CTA Case No. 2670 (Decision)

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILJPPIMU COURT OF TAX APPEALS OUIZON CITY J. ROiv1ERO & ASSOCIATES, INC., Petitioner, - VErsus - CTA CASE NO. 2670 THE CQ\1MISSIONER OF INTl:RNAL REVENUE, . Respondent. X- - - - - - - - - - - - ~- X DEC I S I 0 N This is an appeal from the warrants of levy on real property and distraint of personal property of respondent se.rved on February 5, 1975, which sought to enforce the summary collection of the amount of P23,126 . 15 as deficiency income tax allegedly due from petitioner for 1966 , inclusive of interest and compromise penalty. Petitioner is a corp6ration duly organized and existing unde r the la�Ns of the Philippines. It is engaged in the adverti~ing busi ness and selling ser- vic es for a commission. The records bear out tha t petitioner filed its income tax returns for 1966 claiming therein , among othErs, 1he following deductions: a) Representation ��������� P22 , 335.15 b) Transportation ��������� 25,899.00 c) Others ����������������� ~2_�.0 . 00 Total ������������ t?..iJ 1.9..4..:.1~ These it ems of deductions were disallowed on the ground that these were not duly supported by docu- men t s and receipts and that these deductions were not ordinary and necessary expenses incurred in the ' business of the petitioner. On June 3, 1968, respondent's Revenue District Officer J. P. Puertollano issued a notice to petitio- ner and informing the lat tEr of a proposed assessment 36

DEC IS IOi\ - CTA CASE ~D . 26 70 - 2- in the amount of ~21 , 362 . 55 on account of the afore - s a id un a 1 Jowat 1e de d uctions , and advised pe ti tioner to present it s obje ctions in an inform a l co~forencc. ( p . 17 , GIn re c � ) On June 4 , 1968, Reven ue Examiner ,U cardo T . Ca - unan p r epared o memorand um to U:e ,~e 1Jenue Gistrict I!o . � 29 , "aka ti, !Uza 1 , recommending the disa1Jowance of the afo r esaid c 1a imed deductions on the sro und u~a t these were not s UPf'Or t cd by proper cloc ume nts and r c - c eipts and thot these. deductions are not ord.i.rwry b u �~ are extrcio rdin ary ,. unusual ond extravc-~gDnt anrl rccor1 - mending the a;lr ro v ol of the pror'osecl r:oticr...� . (rr ~ . 2J - 22 , ~; Ih r c c . ) Pct ition c: r, thro u gh c ounsel , p r esen t ed its objec - tions to the rrcp o scd as~cssment in its l etter dat8d J unc 2~) , J.S6D , porticularly on �L-he p:-or1oscd un<d lo�:Ju- ble deductions , c laiming that Uw expensc:s "ar E' not ~�.xx extraordinary , unusual e x t r v <J c. n t n d t h t '"! 2 t hnc:r~. 11 u �J ;. J. ....... ...... ' - expenses a r e "ordinary Dnd necE�ssary 11 cJnd oskir.~J that the :1rcposed dis a l J ovJa n e e s in the ar;10unt cf i 74 , 794. ] :) be set aside and c ancel lc= cl . (p p . 27 -:~8 , ~;1;~ rec . ) On i.:cb ru ar y 15 , 1 969 , rc~;p ondcnt , tl:rour:;h l cgio�- nal Di r ecto r Le on ardo L . Cabt:Jf',e::!":o , issued ;\sses~~:~ient r,o . 2 9 - /-'.Cd - 6007l>5-68 - 66 u gains t peti tion(�r o nd ;; sk ir1CJ it to pay o n or before ;:,Jrch 15 , 1 969 U:c sum of l2 J , .l26 . 15 as def ic ienc y in come t ax for l9 66 , i~clusive of f2 , 96l . 1~ as interest ond }200 . 00 as CO!. tp romi-se pcn<;lty .(f J. 23 , r~ I: t r e c . ) Cn Hay 2 8 , 196 9 (p. 24 , 81;: r e c.) Her~iono l uire ct or Jose E . Cons unj i o f Heg icn 6 , IJureau of 1 nternal Hcvcnuc , 37

DECISION - CT.; C ...S E NO . 2670 - 3- Quezo n City , wro te a l ette r to petitione r as fol-� 1 OV/S : Please be informed t h at the exar:1i:1e r v:ho conducted the inves t igation of your 1966 income ta x r e t u r n r ecommended to ~his Office that then; is due fro1:1 you tht: ar,!ount of i--23 , 126 . 15, as deficiency inc'oue tax for the said year . 1:1 view thereof and pursuant to ::evenuc ,.c.lr.iinist r ative Order ;Jo . l-6'1, th2.~ Uff ice v!ould like to invi t e you to an infor,1c1l con - ference i:l order to hea r your side of the aforement ioned tax defic i ency on Juno 27 , 1)69 at 9 : 00 o 'cl oc!< i n the rnor:~in<J , i'.ssess - mE.:nt L: rCJ nch , Lun:a u o f In t erna 1 neve.~ nue , Jrd Floor , ?rudcntial Dank i,uildi.lg, Cul::1o , ::..:ue- zon City ._ You r foilurc to cJP!~.ca r and clis:-rovc the flndinqs of our examine r on the d~tc s e t for the conference shall rneun that you hove \'JOi- vr.:d your r i <Jhl to the s<::n.e and hove dCCC:i ted our findings . Th i s Off ice wo u ld then ! rocced VJ it h t h c; i s s u a n c e of a f o rfn<J 1 not i c c: of ossessril e nt sub j ect , however , to the .Jnn inis - tr at ive rc:medie s provided for under tho l av1 . (p . 24 , blR rec . ) On CJctol:Jer S , 1972 , /-,ss i stan t :legiO!IClJ Jirc, c tor :.\ar c e l o 1-l . L.in<Jao of Hegion 1~0 . 6 , :Ln a r,l:;;;,oranchm: to the n,'VCnue District Officl;r or !'tc?VC!)\J(~ Jist''iC t ! :o . 29 , din:cted the n:invest:Lgation of tlw Cc~sc ancl i.nstructed him to requ2st the taxpc.'yc r to execute 2 w2ivcr of l imita.tion or prc�:;cri 1 t ion L\.'Fore con-. ducting the reinvos t igat-.ion . (p . 29 , UJ;l ['ec . ) On . Jovcmbe r 17 , 1972 , rtC'venue .~xar:1i:-1:::r ,iicar::-Jo 1 . C.::aunc:n ot: ncvcnuc Dist ri ct i' o . 2) , to ��:!t o rn the c Dse was ugain assignc'cl , repor t ed that he re i terutes h is supe ri or - As st. Dire c t or Ling-.;o , t hLlt tho r equest for r e i nve stig at ion Gc denied and the assess - me:lt against the taxpayc; r be immediately coJlectcd on the �follov.'ing gro und s: 38

DECL:JIO!�J - CTA ChSE NL. 2670 - 4- 1. The ta xp<ryer, despite? the? opportunity gr0ntcd him to disprove the examiner's findings, first , in the notice to taxp~yer dated June 3 , 1968 and second, letter of the He rji0na 1 Director, Quezon City, dated L1ay 28, 1969 hc1s failed crnd still fails to substantiote his cloi~ for his deductions. The letter adverted to in the ~sst . Heaional Director's I~morandun of Cctober 5 , 19i2 , was possibly a reply to our notice to tax- payer men~ioned above , as the d~te indicates . but after the? rep o rt of examinotion together Vii th a ll its enclusures VJC?rc submitted a nc~ apr'roved lly the pror;er officers , the Bec:;ionCJJ uircctor on ; .ay 23, l9G9 sent him another le t ter inviting their attention to t he o sses sn:en t .:md to present their (JbjecLions. Cut d:?spite this , tz.n:payer hc1 s re~r:alned to keep si l ent .:md has neve?r protestccl the findings and subsequent assessment . 2 . Thot the letter of the ta;.:pcJyer ' s accoun � tant of June 25 , 1968 do not conL1in su~ricient grounds �to of f�set o:::- rcl. ut U:c findirigs of L'c L ~na de by the? unde?rs igned e xarniner. The ta xpaye?r n ::_serc.Jbly failed to compl�ehe?nd the ::;a in <H1d ir:: - port~nt point in the findin~~ of f~cts - th J t is , deductions v1er c no�t dul y SUi~i orted by p:::-o- pcr do cur:1ents o:;:� re c e i pts. TL(-c ta::}'2ye r 3tter:!p-- ted to cite and quote o rulinu of our off ic e(DIJ Ruling 66 - 66 dated D0cer :1be r 1 , 1966) v�;hich , sad to say , is not squar~ly Jnd explicitly in point. J. That the taxpayer h;:-:s \i!clivcd his riCJht to reinvestigation . The l<..egional uir,:ctor , �~ ue zon City , per his letter of , .cJy ::--:�. , l <}6'} hr3 ~~ ]ivcn taxpayer suffi c ient tii:ie to ;;rc:sent his objections to t lie findinc~s of the C):an:ine:c ond the cssessment but frort: U1 c'! t date to the prcscn~. t a x: a y e r h a s not o f f i c L )11 ''/ r ,~ dc o::: c v (; n t r i c d to ans1.�Iere the lette?:c OL- the ile~jional Direct.: r r.1he.rc' it vi<~s express l y sta te?d therclri th "t fuilure to Bf'l�ea r and c':i.S;1rO'/C? the r�i~1cli n( ' S of the: exami nc:r on tLc da te and place set forth shall c1e cm t.hat the t axrayer has wa iv ct1 l'i::; riCJht and have accepted the c' :< <'~ll incr ' s find i ngs . On February :_:, , 1975 , r e s p o ndent , th .:�ou<Jfl :cr:;io n .i J Di r ec t o r felino C . C2s~r ~ , Jr . ~erved warrant of levy on r eal prure rt y und \'cJrLL..~ ... �::; r ,'4..::-trDint of r e rsonal property against petit:ione?r .1nri 1:,�cci\-c:r' '/ it:; LJVJ'fCT . ( pp. 36 - 38 , BI R rec.) On February J.l , 197~ , r etit i one r, thro u gh counsel , 39

DECI:3IG;-J - CT;.\ CnSc IJ(.; . 26 70 - 5- wrote the Hevenuc Uistric t Off i cer o-f 1i.evenuc :Jistri ct l'-lo . 6 , ~uczon Ci ty , c:md had drc.wm the latter ' s attcn - t i cn t o its l e t ter of [Jro t es t dated June 2t) , 1 96Ei a del - ress e d to the Hevcnue !Jistr i:::t ;~o . 29 , at ~..al(cJti , :b?Jl ond ottc:ching thereto a c or y of s .J i::.\ lcttc~r and r.;o _;::k ccl ._;s . .rwe x 11 i, 11 ar.d stati.l(j thdL i t had rwt rc~cc~ivc:d fron~ test and therefo r e , r citcrcti~1g s~licl f.r otest . l n Fchruary 10 , 1975 , r ctit i oner , through cour.scJ , �;in ''oJ l�'ts rrevl� ot+c'-'I' 11 c�.�rlo.j t. 1. _ i_ -~ OV..J..n.~ d U }. � 1J O "u.;,:c,.-) ..L, t_. v ~ o� _i' L >l .,.) ) l ' U u' 1_r_ V -�� , 1 1 ')75 (p . 44 , LL: r ec . ) , <;nd , th i s ti ::!e , asserted that the authority to colJ c ct by r ..:spondcnt under Se c tion JJJ of the ><at ional lnternol .k:vc nuc l-ode hacl cJlrc<cdy prcscribcd n o ti~g as follows : �.:e note thut the assess:r:cnt i n CiUC�stj_on '.�:as dated June llr , J.CJG D� .::�:e n the? ':f.'1t~:r ant \'.'J~; served on February 5 , l :;J7j , more th ,J n five \''="-. . ;' y ea �..-..""'' j�1.c�)c.'l c.l 1'"J'1.'c) ,,'C~ y l . .. elf''c.--"�)-��~��1 _lr:-rO! .., -:L...i~ �.. ,~..... (.~�c-.~;�~J'-~-, (J,r].� its asses~:r;1c:nt . The fil:L.19 of the lette-r pro - testing said assessrn~c":nt ,-:Jo n'.:? , dir.! not susr,end '!:,he running of the prc~~criptivc 1�crioci . l>ro:�., the records uf the c osc , _i. t \:n u ~.:::\ .:~r;,�-c,1r th.c1 ~ '�here v:as :-io reir:vestig<. Lion r,;c:;de , ~~~1r was t.ll e r e cJ \.'J a i v e r o f t h c s -::. ,.t ut o of 1 ir,. i t ,_: t i o n s , CXeCUt(~d l.:;y J . 1:or.:ero (' ,.s~,o c :i_.::r~es . In v i cv! of the for C'�J oi ~I SJ , we re c: uest i:ho t su(�.je c t warrunt bc lifted und c<mcc�U �: d . The stand of pC? t itioner , throu~!ll co\lnsc1 , is th o t the ri(_;h t of the gover nmen�t. to coLI ect the ai;wunt o f deficiency inc:or, ;c tax for l'JU) in the~ ~;;1ld 0ssesr:-.rne nt haJ d l rea(i y p r es cribed and tl1 i s V/iJS og<J i n r ei tcr ated i n cJ l e t te r of c ounscl d a t c:ci Ge c embe r 13 , 1075 . (: . 51 , L l1 ~ re c . )

DEC IS ICJ f\j - CT,\ CASE i~O . 26 70 - 6- .Jithout o reply coming fro �.~ the Cc-.'cr nrncn t o n the t wo (2) mos t recent let ters filed by it , namely , februory 11 , 1975 a nd February 13 , l97j , . petit:.oner fil ed the insta nt petition fo r review �;: i th unJe nt mo tion for pn: limi na.ry injunction '.'Ji t h this Court on i�.;cJrch G, 197 ~) . This coso \'Jus submitted by the p,l ct ie s f or d~cision bosed upon the pl e~di ngs and the reco rd s of tl ie 1 ur c<J U of Inte rn o:L :,('Vc:we . :he issues pr ese nted fo r resolution arc os fellows: l . . /lle t her or not this (...:ourt has j u ris - dict ion over tho c <,s~.: ; ? . '.ihcthc r or no t the Cortll��iss ioner of Intcr:lcJ l Hc v en uc' s right to coll ec t h.Jcl ~ lready p r o scribed; ~nct 3 � .:hether rJr not Lhc respondent l s jus tifi cd in discJ llm.'in<J t:1c clc.i t�'c~cl C: )q >c ns ~::s . .:c will novJ c onsider -'c.l-1 (' f irst ::1uc stion of j u ~, .i s d i :: t i or1 � It is the contention of pctit ionel' that it considered the w~ r r-ant s of levy on r eCil jJropo 2:'ty M1d distraint of personn l 11ropc rty is~.; uecl a g a inst it on l:cbruary 5 , 1975 as t he decisions of the Commissione r cf Internal ,{e v c: nue , dcnyinr; 1 c titiono r ' s � l'C(;uest for the c on c cllatio n and ��Jithd:ci.l':Ju l of U1c: r ~:SSe SSJ-:-;C nt , \.'h ie h i t be J.:i.cv c:J to be the rO[)OSC'd review havin g bc?en fi led on l.\orch 6- l 975, said ' peti tio n was filed within the 30- day rc ri od provided under :..:;ec tion 7 of the P.cp ubli c i1ct rlo . 1 125 - t he ch orter of t hi s Co ur t . On the othcr hand, respondent c on te nd s th a t 41

-�- DcCISIO;J - CT/\ CJ\SE NO . 2670 - 7- i-.s sessment ;�Jo . 29 - i,G{- 6007'15 - 68 - 66 doted Februory 15 , 106') , not hav i llCJ been appcolco to ~he court �:�.Lt!1 i n -~he afo r e s ,J id peri orl , had be c cr;11::: Fino l , drPiiH!d o bJ ,.., ond '.?xecutory , c iting iJS his authority \ CcJSCS ,. Cr!C 0!. . :cpul.J l i c of t L2 : �h i .l if 1 i ne s v s . J \.12 n.J 1: � Vdo . de 1 .. osorio , et c., 105 I hils . 277; l)y !�lam vs . 1~eput lie oi. the . ilils ., G\ tio . L- 13EYYJ , lctoL;er ::o, 1'):.:>9 , 10(J l i:il . 1162 -1 163 ; :),crublic of the Philir�i ir1e~s vs . ur ... lhc:rL , J S~�'� � 717 , 113 rh i l. 6~)1 ; ;-::.:.:pu1 lic tlv: :: � ilil~ir~es v~; . t:nrique ...t:\<]J l ona , Jr ., HYJ H:il. 723 ; Lc:cn 2..ssucd on t�'eb.nEJry 15 , J 'X<} , ond �~he instant petition for cevicvJ l1ovi:1g her'n filed on . �,o rch 6 , 1')7~) , the la t ter �;;os filC'':.l beyond ti.c U:irty (~'0 ) cl,~y r�:c r.Lcd to ') ec ~ i on ., r .l.epullic ,.ct 1:0 . lL.:.J . r 01. .;c.: fi.lcl the rosition of both peti L�i oner and rcspcndc:nt erroneous . Cn the c; ucs t ion of j uri:-jdic L1 on Oi. tll:Ls t..:ourt , it had been Ulf..c ruJ :Ln<J of our :..; u l rcmc' r:JO U2:'t i:'l late r contl'OlJ. i.:lCJ decisions , or in decisi o ns o :.her ti1 : n th e S(! cited l'Y res; ondNit, the~ L this ~~ ou rt i~ a court bf spetial jurisri i cti o n . ..ha t j uri sdictio r1 if', is defi:lC'd in :.Jcc t i o n 7 o[ hcpuf. l ic o\Ct i:o . ll2~J wi1ich provides t h<1 t it c 0n c;:crc.i.sc on2.y exclusive "l.Jpellate jur i sdiction t o review Ly apreal on2.y cleci - sions of t h~ Com:n i ss i on er of JntcrnaJ. .ie vc::nuc , in c ,Jsc:s involv i n<J disp ute d os s c~-::s rn e nt s- a n d re fund s o f int e rn ol r evenu e t axe s, etc . Th e wo:r:-rJ 11 de c ision" i n pu r ::Jgraph 1 , Sc c tic n 7 o f ''lep ub li c 1\ ct ;:o . 11 25 has beC'n fin~lJ 1y 42

DECISION - CT/1 C/.._:.:/E dO . 2670 -8- interpre ted to mean the .5:i~.<;:_j,_~l.Q.!J of the Cori:7lissionc:c of lntc:rna 1 He venue upon the protc~ s t of the t ;1 xp.Jyc l' Dgeinst the cssessments. The .Su;.,n:l.lc Cour t ul~;o s :-'id that definitely , said word does not signify the ~s~ess- r:1e nt itself . (Corm .is'-;ioner of Inte_�no l :lcvcnuc vs. Leoner c!o s . '!illa , etc ., 2:2 :::k!l,, 3 , ~ -6 , .f_itt:.!.�:1 ::.;L . Stephen ' s F\s::ociatio n, etc. , vs . Collector of Tntc:~n;.l ,�lcvcnuc, 104 Fhil . 3J.~'. , 137 . ) The J <J �:: lns used tr:c 1.'1or d 11 a s s e s s 1.1en t s 11 - a n d t hi s i n d i c .J t c s t h c 1o CJ i s J ;o t .i�.. 0::' intention to subjec t to judi::::.ir.11 rc:vic~"J o:Jy the c!<'Ci. -- DJQ..Q..t_.:Lt~Elli � (Cor:1r1d.s s ioncr of lnter:~o:l llr.::vcnuc vs . Leo-- n a r d o .S . Vi 11 u , e t c � , i b i d � , p � 7 , -~ i .:.~): :J� Vi 11 am::_ n v ~.., � CTA, 109 Phi l. 897 . ) I n this c ase , there \'lOs a pror'osed Dssessr:iC'll~ on June 3 , l96 L which was r.1c1dc Ly respond:: nL ., n~ ;,:a;.k� known thr o ugh a notice to 1.etitioner . -Ci1 is pr o;)osc�d assessment however , i~> not the� .Js::;cssmc'nL co:~tcr:l[ .l.Jtccl - in .Sect i on 7 of iicpublic ;,ct ,:o . 11 2:..\ os it d id 11ot yet def~:~ i te l y f i xed the t~~ , o:c n� u.ir c:d petitioner to ro:oy definitely st~ i cl omcunt of i:2:3 , 1�)6 . E) l.'ut instead :Jclv ised pe Litioncr to !�resent his obj :�� c l:.ions to ~->: r�::o-- posed asses stne nt i n cJ n inf orna 1 c onfc renee . ( Dionl s io iL La nti n vs . Cor~lm~_s._, io n e r of Inte :r nal .kvc:> nuc , CT.. �~:; ~>O vs. Tabio s , CT" Case l�Jo . 1681 , J,(Jril JB , 1907 ci tt:d in 43

DECIS I ON -- CTi� C/\Sl:.: UU . 26 70 - 9- the r efore, prote s ted , it W~lS not :J f' rolest \.'-ihicll '.Jill brin�0 atout J disputed ussessr11ent as ccnLcrtl plated i r ~e c tion 7 of said law. It V/J.S only o n Febr uary 1:), l fJ(')C) , �:;hen ''n asse~,----- ucnt was tr u ~.y c::nd properly is~; u c~c'�i.y j,c;gional u jr('C - tcr leon a rd o CCJ}.:; ,; f.ero, lJy his iss ua nc l~ of .\~;s c: s sr:1cr~t i:o . 29 -J�,CH - 6007/~5 - 68 - 66 against pctitio:H:r and c::skl.ng t l; e l a t tcr t�c pC1y th1e o,errlC� :l�enc:y 1� ncoL.c: t <lx 1r 0r lC/�i'..x": i.n the amount of 123 ,1 26 . 15 , incJusivc of i2 , 96l . J~ L1terest cnrl l 2CO.UO as cont ror :is2 pen:_~]_ Ly, on or for r2considcrJ tion W<i<.:~ c cn~;idcrcd to i�..~ v c be::;n CiJ ~ �l the date resp o ndent :is~:. u ed VJ-,rrrmts of distr;.:LI--.t <1r ~d levy against the proper-ties of petit:icr;cr. (! . p . 36 - J.~ . b Lt r ec.) levy o:r wlwn petitioner hz�d iilcd a lc,ttcl~ cL~tcd _ :,_,~- - ruin�y ll, 1975 drcvd.ng Jth:ntio:l of rc~,r<mc1ent' s ~evenue ~lstrict Office to its lett e r of r rotest J~tcd June ~~5 , 1960 , tl:<-1t J protest is cic'cr.. u! i!:.Jdc . There bei~g no protest or dispute filed after the assessment of Febr uory 1::) , 19()9 v.rDs issued , e~( - ccrt the letters of June 11, and 18 , J~7~ of peti - tioner , d nd t he la t ter not havin<' been ck:cid(~C or there c ann ot be a ny de ci s i on on a dis1 )u t ed assesc-r::c nt which can b e app e aled to this Court . t"llc; wo r rants of distraint and lev y served on febru~ry 5 , 1975 c annot le l

DECISICXJ - CT� ri\ C/\SE rJ(J � 2670 -� 10 - considered as the decision on a disp uted ossessn1ent as no formJl protest was fil ed previously ogainst said assessment by retitioner . This Court , in its decision in the case c~ l!ahns vs. Commissioner of Internal llcvcnue , CL, Cu se l�io. 1987, .'.pril 30 , 19G() , said th ot V�Jhere ther e is a protest or re ques t for reco;1sidcrot :l.on of an assessment , and a warrJnt of distroint and levy is issued subsequuntly , which is the most drastic action of all media of cnforcinq collection of o tax, i t is "tantamount,~ to .:m ou~.ri.(]ht denial thereof ond will ma ke the protest or request for reconsidcra tion "deemed r ejected" . l. ut t!d.s is not so in the cose ot bar . It Das only after the service� of the warrunts o:: Jis tr ~�ir.L one\ le-vy that petitioner filed a letter doted february ll , 1975, reiterating , in effect , its protest <1gainst the assc:ssment of Feb r uary lS, 1969 , a nd fo].lovl(?O up by its letter dGted fcbrcary l G, 1975 , which U! to th0' present , no action or decision �:-�!OS Ld: c.� n thereon ~y res0ondent Com~issioner of .r nternal Hevenue . Eased upon the fac ts or this case , and there being no decision as yet on the disputed assessment , or no partic ular oction hoving beE:�n token by r espondent or his duly aut horize,,_] rcrn�e- sentative on pe t itione r's letters of protes t dated February 11, �and 18 , 1975, and considering this Court as a co urt of sre ci~l jurisdiction and os such can take cogniz ance only on ma�tters clearly wi t hin i t s jurisdiction , the aprxa l in this case v:as premat urely filed

DECISIO r-J CTA CASE NO. 2670 - 11 - and this court has no jurisdiction to entertain the same. (Commissioner of Internal Revenue vs. Villa, etc., QJ2. ci-t., p. 7.) Having come to the conclusiorl that this Court has no jurisdiction over this case, the disposition of the two other issues is moot and academic. VJ!-IEHEFOH!:: , for being prematurely filed and for lack of jurisdiction, this ap~eal is hereby dismissed. ~ith costs against petitioner. so cnf;:::u:o . � Quezon City, February 27 , 1979 . . ,l COI~~RCJAQUIPI 1\s s oc ia to Judge r cor,cuH: ~~ci-} AL1AI\J'Ti..: F- LLEL. ;\ctinc_; Presiding Judge