petitioner, thr ough his new counsel, reques ted for another chance to meet an d conf~r with respondent in order that the m~tter may be settled once and for all. I' 1' ' /

.: DECISI ON - CT A CASE NO; 3568 - 3- On November 3, 1982, Revenue Se r vice Chief ( Co11 e c t i o n ) Ab don ~~ � Me n di go r i n , i n r e p 1 y t o pet1tion er 1 s request, un de rscor ed the finality of respondent's denial of the protest of peti- tioner on the assessment, the ~e rtinent portion of whi ch reads: "In view of the foregoing and inasmuch as we have given you ample time as a matte r of er;ui i- y and fair- ne ss within which to r~solve this matter wi h our Office, .and consider- ing further that your prote st had been denied by the Ac ting Commi s sioner in his letter to you da t ed April 20, 1982 wh ic h constitutes his final decision on th :~ matter, we have no ot :1 er re- course but to enforce collection thereof by means of the remedies prescribed by law. 11 This letter was received by petitioner on December 13~ 1982. (pp. 12-15, CTA rec.) On January 11, 1983, petitioner fil ed the present petition for review. The so le question to be r 0s olved is whether or not this Court has jurisdiction to entertaiD t hi s appeal. And this in turn depends on which letter of re s pondent Co rn mi.f3sioner of Internal Revenue constitute s the final decision or ruling appealable to this Court . Respondent maintains that this Court has no jurisdi c tion to entertain the pre s ent case for 1l

�. DECISION - CIA CASE NO. 3568 - 4- failure of petitioner to appeal to this Cou rt within thirty (30) days from receipt on Septembe~ 10; 1982 of the final decisi on of respondent on the di s puted as sessment dated April 20, 1982 . Petition e r, on the other hand, cont e nds th at the le tter of the Revenu ~ Se r vice Chief (Collection) dated No vember 3, 1982, which was received by hi m on December 13, 198 2 , cons- ti tuted the final decisio n 3p r� a alable to this Court. \~ e hold tha t the petition for review was filed out of time. The reviewable decision is that con- tained in the letter of Acting Commissions ~ of Internal Rev e nue Tomas C. Toledo dated April 20 ~ 1982 which was received by petitioner on September 10, 198 2 and not the c olle ction letter of Revenue Service Chief (Collec ti on) Abdon M. Mendigorin dated Novemb e r 3, 19 82. No amount of quib b ling or so phistry can blink the fact that said le tter , as its tenor shows, em - bodies r espo~dent 1 s fin a l de cision within the mea ni ng of .Section 7 of Rep ubl ic Act No. 1125. The Act~ng Commissione r of Internal Revenue said so. He in~i- cated in clear and unequivocal language that: "This .... constitutes the final decision of this Off ice on the ma t t e r � 11 He e ven �urge d t h e tax p a y e 1 " to p a y the s a i d sum of B 97~303 a 07, exclusive of increments t ha t may 1 l) ./

. '. DECISION - CTA CASE NO. 35 6 8 - 5- s till be due thereon, to the nearest Collectiori Office, or to the Chief, Receivable Accounts Division, GIR National Office Bldg., Quezon City , within fif - t ee n ( 15 ) days fro m receipt hereof, otherwise the collection thereof s hall be enforced by means of the remedies prescribed by law. 11 This situaticrn was ide ntical 'to St. Ste phen's Association and St. Stephen' s Chinese Girl's School vs. Col1ector of Internal Re ve n ue, I nc. vs. Court of (Tax) Appeals a nd Commjssioner of Int e rna) Revenue , No. 59758, December 26, 1984, 133 SCRA 765.) The directive is in c~nsonance wit h the Supreme Court's dict um that the Commissioner should always indica t e t o the taxpayer in clear and unequivocal language what cons titutes his final determination of the disp uted assess ment. That procedure is de- manded by the pressing need for fair play, r e g~larity and orderliness in administrative action. (Su~igao El e ctric Co . , Inc. vs. Court of Tax Ap p e a ls~ L-25289, June 28, 1 974,� 57 SCRA 523; Advertising Ass ociat es, Inc . vs. Court of (Tax) Appeals .and Commissioner of I.1ternal Revenue, s upra.) It is hardly necessary . to add that Section 7(1) of R ~ p u blic Act No. 1125 pro vides that the Court of ./ . ,.-. r' .-

DECISION - CTA CASE NO 3568 - 6- Tax Appeal s sh all ha ve exclusive appellat~ ju ris- dicti on to review by appeal decisions of the Com- missione r of In t ernal Rev enu e involving dis p ut ed assessments of i nte r nal r evenue taxes, charges or fees im pos ed by t he National Internal Revenue Code or ot her laws adminis tered by the Bur eau of Internal Rev enu e . What is appea lable to the Court of Tax Appeals is the decision of th e Commissioner on a disputed ass oss ment. An ass~ssment becomes a "dispute d assessm ent" where the taxpayer questions the legality thereof and asks th at the same be reconsidered. The de cision on t he request for recons ide ratio n is the decision on the disputed assessment which is app ealable. (St. Stephen 1 s . Association vs . Collector of Internal Revenue, 104 Phil. 314; Bagui o Country Club vs. Collector of Int ernal Revenue, 10 5 Phil. 1269 ; Roman Catholic Archbishop of Cebu vs. Col l ector of Internal Revenue, L- 16683 , J an. 31, 1962, 4 SCRA 279; Commission~ r of Intern al Revenue vs. Villa, L-23988, Jan. 2, 1968, 22 SCRA 4; Commissi one r of Internal Revenue vs. Lili~ Jusay Gon zales, L-19495, Nov. 24, 1966, 18 SCRA 75 7. ) As a matte r of fact, the requirement that an assessme nt must be prote ste d a nd th e de ci sion on 200 ...... ~ ....,...

DECISION - CTA CASE NO. 3568 - 7- . the protest is the one th at is appealable to the Court of Tax Appeals within thirty (30) days from rec eipt of th e said decision; otherwise, the dec i sion shall bec ome final, e xecutory and demandable, i s now expressly provided by law. (See Sees. l6 (d), 319-A, 1 977 NIRC, amended by PO 1773 .) Con sequently, since the final decision dated April 20, 1982 of responde nt. 1�a s . received by peti- tioner on Se pL;mber 10, 1982, and it was o nl y on January 11, 1983 wh en petitio ner filed his petition for revie w with this Court, which is obviously beyond th e thirty-day period of appeal provided under Se .Jtion 11 of Republic Act No. 1125, the assessment had already be co me fin al, executory and demandable. Clearly, this Cou rt no longer has jurisdiction to entertain and determine the cor re ctne s s of the assess me nt . ~! HEREF0 RE, t h e i ns t ant .pe t i t i o n f o r r e vi e v1 is hereby dismissed for lack of jurisdiction at peti- tioner's cos ts. SO ORDE RED. Que zo n Ci t y, Metro Manila, 06tob er 30 ., 1985 � ... Presidin . WE CONCUR:./ 20 .i /