SHENILYN ABALOS, RUEL GATCHALIAN, DONNA LACUNA, ANDREW GUTIERREZ, ROSARIO VERGARA, MARIA SUSAN TORRES, MARILYN MEDRANO, MA. CRISTINA DUENAS, GEMMA ESTHER ESTRADA, MARIA CYNTHIA PETALCORIN, PILIPINAS QUISING, SHIELA ROMANCE, ALELI ROSARIO, NICK ANGELO VILLALUZ, MARIA CARMELA ABADEZA, MARIA CONCHITA ABAO, ANNABELLE ABELLO, MINERVA ABRERA, REXEL ABRIGO, LOURDES ADRIANO, SHERWIN AGBAYANI, WILFREDO AGLIAM, AILEEN M. AGUILAR, BERNADETH AGUSTIN, JANICE ALALAY, MARIA CRISELDA ALANO, JANELYN ALCANTARA, MARIA CHARMAINE ALCANTARA, RAQUEL ALDABA, ANGELICA ALEJANDRO, LEONOR ALEJANDRO, ELIZABETH ALIMURUNG,

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES COURT OF TAX APPEALS QUEZON CITY SPECIAL SECOND DIVISION 1 SHENILYN ABALOS, ET AL., CTA CASE NO. 9089 Petitioners, Members: -versus- Castaneda, Jr., Chairperson, Manahan, and Fabon-Victorino, 11. COMMISSIONER OF Promulgated: eM. }/ INTERNAL REVENUE, JAN 1 1 2019 /0 ;/( .,tn1 ;m'A/ . Respondent. x----------------------------------------------------------------------------------x RESOLUTION CASTANEDA, JR., J.: For resolution is the August 29, 2018 Motion for Reconsideration of petitioners,2 wit hout any comment from respondent, praying that the August 10, 2018 Decision of the Court be reconsidered and that their administrative claims for refund be admitted as evidence in substantial compliance under the law. The dispositive portion of the decision reads: "WHEREFORE, premises considered, the instant Petition for Review is hereby DENIED for lack of merit. }- 1 Section 1, Rule VIII of the Internal Rules of the Court of Tax Appeals: "Section 1. Case assigned to a justice for study and report. --- Every Division Case, whether appealed or original, assigned to a Justice for study and report shall be retained by him even if he is transferred to another Division. The Justice, though transferred, shall write the report with the other members of the Division to which the case was originally submitted for decision. Their Division shall be called Special (No.) Division." 2 Docket, Vol. II, pp. 875-880.

RESOLUTION CTA CASE NO. 9089 SO ORDERED." We resolve to deny the motion for lack of merit. First, the CTA is a court of record, thus, the cases filed before it are litigated de novo and party litigants should prove every minute aspect of their cases.3 Otherwise stated, cases are decided based on what has been presented and formally offered by party litigants during the trial of the case and not on mere allegations. Second, petitioners do not deny that they failed to offer in evidence the written administrative claims for refund.4 But in appealing for the relaxation of the rules of procedure and on the strength of the testimony of Atty. Peter Paul S. Romero,5 petitioners ask the Court to admit Annexes A toG of the Petition for Review,6 even though these are mere photocopies of the administrative claims for refund allegedly filed with the Bureau of Internal Revenue (BIR). Said testimony, however, failed to even account for the reason why the original documents were not presented and identified during trial. In other words, in lieu of the best evidence of their written administrative claims, petitioners are asking the Court to consider the photocopies which were not even offered in evidence in violation of Rule 130 Section 3 of the Rules of Court: "Sec. 3. Original document must be produced; exceptions.-- - When the subject of inquiry is the contents of a documents, no evidence shall be admissible other than the original document itself, except in the following cases: (a) When the original has been lost or destroyed, or cannot be produced in court, without bad faith on the part of the offeror; (b) When the original is in the custody or under the control of the party against whom the evidence is offered, and the latter fails to produce it after reasonable notice; (c) When the original consists of numerous accounts or other documents which cannot be examined in court without great loss of Jc- 3 Commissioner ofInternal Revenue v. Manila Mining Corporation, G.R. No. 153204, August 31, 2005. 4 Par. 6, Motion for Reconsideration, Docket, Vol II, p. 876. 5 Q3, Amended Judicial Affidavit of Peter PaulS. Romero, Exhibit P-12, Docket, Vol II, p. 747. 6 Docket, Vol I, pp. 135-220.

RESOLUTION erA CASE NO. 9089 time and the fact sought to be established from them is only the general result of the whole; and (d) When the original is a public record in the custody of a public officer or is recorded in a public office." Furthermore, Section 5, Rule 130 of the Rules of Court states: "Sec. 5 When original document is unavailable. --- When the original document has been lost or destroyed, or cannot be produced in court, the offeror, upon proof of its execution or existence and the cause of its unavailability without bad faith on his part, may prove its contents by a copy, or by a recital of its contents in some authentic document, or by the testimony of witnesses in the order stated." A photocopy, being a mere secondary evidence, is not admissible unless it is shown that the original is unavailable. Thus, before a party is allowed to adduce secondary evidence to prove the contents of the original, the offeror must prove the following: (1) the existence or due execution of the original; (2) the loss and destruction of the original or the reason for its non-production in court; and (3) on the part of the offeror, the absence of bad faith to which the unavailability of the original can be attributed. The correct order of proof is as follows: existence, execution, loss, and contents. 7 WHEREFORE, premises considered, the respondent's Motion for Reconsideration is DENIED for lack of merit. SO ORDERED. ~�~-s,c~~ Q.. . JtJANI'TO C. CASTANEul,JR. Associate Justice 7 Country Bankers Insurance Corporation v. Antonio Lagman, G.R. No. 165487, July 13, 2011.

RESOLUTION CTA CASE NO. 9089 WE CONCUR: ~~~- With all due respect to my esteemed colleagues, I maintain my dissenting opinion. CATHERINET.MANAHAN Associate Justice