CTA Case No. 5075 (Decision)

31\epnlJlic of tbe ~IJilippines ~upreme C!Court jJlilcmil" FIRST DIVISIO N LUCAS G. ADAMSO N, THERESE G.R. No. 120935 JUNE D. ADAMSON, and SARA S. DE LOS REYES, in their capacities as President, Treas urer and Secretary of Adamson Management Corporation, Petitioners, - ve rsus- COURT OF APPEALS and LIWAYWAY VINZONS-CHATO, in her capacity as Commissioner of the Bureau of Internal Revenue, Respo nd ents. X-- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - X COMM ISSIONER OF G.R. No. 124557 INTERNAL REVENUE, Present : Petitioner, -ve rsus- PUNO, C.J., Chairperson, CARP IO , COURT OF APPEALS, COURT CORONA, OF TAX A PPEALS, ADAMSON LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, and MANAGEMENT CORPORATION, BERSAMIN , JJ. LUCAS G. ADAMSON, THERESE J UNE D. ADAMSON, and SARA Promul gated: S. DE LOS REYES, / Respondents. MAY 21, 2009 X --------------------------------------------~ -X DECI S IO N

Dec ision 2 G.R. Nos. 120935 & 124557 PUNO, CJ.: Before the Court are the co nso lidated cases of G.R. No. 120935 and G.R. No. 124557 . G.R. No. 120935 invo lves a petitio n fo r review on certi orari fil ed by petiti oners LUCAS G. ADAMSON, THERESE JUNE D. ADAMSON, and SARA S. DE LOS REYES (private respondents), in their respective capac ities as pres ident, treasurer and secretary of Adamson Ma nage ment Corporation (AMC) against then Commi ss ioner of Internal Revenue Li wayway Vinzo ns-Chato (COMMISSIONER), und er Rule 45 of the Rev ised Rul es of Com1. They seek to review and reverse the Decision promul gated on March 21, 1995 and Resolution issued on July 6, 1995 of the CoUt1 of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 35488 (Li wayway Vinzo ns-Chato, et al. v. l-Ion. Judge Ern a Falloran-Aliposa, et al. ). G.R. No. 124557 is a petition for rev iew on certi ora ri fi led by the Commiss ioner, assailing the Dec ision dated March 29, 1996 of the Court of Appea ls in CA-G. R. SP No. 35520, titl ed Commi ss ioner of Intern al Revenue v. Court of Tax Appea ls, Adamson Management Co rp oration, Lucas G. Adamson, Therese June D. Adamson and Sara S. de los Reyes. In the sa id Dec ision, the Court of Appea ls upheld the Reso lution promulgated on September 19, 1994 by the Cow1 of Tax Appeals (CTA) in C.T.A. Case No. 5075 (Adamson Management Corporation, Lucas G. Ada mso n, Therese Adamson and Sara de los Reyes v. Commi ss ioner oflntern al Reve nue). The facts, as cull ed from the findings of the appe ll ate court, fo ll ow: On June 20 , 199 0, Lucas Adamson and AMC sold 131,897 common shares of stock in Adamson and Adamson, Inc. (AAI) to APAC Holding

Deci sion 3 G.R. Nos. 120935 & 12455 7 Limited (APAC). The shares were valued at 147,789,995.00. 1 On June '-)'-), 1990, 14159,363.21 was paid as capital gai ns tax for the transaction. On October 12, 1990, AMC sold to APAC Philippines, Inc. another 229,87 0 common shares of stock in AAI forl417 ,7 18,360.00. AMC paid the capital ga ins tax ofP352 ,242.96. On October 15, 1993 , the Commiss ioner issued a ''Noti ce of Tax paye r" to AMC, Lucas G. Adamson, Therese June D. Adamson and Sara S. de los Reyes, informing them of deficiencies on their payment of capital ga ins tax and Value Added Tax (VAT). The notice contained a schedu le for preliminary conferen ce. The events preceding G.R. No. 120935 are the followin g: On October 22, 1993 , the Commissioner filed with the Department of Ju sti ce (DOJ) her Affidavit of Comp laint2 aga inst AMC, Lucas G. Adamson, Therese June D. Adamson and Sara S. de los Reyes for violation of Sections 45 (a) and (di, and 110-l, in relation to Section 1005, as penali zed und er 1 Lw.:osC. rldamsonandriMC 1'. Crl andAPAC Holding Limited, G.R. No. 106879, Ma y '27. 199-L '23:2 SCRA 602. 2 IS. No. 93-58 1. 3 The NIRC uf!he Philippines, .-lnnotated, 16'11 and Revised Ed iti on, No ll edo, J. and No ll edo. M. ( 1993), p. -+ 1-t . Sect ion -t5 . Corporation Returns. - (A) Requirements . - Every corporation, subject to the tax herein imposed . except foreign co rporation s not engaged in trade or business in the Philippines shall render, in dup licate. a tru e and acc urate quarterly income tax rerurn and fina l or adjustment return in accordance wit h the prov isions of Chapter IX of this Title. The return sha ll be filed by the president, vice-president or other principa l officer, and shall be sworn to by such officer and by the treasu rer or assis tant treas urer. XXX (D) Return on Cap ital Ga in s Realized ti�om Sale of Sha res of Stock.- Every corporation de ri ving cap ital gains ti�om the sa le or exchange of shares of stock not traded thru a local swck exchange as prescribed under Secti ons :24 (e) :2 A, :25 (a) (6) (C) (i), 25(b)(5)(C) (i). shail fi le a return within thirty (30) days alter each transactions and a final conso lidated return of all transacti ons dur ing the taxab le )ea r on or before the fifteenth ( 15th) day of th e fourt h (-tth) month fo ll owing th e close or the taxable year. ~ S ECTION II 0. Return and Payment of Valu e-.-ldded Tax. - (A) Whe re to File the Return and Pay the Tax.- Every person subject to va lu e-added tax shall lile a quarte rl y return of hi s gross sales or receipts and pay the tax due thereon to a bank dul) accredited by the Comm iss ioner located in the reven ue district where such perso n is reg istered or req uired to be registered. Howeve r, in cases where there are no dul y accredi ted agen t bnnks with in the city or municipality, the return sha ll be filed and any amo unt due shall be paid to any duly accrt:clited bank wi thin the distri ct. or to the Revenue Di strict Officer. Co ll ecti on Agent or du ly auth orized Treasurer of the city or muni cipality where such tnxpayer has hi s pri ncipa l place

Deci sion 4 G.R. Nos. 120935 & 1245 57 co nt. .. of business. Only one conso li dated retu rn shall be fil ed by the taxpaye.r fo r all the branches and lines of bu sin ess subject to va lue-added tax. If no tax is payabl e because th e amount of in put tax and any amount authori zed to be otfse t aga in st the outp ut tax is eq ual to or is in excess of the output tax du e on the return , th e taxpaye r shall fil e th e return with the Revenue Distri ct Officer, Co ll ec ti on Age nt or authori zed mu nicipal treasu rer where the taxpaye r's principa l place or busi ness is located. (B) Tim e for fi ling of return and payment of tax. - The return shall be til ed and the tax pa id with in 20 days foll ow ing the end of each qu arter spec ifica lly prescribed for a VAT-reg istered perso n under regul atio ns to be promu lgated by the Secretary of Fina nce: Prov ided, however, That any pe rso n whose registrati on is cance ll ed in accordance wi th paragraph (e) of Secti on I07 shall fi le a return wit hin 20 days from the cance llation of such registrat ion. (C) Initi al returns. - The Commiss ioner may prescribe an initia l taxab le period for any VAT- reg istered person for hi s fi rst return , whi ch in no case sha ll exceed 5 months. 5 Supra note 3 at pp. 588-590. Secti on I00. Value -Added Tax on Sale ofGoods. - (A) Rate and Base of Tax.- There shall be lev ied, assessed and collected on every sale. barter or exchange of goods, a va lue-added tax equi va lent to I0% of the gross se llin g price or gross va lue in money of th e goods or properties so ld , bartered or exchanged , such tax to be paid by th e se ll er or tra nsferor: Prov ided. That the fo ll ow ing sa les by VAT- reg istered persons shall be subject to zero pe rcen t (0%): ( I) Export sa les ; and (2) Sales to persons or entitl es whose exem ption unde r spec ial la\\'s or internationa l agree ments to whi ch th e Philippin es is a signatory effective ly subjects suc h sa les to ze ro rate. "Export Sa les" means the sa le and shipment or expo rtat ion of goods h�om the Phil ippi nes to a fo reign co untry, irrespecti ve of any shi pp ing arrange menr that may be agreed upon which may intluence or determine the transfer of ownership of the goods so expo rted , or foreign currency denomin ated sa les. '' Foreign currency denominated sa les," mea ns sa les to nonres ide nts of goods asse mbl ed or manufactured in the Phi lippines, for delivery to res ide nts in the Phili pp ines and pa id for in converti ble foreign cu rrency re mitted through the banking system in th e Phil ippi nes. (B) Transact ions Dee med Sale. - Th e fo ll owin g transac ti ons shall be deemed sa le: ( I) Transfer, use or consumption not in the co urse of business of goods original ly intend ed for sa le or fo r use in the course of busin ess; (2) Di stribution or transfer to: (a) Shareholders or investors as share in th e profits of the registered person ; or (b) Creditors in payment o.f debt; (3) Consignm ent of goods if actual sa le is not made within sixty (60) days fo llo11�ing the date such goods were cons igned; (4) Retirement from or cessat ion of bu siness, with respect to in ve ntori es of taxab le goods ex isting as of such retirement or cessat ion. (C) Changes in or Cessatio n of Status of a VAT-registered Person. - The tax imposed in pa ragraph (a) of thi s Secti on shall also apply to goods di sposed of or ex isting as of a certai n da te if unde r circumstances to be prescribed in Regu lati ons to be promulgated by the Sec retary of Fin ance, the status of a pe rson as a VAT-registered perso n changes or is termin ated. (D) Determin ati on of the Tax .- ( I) Tax bill ed as a se parate item in th e invo ice. - lft he tax is bill ed as a separate ite m in the in vo ice, the tax shall be based on th e gross se llin g pri ce, exc lu din g the tax. ��G ross se lling price" means the total amount of money or its eq uiva lent whi ch the purchaser pays or is ob li gated to pay to the se ll er in co nsiderat ion of the sa le, barter or exc hange of th e �goods, exc ludin g th e va lue-added tax. The exc ise tax, if any, on such goods or properti es shall fo rm part of the gross se llin g pri ce. (2) Tax not bi ll ed se parately or is bill ed erroneo usly in the invo ice. - In case th e tax is not bi ll ed separately or is bill ed erroneo usly in the in vo ice. the tax shall be determined by mul tiplying the gross se lling pr ice, in cludin g th amount inte nded by th e se ll er to cover the tax or the tax bill ed erroneo usly, by th e fac tor II I I 0 1� such fac tor as may be prescribed by regulati ons in case of pe rsons parti all y exe mpt un der spec ial laws. (3) Sa les Return s, All owa nces and Sales Discounts. - The va lue of goods so ld and subsequ ent ly return ed or for whi ch all owances were gra nted by a VAT-registered person may be ded ucted fro m the gross sa les or rece ipts for the quarter in which a refund is made or a cred it memora ndum or refun d is iss ued. Sa les disco un t granted and indicated in th e invo ice at th e time of sa le may be exc lu ded tl�om the gross sa les within the same quarte r. (-1) Authority of the Commi ss ioner to Determin e the Appropriate Tax Base. - The Com miss ioner shall , by regul ati ons, dete rmin e the appropriate tax base in cases where a transac ti on is dee med a sa le, barter or exchange of goods under pa ragraph (b) hereof, or where the gross se llin g pri ce is unreaso nab ly lowe r than th e actual ma rket va lue.

Dec ision 5 G.R. Nos. 120935 & 124557 Secti on 255,6 and for violation of Secti on 253 7 in relat ion to Secti on 252 (b) , and (d) of the National Intern al Revenue Code (NIRC).8 AMC, Lu cas G. Adamson, Therese June D. Adamson and Sara S. de los Reyes filed with the DOJ a motion to suspend proceedings on the ground of prejudicial question, pendency of a civil case \Vith the Supreme Court, and pendency of their letter-request fo r re-investigati on with the Commi ss ioner. After the preliminary investigation, State Prosecutor Alfredo P. Agcaoili found probable cause. The Motion fo r Reco nsideration aga inst the findin gs of probable cause was denied by the prosecuto r. On April 29, 1994, Lucas G. Adamson, Therese June D. Adamson and Sara S. de los Reyes we re charged before the Regional Tri al Court (RTC) of Makati , Branch 150 in Criminal Case Nos. 94-1 842 to 94- 1846. They fil ed a Motion to Di smi ss or Suspend the Proceedings . They invo ked the grounds th at there was yet no fin al assess ment of their tax li ab ility, and there were still pend ing relevant Supreme Court and CTA cases. Initiall y, the trial court deni ed the motion . A Motion for Reconsiderati on was hmvever fi led , thi s time assailing the trial court' s lack of juri sdicti on ove r the nature of the subject cases. On August 8, 1994, the tri al court granted the Motion. It ruled that the complaints fo r tax evas ion fi led by the Commi ss ioner sho uld 6 !d. at I 0:2:2. Sec ti on 255. Penal Liability of Corporations. - An y co rporation, assoc iation or ge ne1�al co- part ners hip liable for any of th e acts or omi ss ions pena lized under thi s Code, in additi on to the penalti es imposed herei n upon the responsible corporate offi cers, partners or emp loyees, shall, upon convicti on. fo r eac h act or omiss ion be tined for not less than ten thousand pesos but not mo re than one hundred thousa nd pesos. 7 !d. at I 0:2 1. Sec ti on 253 . Att empt to evad e or defeat tax.-- Any person who will fu ll y attempts in any manner 10 evade or defea t any tax imposed und er th is Code or the payment th ereo f shall , in additi on to other penalties prov ided by law, upon convicti on thereof, be fin ed not more than ten th ousand pesos or impri so ned for not more than two years, or both . 8/d , pp . 1020-10:2 1. Sec ti on 252. Gen eral provisions. XXX (b) Any person who will full y aids or abets in the co mmi ss ion of a crime pena lized herein or who ca uses the com mi ssio n of any such offen se by another, shall be liabl e in the sam e manner as the pr incipa l. XXX (d) In the case of assoc iat ions, pan nershi ps, or corporati ons, the penalty shall be imposed on th e partner, pres ident, ge neral manager, branch manager, treasurer. ofti cer-in -charge . and employees responsib le for the violat ion.

Dec ision 6 G. R. Nos. 120935 & 124557 be regard ed as a decision of the Commi ss ioner regardin g the tax li abiliti es of Lucas G. Adamson, Th erese June D. Adamson and Sara S. de los Reyes, and appea labl e to the CTA. It further held that the sa id cases cannot proceed independently of the assessment case pending before the CTA, whi ch has j uri sdi ction to determ ine the civil and criminal tax liability of th e respond ents therein. On October 10, 1994, the Commi ssioner t1 1ed a Petiti on fo r Rev ie\V with the Court of Appeals assai ling the tri al court' s di smi ssal of the crimin al cases. She ave rred th at it was not a cond ition prerequi site that a fo rm al assessment should first be given to the private respondents before she may fil e th e afo resa id crim inal comp laints aga in st them. She argued that the crimin al complaints for tax evas ion may proceed independentl y from the assessment cases pending before the CTA. On March 21, 1995 , the Court of Appea ls reversed the tri al co urt's dec ision and re in stated the criminal compl aints. The appell ate co urt held that, in a criminal prosecution for tax evasion , assessment of tax defi ciency is not required because th e offense of ta x evasion is co mpl ete or co nsummated when th e offend er has kn ow in gly and w illfully fi led a fr audul ent return with intent to eva de th e tax .9 It ruled th at priva te res pond ents fil ed false and fraudul ent return s with intent to eva de taxes, and actin g th ereupon , petiti oner fil ed an Affid av it of Co mpl aint with th e Departm ent of Ju stice, with out an acco mpany in g assessment of th e tax defi ciency of private respond ents, in ord er to co mm ence cn.mm. aI ac ti.On aga m. st the Iatter for tax evasiO. n. 10 Private respondents fi led a Motion for Reconsiderati on, but the tri al court deni ed th e moti on on Jul y 6, 1995. Thus, th ey fil ed the petit io n 111 G.R. No. 120935 , raising the foll owing issues : 9 Rollo. p. 65 . II! f d_ 3 \ 6-\ .

Dec ision 7 G. R. Nos . 120935 & 124557 I. WHETHER OR NOT THE RESPONDENT HONORABLE COU RT OF APPEALS ERRED IN APPLYING � THE DOCTRINE IN UNGA13 V. CUS I (Nos. L-4 1919-24, May 30. 1980, 97 SCRA 877) TO THE CASE AT BAR. 2. WHETHER OR NOT AN ASSESSMENT IS REQU IRED UNDER THE SECOND CATEGORY OF THE OFFENSE IN SECTION 253 OF THE NIRC. 3. WHETHER OR NOT THERE WAS A VALID ASSESSMENT MADE BY THE COMM ISS IONER IN THE CASE AT BAR. 4. WHETHER OR NOT THE FILING OF A CR IMINAL COM PLAINT SERVES AS AN IMPLIED ASSESSMENT ON THE TAX LIABILITY OF THE TAXPAYER. 5. WHETHER OR NOT THE FILING OF THE CRIMINAL INFORMATION FOR TAX EVASION IN THE TRIAL COURT IS PREMATURE BECAUSE THERE IS YET NO BASIS FOR THE CRIMINAL CHARGE OF WILLFULL INTENT TO EVADE THE PAYMENT OF ATAX. 6. WHETHER OR NOT THE DOCTRINES LAID DOWN IN THE CASES OF YABES V. FLOJO (No. L-46954, July 20, 1982, 11 5 SCRA 286) AND CIR V. UNION SHIPPING CORP . (G .R. No. 66 160, May 21, 1990, 185 SCRA 547) ARE APPLI CAB LE TO THE CASE AT BAR. 7. WHETHER OR NOT THE COURT OF TAX APPEALS HAS JURISDI CTION OVER TH E DI SPUTE ON WHAT CONSTITUTES THE PROP ER TAXES DUE FROM THE TAXPAYE R. In parall el circumstances, the following events preceded G.R. No. 124557 : On December 1, 1993, AMC, Lucas G. Adamson, Therese June D. Adamson and Sara S. de los Reyes fi led a letter request fo r re- investigation with the Commi ss ioner of the "Examiner's Findings" earli er issued by the Bureau of Intern al Revenue (BTR), whi ch pointed out the tax deficiencies. On Ma rch 15, 1994 before the Commi ss ioner could act on their letter- request, AMC, Lucas G. Adamson, Therese June D. Adamson and Sara S. de los Reyes fil ed a Petition for Rev iew with the CTA. �They assa il ed the Commi ss ioner's findin g of tax evasion against them. The Commi ss ioner moved to di smi ss the petition , on the ground that it was premature, as she

Decision 8 G.R. Nos . l20935 & !24557 had not yet issued a formal assessment of the tax li abi lity of therein petitioners. On September 19, 1994, the CTA denied the Motion to Dismiss. It cons idered the criminal complaint filed by the Commi ssioner with the DOJ as an implied formal assessment, and the filing of the crim ina l informations with the RTC as a denial of petitioners' protest regarding the ta x deficiency . The Commi ss ioner repaired to the Court of Appea ls on the ground that the CTA acted with grave abuse of discretion. She contended that, with regard to the protest provided under Section 229 of the NlRC, there must first be a formal assessment issued by the Commissioner, and it must be in accord with Section 6 of Revenue Regulation No. 12-85 . She maintained that she had not yet issued a formal assessment of tax li abi lity, and the tax defic iency amounts mentioned in her criminal compl ai nt with the DO.J \,vere give n on ly to show the difference between the tax returns filed and the aud it findings ofthe revenue examiner. The Cou rt of Appeals sustai ned the CTA' s denial of the Commi ss ioner's Motion to Di smi ss. Thus, the Commi ss ioner tiled the petition for rev iew under G.R. No. 124557, raising the fo llowing issues: 1. WHETHER OR NOT THE INSTANT PETITION SHOULD BE DISMISSED FOR FAlLURE TO COMPLY WITH THE MANDATORY REQUIREMENT OF A CERTIFICATION UNDER OATH AGA INST FORUM SHOPPING ; 2. WHETHER OR NOT THE CRIM INAL CASE FOR TAX EVAS ION IN THE CASE AT BAR CAN PROCEED WITHOUT AN ASSESSMENT; 3. WHETHER OR NOT THE COMPLAINT FILED WITT-I THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE CAN BE CONSTRUED AS AN IMPLIED ASSESSMENT; and 4. WHETHER OR NOT THE COURT OF TAX APPEALS HAS JURISDICTION TO ACT ON PRIVATE RESPOND EN TS. PETlTION FOR REV IEW FILED WITH THE SAID COURT. The issues in G. R. No. 124557 and G.R. No. 120935 can be compressed into three :

Deci sion 9 G.R. Nos. 120935 & 124557 1. WHETHER THE COMMISSIONER HAS ALREADY RENDERED AN ASSESSMENT (FORMAL OR OTHERWISE) OF THE TAX LIABILITY OF AMC, LUCAS G. ADAMSON, THERESE JUNE D. ADAMSON AND SARA S. DE LOS REYES; 2. WHETHER THERE IS BASIS FOR THE CRIMI NA L CASES FOR TAX EVASION TO PROCEED AGAINST AMC, LUCAS G. ADAMSON, THERESE JU NE D. ADAMSON AND SARA S. DE LOS REYES; and 3. WHETHER THE COURT OF TAX APPEALS HAS .JURI SDICTION TO TAKE COGNI ZANCE OF BOTH THE CIVIL AND THE CRIMI NAL ASPECTS OF THE TAX LI ABILITY OF AMC, LUCAS G. ADAMSO N, THERESE JUNE D. ADAMSON AND SARA S. DE LO S REYES. The case of CJR v. Pascor Realty, et al. 11 is relevant. In this case, then BIR Commi ss ioner Jose U. Ong authorized revenue officers to exam ine the books of accounts and other accounting records of Pascor .Realty and Deve lopment Corporation (PRDC) for 1986, 1987 and 1988. This res ulted in a recommendation for the issuance of an assessment in the amounts of P7 ,498 ,434.65 and P3,0 15,236.35 for the years 1986 and 1987, respecti vely. On March 1, 1995, the Commi ssioner fi led a crimina l complaint before the DOJ against PRDC, its President Rogelio A. Di o, and its Treasurer Virgin ia S. Dio, all eging evasion of taxes in the total amo unt of p 10,513,671.00. Private respondents filed an Urgent Request for Reconsideration/Reinvestigation disputing the tax assess ment and tax li abi lity. The Comm issioner deni ed the urgent req uest for reconsideration/reinvestigation because she had not yet issued a formal assessment. Private respondents then elevated the Decision of the Commissioner to the CTA on a petition for review. The Commi ssioner fi led a Motion to Dismiss the petition on the grou nd that the CTA has no jurisdiction over the 11 G. R. No. 1283 15, Jun e 29. 1999, 309 SCRA 402 .

Decision 10 G.R. Nos. 120935 & 124557 subj ect matter of the petition , as there was yet no formal assessment issued aga in st th e petiti oners. The CTA deni ed th e sa id motion to di smiss and ordered the Comm issioner to file an ans\ver within thirty (30) days. The Com missioner did not file an answer nor did she move to reconsider the reso lution. In stead, the Commissioner filed a petition for review of the CTA deci sion with th e Court of Appeals . The Court of Ap pea ls uph eld the CTA order. However, this Court reve rsed th e Court of Appeals decision and th e CTA order, and ordered the di sm issal of the petition . We held : An assessment co ntains not onl y a computat ion of tax li abiliti es. but also a demand for payment within a prescribed period. lt also signals the tim e when penalties and interests begin to accrue agai nst the taxpayer. To enable the taxpayer to determine hi s remedies thereon, due process requires that it must be served on and received by the ta xpaye r. Acco rdingly, an affidav it, whi ch was executed by revenue officers stating the tax li abiliti es of a tax paye r and attached to a crim inal comp laint for tax evas ion , cannot be deemed an assessment that can be questioned before the Co urt ofTax Appeals. Neither the NIRC nor the revenue regu lations governing the protest of assessments12 provide a specifi c defin ition or form of an assessment. l-l ovvever, the NlRC defines the spec ifi c fu nct ions and effec ts of an assess ment. To consider the aftidavit attac hed to the Co mpl aint as a proper assessme nt is to subve rt the nature of an assessment and to set a bad precedent that will prejud ice innocent taxpaye rs. True. as pointed out by the pri vate respo ndents, an assessment informs the taxpaye r that he or she has tax li ab iliti es. But not all doc um ents co ming from the BIR containing a computation of the tax li ab ility can be deemed assessments . To start with , an assess ment must be sent to and rece ived by a taxpaye r, and must demand payment of the taxes described therein with in a specific peri od. Thus , the NIRC imposes a 25 percent penalty, in add iti on to the tax due, in case the taxpayer fa il s to pay the defi cienc y tax within the time prescribed for its payment in the noti ce of assessment. Likewise, an interest of 20 percent per an num , or such hi gher rare as may be presc ribed by rul es and regul ations, is to be co ll ected from the date prescribed for its payment until the full payment .13 11 Revenue Re!.!.u lar ion No. I:Z-85. 11NIRC ( 1997) ��sec. 105. Remedies for th e Co ll ec tion of Delinquent Taxes. -- The civil remedies lor the collec ti on or int erna l reven ue, fees , or charges, and in crement thereto resulting from de linqu ency shall be: (a) By distraint of goods. chatte ls, or effects. and other personal prope rty of whatever characte r, in cluding stocks and other sec urities, debts , cred it s. bank accou nt s. and interest in an d ri ghts to persona l property, and by levy upon rea l property and in terest in or ri ghts to rea l property; and (b) By civi l or crimin al action. Either of these remed ies or both simu ltaneously may be pursued in the discretion of the author iti es charged wi th th e co ll ecti on of such taxes: Pruvided. holl'ever. That th e remedies of distraint and levy shall not be availed of where the amount of tax in vo lved is not more th an One hun dred pesos (PI 00).

Decision II G.R. Nos. 120935 & 124 557 The issuance of an assess ment is vital in determining the peri od of limitati on regarding its proper issuance and th e period within \\ hi ch to protest it. Section 203 14 of the NIRC provides that internal reven ue taxes mu st be assessed \�Vithin three years from the last day within which to fil e the return. Section 222. 15 on the other hand , spec ifi es a period of ten yea rs in case a fraudulent return with intent to evade was submitted or in case or failure to file a return . Also. Secti on 228 16 of the same lm\ states cont. .. The judgment in th e crim in al case shall not only impose the penal ty but shall also orde r J.j /d payment of the taxes subject of the crimina l case as tinall y decided by the Co mmi ss ioner. The Burea u of Intern al Reve nue shall advance the amoun ts needed to defray costs of co ll ec ti on by mean s of civi l or cr iminal action. inc luding the preservation or tran sportation of persona l property di strainee! and the advertise ment and sa le thereat~ ns we ll as of rea l property and improvements thereon." ��SEC. 203 . f'aiud oj"Limilalion Upon _-j ss<!ssment and Colleclion . --Except as provided in Sect ion 222, internal reve nu e taxes shall be assessed within three (3) yea rs atter the last day presc ribed by law for !he liling of the return , and no proceeding in court without assessment for the col lec ti on or such taxes shall be begun alier th e exp irati on of such per iod: Provided, That in a case where a return is lil ed beyond !he per iod prescribed by lall", the three (3)-yea r period shall be co unted from th e da y the return was til ed. For purposes or thi s Secti on , a return filed before the last da y prescribed by law for th e tiling th ereof shall be considered as lil ed on such last day." I; fc/. ��sec. 222 . Exceptions as to Period oj"Limiwtion of...Jssessmenl and Collection of'Taxes. - (a) In the case of a fa lse or fr audul ent return with intent to evade tax or of t~1ilure to li le a return , the tax may be assessed. or aproceeding in court for the collecti on or such tax may be til ed with out assess ment, at any tim e within ten ( I0) yea1�s atie r th e disco very or the ral sity, fraud or omiss ion: f'ro,�ided, That in a fraud assessme nt whi ch has become tina\ and execu tory, the fac t of !i�a ud shall be judic iall y taken cogni zance of in the civil or crimin al ac ti on for the co ll ecti on thereof. (b) If before the exp irat ion of the time prescribed in the Section 203 for the assessme nt of the tax , both the Com mi ss ioner and th e taxpayer have agreed in writing 10 it s assess ment after such tim e, the tax may be assessed with in the period agreed upon. The period so agreed upon may be extend ed by subseq uen t written agreement made before th e exp irati on of the period previously agreed upon. (c) Any interna l reve nu e tax which has been assessed within th e period of limitation as prescribed in paragrap h (a) hereof may be co ll ected by di straint or levy or by a proceeding in co urt wi1hin ti ve (5) yea rs fol low in g the assessme nt of the tax. (d) Any inte rnal reven ue tax , whic h has been assessed wi thin the period agreed upon as prov ided in paragraph (b) herein above, may be col lected by distra int or levy or by a proceed ing in co urt within the period agreed upon writing before the ex piration of the tive (5)-year period. The period so agreed upon may be extended by subseque nt written ag t�ee mc:nt s made before the exp iration of the period previou sly agreed upon. (e) f'nJl'ided. ho11"e1-er. That nothin g in the immediat ely preceding Sect ion and paragraph (a) hereof shall be constru ed to authorize th e examination and in1 estigation or inquiry into any tax return fil ed in acco rd ance with the provisio ns of any tax amn esty law or decree." J(' / d ��section 228 . !'ro1esting of" ...Jssessme/11. -- When the Commiss ioner or hi s du ly authorized rc:p resentative li ncls that proper taxes should be assessed. he sha ll tirst notify th e taxpayer of hi s !inclings: f1r ol"ided lumerer, That a rea ssess ment not ice shall not be required in th e fo ll 011 in g cases: (a) When the find in g for any deficiency tax is the resu lt of mathematical error in the computation of the tax as appea ring on the face of th e return: or (b) When a di screpancy has been determined between th e tax withhe ld and !he amount actually remitted by the withho ldin g agent; or (c) When a taxpayer who opted to cla im a refund or tax cred it of e:-;cess crediwble wi thh oldi ng tax for a taxab le period was dete rmin ed to have ca rried over and automatica ll y appli ed the same amou nt claimed agai nst th e est im ated tax li abilities for the taxable quarter or quarters of th e succeed in g taxab le yea r; or (d) When the exc ise tax due on e:-;c isab le arti cles has not bee n paid: or (e) When an art icle loca lly purc hased or impo11ed by an exempt perso n. such as. but not limited to, ve hi cles, ca pital eq uipm ent, machineries and spare pa rts, has been so ld . 1raded or tran sferred to non-exempt pe rso ns. The taxpayer shall be informed in wr itin g of th e law and the fact s on wh ich the assessment IS made: otherw ise. th e assess men t shall be vo id.

Dec ision 12 G. R. Nos . 120935 & 124557 that sa id assessment may be protested onl y within thirty days from rece ipt thereof Necessaril y, the taxpayer must be ce rtain that a spec ific doc um ent co nstitutes an assess ment. Oth erwise, confus ion \�Vou ld ari se rega rdin g th e peri od within whi ch to make an assess ment or to protest the same, or whether interest and penalty may acc rue thereo n. It shoul d also be stressed that the sa id doc ument is a no ti ce dul y se nt to the tax paye r. Indeed, an assessment is deemed made onl y when the co ll ector of internal revenue releases, mai ls or sends such notice to the tax paye r. 17 ln the present case, the reve nue offi cers' Aftidav ir merely contained a computati on of respondents' tax li ability. lt did not state a de mand or a peri od for pay men t. Wo rse, it was addressed to the justice secretary. not to the tax paye rs. Res pondents maintain th at an assessment. 1n relati on to taxation. 1s sim ply und erstood to mean: '�A notice to the effect that the amount therein stated is due as tax and a demand fo r payment thereof " 18 "" Fi xes the li ability of the taxpaye r and ascerta ins the facts and furni shes the data fo r the proper present ati on of tax roll s..' 19 Eve n these definiti ons fail to adva nce private res pondents' case. That the BlR examiners' Joint Affid av it attac hed to the Crim inal Complai nt contained some detail s of the tax li abiliti es or pri vate respondent s does not ipso fac to make it an assessment. The purpose of the Joint Afli dav it was mere ly to support and substanti ate the Criminal Compl aint for tax evas ion . Clearl y, it was not meant to be a noti ce of the tax due and a demand to the private res pond ents for payment thereof. The fac t that the Co mplaint itself was spec ifi ca ll y directed and se nt to the Departm ent of Justi ce and not to pri vate res pondents shows that the intent of the commi ssioner was to fil e a criminal compl aint lor tax evasion, not to issue an assessment . Although the revenue offi cers reco mmend ed the issuance of an assessment, the comm iss ioner opted instead to til e a criminal case fo r tax evas ion. What private responden ts rece ived \.Vas a noti ce from the DOJ that a criminal case to r tax evasion had been fil ed aga inst them, not a noti ce that the Bureau of Internal Revenue had made an assessment. Pri vate responde nts maintain that the filin g of a crimin al co mpl aint must be preceded by an assessment . Thi s is in correc t. because Section 222 or the NIRC spec ifi ca lly states that in cases �where a fa lse or fraudul ent return is submitted or in cases of fa ilure to fil e a return such as thi s case, proceedings in court may be commenced )IIi/haul an ossessmem. Furtherm ore, Section 205 of the same Code clearl y mandates that the civil and criminal aspects of the case may be pursued simul ta neo usly. In cont. .. \Vith in a period to be prescribed by implementing ru les and regu lat ions. th e ta x pa)\~ r shall be required to respond to said not ice. lf th e taxpayer fails to respond. the Co mmiss ion er or hi s dul) autho rized rep rese nt ative shall iss ue an assess ment based on hi s fi nd ings.'� 17 Basi/an E.1U11es 1�. Com111iss ioner ol lmernal ReFenue, No. L-:2:2492 . Septe mbe r 5, 1967. 21 SC RA 17. 1 ~ Citing Phi lipp ine Law Dict ionary, 2nd ed., p. 49 . 1\ 'iting Black 's Law Dicti ona ry. 5th ed. , p. 107 .

Deci sion 13 G.R. Nos . 1:20935 & 124557 Ungab v. Cusi,20 petitioner therein sought the di smi ssa l of the crimin al Compl aints for being premature. since his protest to the CTA had not yet been reso lved. The Court held that such protests could not stop or suspend the criminal action which was independent of the reso luti on of the protest in the CTA. Thi s was because the commi ssioner of internal revenue had , in such tax evasion cases, di scretion on whether to issue an assessment or to fil e a criminal case against the taxpayer or to do both. Pri vate respondents in sist that Section 222 should be read in relation to Section 25 5 of the NIRC,21 whi ch penali zes fa ilure to fil e a return . They add that a tax assessment should precede a criminal indi ctment. We di sagree. To reiterate, said Section 222 states that an assessment is not necessary befo re a criminal charge can be fil ed. This is the genera l rule. Private respondents failed to show that they are ent itl ed to an excepti on. Moreover, the criminal charge need only be supported by a prima focie showing of failure to file a required return . This fact need not be proven by an assessment. The issuance of an assessment must be di stingui shed from the filing of a complaint. Before an assessment is iss ued, there is. by practi ce. a pre- assess ment notice sent to the taxpayer. The taxpayer is then given a chance to submit position papers and docum ents to prove that the assessment is unwarranted. lf the commissioner is unsati sfi ed, an assess ment signed by him or her is then sent to the taxpayer in forming the latter spec ifi call y and clearl y that an assessment has been made against him or her. In contrast, the criminal charge need not go through all these. The criminal charge is filed directl y with the DOJ. Thereafter, the taxpayer is notified that a criminal case had been filed against him , not th at the com mi ss ioner has issued an assessment. It must be stressed.that a criminal com pl ai nt is instituted not to demand payment, but to penali ze the taxpayer for \'iolation of the Tax Code. In the cases at bar, the Commissioner denied that she issued a formal assess ment of the tax liability of AMC , Lucas G. Adamson , Therese June D. Adamson and Sara S. de los Reyes. She admits though that she \v rote the recomm endation letter-?-I addressed to the Secretary of the DOJ recommendin g the filing of criminal complaints against AMC and the aforecited persons for fraudulent returns and tax evasion. 111 Nos. L--1 I9 I9-24, May 30. I980. 97 SCRA 877. 21 ��SEC 255 . Fa ilure to Fi le Return . Suppl y Correct an d Acc urate In formation. Pa y Ta\, Withhold and Remit Tax and Refund Excess Taxes Withh eld on Co mpensati on. -- An y person req uired und er thi s Code or by rul es and regu lat ions promulgated thereund er to pay any tax , make a return. keep any reco rd , or supp ly co n�ect and accu rate any informati on, who willfull y fail s to pay such tax , make suc h return , keep such reco rd , or suppl y correct and acc urate information. or withho ld or remit taxes withh eld. or rel"unJ excess taxes withh eld on compensation, at the time or tim es required by law or rules and regul ati ons shall , in additio n to other pe nalt ies provid ed by law, upon convict ion thereo f, be punished by a line of not less th an one ( I) year but not more than ten ( I0) years. Any person who attempts to make it ap pea r for any reaso n that he or ano th er has in fact liled a return or state ment, or actu all y til es a retu rn or statement and subsequentl y withdraws the sa me return or statement after sec uring th e ofticial rece iving sea l or stamp of rece ipt of an internal revenu e office where in the sa me was actually filed shall , upon co nvicti on th erefor, be punis hed by a tine of not less than Ten th ousand pesos (P I0.000) but not more than Twenty thou sa nd pesos (P20,000) and sul"fer impri son ment o � not less th an one ( I) year but not more than three (3) years." 22 Ann ex �� f ," rolla (G. R. No. 120935), pp. 252-258.

Dec ision !4 G. R. Nos. !:20935 & !24557 The first issue is whether the Co mmi ss ioner's recommendation letter can be considered as a for mal assessment of pri vate respondents' tax li ab ility. fn the context in whi ch it is used in the NIRC, an assess ment is a written noti ce and demand made by the BIR on th e taxpaye r fo r the settlement of a clue tax li ability th at is there definitely set and fixed. A \Vritte n com muni cati on containing a computati on by a revenue offi cer of the tax li ab il ity of a tax payer and giving him an opportunity to contest or di sprove th e BIR exa miner's findin gs is not an assessment since it is yet inclefinite. 23 We rul e that the recomm endation letter of the Commi ss ioner cannot be considered a form al assessment. Even a cursory perusa l of the sa id letter wo uld revea l three key points: l . rt was not addressed to the taxpayers. 'I Th ere was no demand made on the taxpayers to pay the tax li ab ility, nor a period for pay ment set therein . 3. The letter was never mail ed or sent to the tax paye rs by the Commi ss ioner. In fin e, th e said recomm endation letter served merely as the prima fo cie bas is for filin g criminal informati ons th at the taxpaye rs had violated Section 45 (a) and (d), and 110, in relati on to Section \00 , as penali zed unde r Secti on 255, and for viol ation of Secti on 253 , in relation to Secti on 252 9(b) and (d) of th e Tax Cod e . 2~ The next issue is whether the filin g of the criminal comp laints aga in st the pri vate res pond ents by the DOJ is premature fo r lack of a fo rm al asse ss ment. 2�' Tax La\\' and Juri sprud ence, 2"d Edit ion , Vitug, J. and Acos ta. E., (2000 ). p. 28 2. 24 Supra , 3-8 .

Decision 15 G.R. Nos. 120935 & 124557 Section 269 of the NTRC (now Section 222 of the Tax Refo rm Act of 1997) provides: Sec. 269. Excepti ons as to period of limitation of assessment and co ll ection of taxes.-(a) In the case of a false or fraud ul ent return \\ith intent to evade tax or of failure to file a return , the tax may be assessed, or a proceeding in court afte r the co llection of such tax may be begun without assessme nt, at any time within ten years afte r the discovery of the falsit y, fraud or omi ss ion: Provided, That in a fraud assess ment whi ch has become final and executory, the fact of fraud shall be judiciall y taken cognizanc e of in the civil or criminal ac ti on for co ll ection thereof. .. The law is clear. When fraudulent tax returns are invo lved as in the cases at bar, a proceedin g in court after th e coll ection of such tax may be begun with out assessment. Here, the private respondents had already filed the capital ga ins tax return and the VAT returns, and paid the taxes they have declared du e therefrom . Upon investigation of the exa miners of the BIR, there was a pre liminary finding of gross di screpancy in the com putation of the capital gains taxes due from the sale of two lots of AAI shares, first to APAC and then to APAC Philippines, Limited. The examiners also found that the VAT had not been paid for VAT-liable sa le of services for the third and fourth quarters of 1990. Arouably the oross' b b di sparity in the taxes du e and the amounts actually dec lared by the pri vate respo ndents constitutes badges of fraud. Thus, the applicability of Ungab v. Cusi25 is ev ident to the cases at bar. In this seminal case, thi s CoUJt ruled that there was no need fo r preci se computation and formal assessment in order for criminal comp laints to be filed aga in st him . It quoted Me1ten 's Law of Federal Income Taxation , Vol. l0, Sec. SSA. OS , p. 2 1, thus: An assess ment of a deficiency is not necessary to a criminal prosecuti on for wi ll ful attempt to defeat and evade the income tax. A crime is complete when the violator has knowingly and wi ll fu ll y fil ed a rraudulent return , with intent to evade and defeat the tax. The perpetrat ion of the crim e is grounded upon knov,rledge on the part of the taxpa yer that he has made an in accurate return. and the government's failure to disco\ er the erro r and promptly to assess has no connections with the commission or the crime. 25 Nos. L--\1919-2-l , May 30 , 1980 , 97 SCRA 877.

Decision 16 G.R. Nos. 120935 & 124557 Thi s hoary principle still underlies Section 269 and related provisions of the present Tax Code. We now go to the issue of whether the CTA has no jurisd iction to take cogni zance of both the criminal and civil cases here at bar. Under Republic Act No. 11 25 (An Act Creating the Court of Tax Appeals) as amended, th e rulings of the Commissioner are appea lable to th e CTA. th LI S: SEC. 7. Jurisdiction. - The Court of Tax Appeals shall exerci se exc lusive appe ll ate juri sd icti on to reviev-,; by appea l. as herein provided- (1) Decisions ofthe Co mmi ss ioner oflnte rnal Revenue in cases involving disputed assess ments, refunds of internal reve nue taxes, fees or other charges, penalti es imposed in relation thereto, or other matters ari sing und er the Na ti ona l Internal Revenue Code or other laws or part of la\Y adm ini stered by the Bureau of Internal Revenue; Republic Act No. 8424, titled "An Act Amending the Natio nal Internal Revenue Code, As Amended , And For Other Purposes," later expanded the jurisdiction of the Commissioner and, correspondingly, that of the CTA, thu s: SEC. 4. P(mer r~l the Commissioner to Int erpret Tux Lcms OJ1(/ 10 Decide Tux Cases. - The power to interpret the provisions of thi s Code and oth er tax laws shall be under the exc lusive and ori ginal jurisdiction of the Com mi ss ioner, subj ect to rev iew by the Secretary of Finance. The power to decide di sputed assessments, refund s of internal reve nue taxes, fees or other charges, penalti es impo sed in relati on thereto, or other matters ari sin g under thi s Code or other laws or porti ons thereof adm ini stered by the Bureau of Internal Revenue is ves ted in the Co mmi ss ioner, subject to the exclusive appellate jurisdiction of the Co urt ofTax Appeals. The latest statute dealing with the jurisdiction of th e CTA is Republi c Act No. 9?_8'"~>- 26 It pi�OYI.des.� 26 An Act Expand in g The Juri sd icti on Of The Colll1 Of Tax Appea ls (CTA), Elevating It s Rank To The Le vel 01" A Co ll egiate Court With Spec ial Juri sd ict ion And En larg in g Its Membership , Amend in g For Th e Purpose Certain Sections Of Republic Act No. 1125 , As Amended , Othen1�ise Known As The La11 Creat in g The Court Of Tax Appea ls, And For Other Purposes.

Decision 17 G.R. Nos. 120935 & 124557 SEC. 7. Section 7 ofthe same Act is hereby amended to read as follows: Sec. 7. Jurisdiction.- The CTA shall exercise: (a) Exc lusive appellate jurisdiction to review by appeal , as herein provided: (1) Decisions of the Commi ssioner of Interna l Revenue in cases invo lving disputed assessments, refunds of internal revenue taxes, fees or other charges, penalties in relation thereto , or other matters arising under the Nat ional Internal Revenue or other laws administered by the Bureau of Interna l Revenue ; (2) Inactio n by the Comm issio ner of !merna! Revenue in cases in vo lving disputed assessments, refunds of interna l revenue ta:-;es, fees or other charges, penalti es in relation thereto, or other matters ari sing under the Nat ional Interna l Revenue Code or other laws adm ini stered by the Bureau of Internal Revenue, where the National Internal Revenue Code provides a spec ifi c period of action, in whi ch case the inaction shall be deemed a denial ; (3) Dec isions, orders or resolutions of the Regional Tri al Courts in local tax cases originally decided or resolved by them in the exercise of their original or appe ll ate juri sd ict ion; XXX (b) Juri sd icti on over cases involving criminal offenses as herein provided: (I) Exclusive ori ginal jurisdiction ove r all criminal offenses ari sin g fro m violations of the Nati onal Internal Revenue Code or Tariff and Customs Code and other laws ad mini stered by the Bureau of Internal Revenue or the Bureau or Customs: Provided. h01rever, That offenses or felonie s 1nenti oned in this paragraph where the principal amount of taxes and fees , exclusive of charges and penalties, claim ed is less than One milli on pesos (Pl ,OOO,OOO.OO) or where there is no spec ifi ed amou nt claimed shall be tried by the regular co urts and the juri sd iction of the CTA shall be appell ate. Any provision of lavv or the Rules of Court to the contrary notwithstanding, the crimi nal action and the corresponding civil action for the recovery of civi l li ability for taxes and penalties shall at all tim es be simultaneo usly instituted with. and jointly determined in the same proceed ing by the CTA, the filing of the criminal action being deemed to necessaril y carry with it the filing of the civil acti on, and no right to reserve the filling of such civil action separately from the criminal action will be recogni zed. (2) Exclusive appellate jurisd iction in criminal offenses: (a) Over appeals from the judgments. reso luti ons or orders of the Regional Trial Courts in tax cases originall y decided by them , in their respected territorial jurisdiction. (b) Over pet iti ons for rev iew of the judgments, reso luti ons or orders of the Regional Trial Courts in

Deci sion 18 G.R. Nos. 120935 & 124557 the exercise of their appell ate juri sd icti on over tax cases originally decided by the rvletropo litan Trial Co urts, Municipal Trial Courts and Municipal Circuit Tri al Courts in their respective juri sd iction . (c) Juri sdi ction over tax co ll ection cases as herein provided: (1) Exclusive ori ginal jurisdicti on in tax coll ect ion cases invo lvi ng final and executory assess ments fo r taxes , fees, charges and penalti es: Provid ed. however. That co ll ection cases where the principal amount of ta xes and fe es. exc lusive of charges and penalties, cla imed is less than One million pesos (P, l ,000,000.00) shal l be tried by the proper Municipal Tria l Court, Metropolitan Tri al Court and Regional Trial Court. (2) Exc lusive appe ll ate jurisdiction in tax co ll ec ti on cases: (a) Over appea ls from the judgments, reso luti ons or orders of the Regional Trial Courts in tax collection cases ori ginall y decided by them, in their respective terri torial jurisdi ction . (b) Over petitions for rev iew of the judgments, resoluti ons or orders of the Regional Trial Courts in the exercise of th eir appellate jurisdiction over tax co llecti on cases originall y decided by the Metropolitan Trial Co urts, Municipal Tri al Courts and Muni cipa l Circuit Trial Courts, in their respective jurisd iction. These laws have expanded the juri sdiction of the CTA. Hmveve r, they did not change the jurisdiction of the CTA to entertain an appeal only from a final decision or assessment of the Commissioner, or in cases where the Commi ss ioner has not acted within the period prescribed by the NIRC. In th e cases at bar, the Commissioner has not issued an as sessment of the tax li ability of pri vate respondents. Finally, we hold that contrary to private respond ents' stance, the doctrin es laid down in CIR v. Uni on Shippin g Co. and Ya bes v. Flojo are not app li cabl e to the cases at bar. In these earlier cases , the Commi ssioner already rendered an assessment of the tax liabilities of the delinquent taxpaye rs, for which reason the Court ruled that the filin g of the civil suit for

Decision 19 G.R. Nos. 120935 & 124557 co ll ecti on of the taxes due was a fina l den ial of the taxpayers' req uest for reconsideration of th e tax assessment. IN VIEW WHEREOF, premises considered, judgment is rendered : l . In G.R. No. 12093 5, AFFIRMING theCA dec ision dated March 21, 1995, whi ch set as ide the Regional Tri al Court 's Order dated August 8, 1994, and REINSTATING Criminal Case Nos. 94-1842 to 94- 1846 fo r further proceed ings before the tria l court; and ' In G.R. No. 124557, REVERSING and SETTING AS IDE the Decis ion of the Court of Appeals dated March 29, 1996, and ORDERJNG the di smissa l of C.T.A. Case No . 5075. No costs. SO ORDERED. (\~)~-t ~ ~~ \wv/ REYNA TO S. PUNO Ch ief Ju stice WE CONCUR : Assoc iate Justice RE NATO C. CORONA ~~dt~ Assoc iate Justice TERESITA J. LEONARDO-DE CASTRO Associ ate Justi ce

Decision 20 G. R. Nos. 120935 & 124557 CERTIFICATION Pursuant to Section 13, Arti cle VIII of the Constituti on, I certi fy that the conclusion s in th e above dec ision had been reached in consultati on before the case was ass igned to the writer of the op inion of the Court's Division. Chi ef Ju stice