cta_decision CTA Case No. 92459245 2025-10-07

GETZ PHARMA (PHILS.), INC. v. HON. COMMISSIONER KIM S. JACINTO-HENARES, HON. ALFREDO V. MISAJON, Regional Director, Revenue Region No. 7 and HON. JOSEPHINE S. VIRTUCIO, Regional District Officer, Revenue District No. 43-A East Pasig

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES COURT OF TAX APPEALS QUEZON CITY SPECIAL SECOND DIVISION GETZ PHARMA (PHILS.), CTA CASE NO. 9245 INC., Petitioner, -versus- Members: BACORRO-VILLENA, Acting Chairperson, and CUI-DAVID,]]. HON. COMMISSIONER KIM S. JACINTO- HENARES, HON. ALFREDO V. MISAJON, Regional Director, Revenue Region No. 7 and HON. JOSEPHINE S. VIRTUCIO, Regional District Officer, Revenue District No. 43-A, East Pasig, Promulgated: . x - - - - - Respondents. ------------- -0~~~~-~~~---- ~:: ;~---- -x BACORRO-VILLENA, ]. : At bar is a Petition for Review1 filed by petitioner Getz Pharma (Phils.), Inc. (petitioner) against respondents Hon. Commissioner Kim S. Jacinto-Henares (Comm. Jacinto-Henares), Hon. Alfredo V. Misajon, Regional Director (RD Misajon), Revenue Region No. 7, and Hon. Josephine S. Virtucio, Regional District Officer (RDOrVirtucio), Revenue District No. 43-A East Pasig (respondents) pursuant to Section Filed on 20 January 2016, Division Docket, Volume I, pp. I0-43, with annexes. p'\

CTA Case No. 9245 Getz Pharma (Phils.), Inc. v. Hon. Commissioner Kim S. Jacinto-Henares, Hon. Alfredo V. Misajon, Regional Director, Revenue Region No. 7 and Hon. Josephine S. Virtucio, Regional District Officer, Revenue District No. 43-A, East Pasig DECISION x--------------------------------------------------------------------x 3(a)\ Rule 83 in relation to Section 3(a)(1)4, Rule 4s of the Revised Rules of the Court ofTax Appeals (RRCTA). The petition prays that judgment be rendered ordering the cancellation and withdrawal of the deficiency income tax (IT) and value-added tax (VAT) assessment aggregating P6o,238,702.01 (inclusive of interest), as laid out in the Preliminary Assessment Notice (PAN) I �I dated o8 January 20156 vis-a-vis the Formal Letter of Demand with Assessment Notices (FLD/FAN) dated 23 January 20157 , all issued against petitioner. The foregoing stemmed from the examination of the latter's books of accounts and other accounting records for the taxable period from 01 January to 31 December 2011, or calendar year (CY) 2011, for brevity. This case is before Us following the directive of the Court En Bane in its Decision in CTA EB No. 2435, remanding it to the Court in Division for proper determination of whether herein petitioner is liable under the assessment. SEC. 3. Who may appeal; period to file petition. - (a) A party adversely affected by a decision, ruling or the inaction of the Commissioner of Internal Revenue on disputed assessments or claims for refund of internal revenue taxes, or by a decision or ruling of the Commissioner of Customs, the Secretary of Finance, the Secretary of Trade and Industry, the Secretary of Agriculture, or a Regional Trial Court in the exercise of its original jurisdiction may appeal to the Court by petition for review filed within thirty days after receipt of a copy of such decision or ruling, or expiration of the period fixed by law for the Commissioner of Internal Revenue to act on the disputed assessments. In case of inaction of the Commissioner of Internal Revenue on claims for refund of internal revenue taxes erroneously or illegally collected, the taxpayer must file a petition for review within the two-year period prescribed by law from payment or collection of the taxes. PROCEDURE IN CIVIL CASES. 4 SEC. 3. Cases within the jurisdiction of the Court in Division. - The Court in Division shall exercise: (a) Exclusive original over or appellate jurisdiction to review by appeal the following: (2) Inaction by the Commissioner of Internal Revenue in cases inyolving disputed assessments, refunds of internal revenue taxes, fees or other charges, penalties in relation thereto, or other matters arising under the National Internal Revenue Code or other laws administered by the Bureau of Internal Revenue, where the National Internal Revenue Code or other applicable law provides a specific period for action: Provided, that in case of disputed assessments, the inaction of the Commissioner of Internal Revenue within the one hundred eighty day-period under Section 228 of I the National Internal Revenue Code shall be deemed a denial for purposes of allowing the taxpayer to appeal his case to the Court and does not necessarily constitute a formal decision of the Commissioner of Internal Revenue on the tax case[.] JURISDICTION OF THE COURT. Exhibit "P-3", Division Docket, Volume VI, pp. 3972-3973. Exhibits "P-4" and "P-5", id., pp. 3974-3975 and 3976, respectively.

CTA Case No. 9245 Getz Pharma (Phils.), Inc. v. Han. Commissioner Kim S. Jacinto-Henares, Han. Alfredo V. Misajon, Regional Director, Revenue Region No. 7 and Han. Josephine S. Virtucio, Regional District Officer, Revenue District No. 43-A, East Pasig DECISION x--------------------------------------------------------------------x PARTIES TO THE CASE Petitioner is a domestic corporation duly organized and existing under the laws of the Republic of the Philippines, with office address at 2/F, Tower I, The Rockwell Business Center, Ortigas Avenue, Pasig City.8 Respondent Comm. Jacinto-Henares was then the incumbent Commissioner of Internal Revenue (CIR), charged with, among others, the duty of assessing and collecting internal revenue taxes, fees or other charges, penalties imposed under the National Internal Revenue Code (NIRC) of 1997, as amended, or other laws or portions thereof, administered by the Bureau of Internal Revenue (BIR).9 Respondent Misajon is the RD of the BIR's Revenue Region No. 7 Quezon City10, while respondent Virtucio is the RDOr of the BIR's Revenue District No. 43-A East Pasig.11 FACTS OF THE CASE On o8 January 2015, through Revenue Region No.7- Quezon City, the BIR issued a PAN12, stating that petitioner had deficiency IT and VAT for CY 2011, collectively amounting to P58,888,172.57, inclusive of interest, summarized as follows: Tax Type Basic Tax Due Interest Total Due IT VAT P22,545,487.o6 P12,057,202.94 P34,6o2,69o.oo Total 15,373,224.31 8,912,258.26 24,285,482.57 P37 ,918,711.37 P2o,969,461.20 P 5s , s s s , I 7 2 � 5 7 Petitioner received a copy of the said PAN on 14 January 2015. 1 3 Accordingly, on 29 January 2015, petitioner filed with the CIR a letter ... f See Paragraph 6, Joint Stipulation of Facts (JSF), id., p. 3801. En Bane Decision dated 15 September 2023, rolla, Volume II, p. 991. 10 I d. II I d. 12 Exhibit "P-3", supra at note 6, vis-a-vis par. 8, JSF, supra at note 8. 13 Exhibit "P-6", Division Docket, Volume VII, pp. 4680-4698.

CTA Case No. 9245 Getz Pharma (Phils.), Inc. v. Han. Commissioner Kim S. Jacinto-Henares, Han. Alfredo V. Misajon, Regional Director, Revenue Region No.7 and Han. Josephine S. Virtucio, Regional District Officer, Revenue District No. 43-A, East Pasig DECISION x--------------------------------------------------------------------x dated 27 January 2015 as its Reply to the PAN.14 Therein, petitioner sought the PAN's cancellation. It presented its position and disputed each item of the assessment, as laid out in the PAN. Likewise, petitioner questioned the assessment's validity, stating that it failed to clearly lay down its factual and legal basis, and that the CIR's right to assess had already prescribed. Thereafter, on 23 January 2015, the BIR issued the FLD/FAN.15 It demanded anew the payment ofthe same basic tax deficiencies as stated in the PAN, this time aggregating P6o,238,702.01 (as adjusted for incremental interest), broken down as follows: Tax Type Basic Tax Due Interest Total Due IT VAT P22,545,487.o6 P12,86o,192.89 P35.405,679�95 Total 15.373,224�31 9.459,797�75 24,833,022.06 P37>9I8,7II.37 P22,319,99o.64 P6o,2J8,7o2.o1 -- On 26 January 2015, petitioner received a copy thereof.16 Thus, on 25 February 2015, petitioner filed with the CIR a Letter-Protest of even date (Letter-Protest).17 Therein, petitioner foremost underscored that the FLD/FAN was void for being issued in violation of its due process rights, for supposedly having been issued ahead of the end of the period given for petitioner to reply to the PAN. It likewise recapitulated its positions and arguments as earlier set forth in its Reply to the PAN. On 18 March 201518, petitioner received a letter dated n March 201519 issued by the BIR through Revenue Region No.7- Quezon City. It informed petitioner that the "protest letter I request for reinvestigation dated February 25, 2015 ... has been GRANTED pursuant to Section 228 of the NIRC' and that its case would be forwarded to Revenue District No. 43A for further disposition. l' 14 I d. 15 Exhibits "P-4" and "P-5", supra at note 7, vis-a-vis par. 9, JSF, supra at note 8. 16 Exhibits "P-7", Division Docket, Volume VII, pp. 4712-4733. 17 I d. 18 Exhibit "P-9", Division Docket, Volume VI, p. 4054, vis-a-vis par. 10, Division Docket, Volume VI, p. 3801. 19 I d.

CTA Case No. 9245 Getz Pharma (Phils.), Inc. v. Hon. Commissioner Kim S. Jacinto-Henares, Hon. Alfredo V. Misajon, Regional Director, Revenue Region No. 7 and Hon. Josephine S. Virtucio, Regional District Officer, Revenue District No. 43-A, East Pasig DECISION x--------------------------------------------------------------------x Relying on Section 22827 of the NIRC, as amended, vis-a-vis Revenue Regulations (RR) No. 12-9928 and the pertinent provisions of the RRCTA29, petitioner counted 180 days from the date of its submission of relevant additional documentary evidence in compliance with the directive in Revenue District No. 43A's earlier letter dated n May 2015)0 On 21 December 2015, or after 180 days had lapsed, petitioner deemed the CIR to have failed to act on or decide on its Letter-Protest.31 As such, on 20 January 2016, or within the next thirty (3o) days after the expiration of the 18o-day period for the CIR to act on the protest, petitioner filed the instant Petition for Review32 , wherein petitioner prayed that the Court strike down the PAN and FLD/FAN issued in this case. The case was initially raffled to this Court's First Division. PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE FIRST DIVISION On 27 January 2016, the First Division served Summons33 on respondents, requiring them to submit an Answer within 15 days from service. Respondents received a copy thereof on 01 February 2016 and, thus, had until16 February 2016, to file an Answer.34 On 14 April 2016, after the First Division granted extensions of time3S, respondents filed their Answer.36 There, they cited the following special and affirmative defenses: (1) all presumptions are in favor of the correctness of the assessment; and (2) the subject assessment had already become final, executory and demandable due to petitioner's 27 SEC. 228. Protesting ofAssessment. 28 Implementing the Provisions of the National Internal Revenue Code of 1997 Governing the Rules on Assessment of National Internal Revenue Taxes, Civil Penalties and Interest and the Extra- Judicial Settlement of a Taxpayer's Criminal Violation ofthe Code Through Payment of a Suggested Compromise Penalty. 29 Supra at notes 2-5. I 30 Par. 8, Petition for Review, Division Docket, Volume I, pp. 13-14. 31 Par. 9, id., p. 15. 32 Supra at note I. 33 Division Docket, Volume II, pp. I 070-1071. 34 Id., p. I072. 35 See Order dated 16 February 2016 and Resolution dated 22 March 2016, id., pp. I 076 and I 083, respectively. 36 Id., pp. I084-1088.

CTA Case No. 9245 Getz Pharma (Phils.), Inc. v. Hon. Commissioner Kim S. Jacinto-Henares, Hon. Alfredo V. Misajon, Regional Director, Revenue Region No. 7 and Han. Josephine S. Virtucio, Regional District Officer, Revenue District No. 43-A, East Pasig DECISION X--------------------------------------------------------------------X failure to timely file a Petition for Review in accordance with Section 228 of the NIRC of 1997, as amended. With the admission of respondents' Answer, the First Division initially set the Pre-Trial on 30 June 2016.J7 Ahead of the same, on 27 June 2016, petitioner filed its Pre-Trial Brief.38 Meanwhile, respondents filed their Pre-Trial Brie�39 on o8 September 2016. On 10 November 2016, the Pre-Trial Conference proceeded40 Therein, the First Division set the schedules for the presentation of the parties' witnesses (the first of which was set on 02 May 2017) and Commissioner's Hearings for the marking of their documentary exhibits. It likewise ordered the parties to file their Joint Stipulation of Facts and Issues (JSFI) within 15 days, or by 25 November 2016.41 On 22 December 2016, after extensions42 granted by the First Division, the parties filed their JSFI.43 On 17 February 2017, the First Division approved the parties' JSFI, terminated the pre-trial44 and issued the Pre-Trial Order on 07 April 20q.45 Thereafter, the trial proper ensued. Isagani B. Bobis (Bobis), petitioner's Senior Finance Manager, took the stand as petitioner's first witness. Through his Judicial Affidavit46, Bobis declared that, after receiving the PAN (for its purported tax deficiencies for CY 2011) on 14 January 2015, the BIR issued the FLD/FAN dated 23 January 2015, then petitioner received a copy thereof on 26 January 2015. He declared that he consulted petitioner's counsel, who then told him that petitioner had a right to reply to the PAN within 15 days, and that the issuance of the FLD/FAN only nine (9) days after 37 See Notice ofpre-Trial Conference, id., pp. I089-1091. 38 !d., pp. 1148-1160. 39 Id., Volume VI, pp. 3678-3681. 40 The initial Pre-Trial Conference was rescheduled to OJ September 2016. However, it was pushed further back to I0 November 20 I6 during the hearing when respondents failed to appear. 41 See Minutes of the Hearing and Order, both dated I0 November 20 I6, Division Docket, Volume VI, pp. 3743-3745 and 3748-3749, respectively. 42 See Resolutions dated 02 December 2016 and 17 February 2017, id., pp. 3773 and 3838-3842, respectively. r 43 See Joint Stipulation of Facts (JSF), id., pp. 3800-3803. f 44 See Resolution dated 17 February 2017, id., pp. 3838-3842. 45 Id., pp. 3853-3864. 46 Exhibit "P-27", Judicial Affidavit (of Mr. Isagani B. Bobis), id., Volume III, pp. 1895-1916.

CTA Case No. 9245 Getz Pharma (Phils.), Inc. v. Hon. Commissioner Kim S. Jacinto-Henares, Hon. Alfredo V. Misajon, Regional Director, Revenue Region No. 7 and Hon. Josephine S. Virtucio, Regional District Officer, Revenue District No. 43-A, East Pasig DECISION x--------------------------------------------------------------------x their receipt of the PAN rendered the FLD/FAN void. He continued that petitioner still proceeded to file its Reply to the PAN on 27 January 2015, and a Letter-Protest to the FLD/FAN on 25 February 2015. He confirmed that, in both, petitioner outlined its arguments against the BIR's findings (in support of its stand that it is not liable for any deficient IT nor VAT). Bobis then outlined the series of correspondences petitioner received from the BIR, beginning from the first letter dated 11 March 2015 informing petitioner that its Request for Reinvestigation had been granted to another letter dated n May 2015 requiring petitioner to submit all relevant supporting documents. Bobis attested that, in response to the latter letter, petitioner transmitted the requested documents on 05 June 2015, though this was followed by a further request from GS Atos for petitioner's CY 2011 Sales Book (which petitioner transmitted on 24 June 2015). He continued that, in separate instances on 05 October 2015 and 29 October 2015, petitioner received further requests from the BIR for specific additional documentation. Bobis recalled that, after finding that petitioner already submitted the documents in question, the latter nonetheless re-submitted copies of the same. From here, Bobis represented that petitioner waited for the BIR's action on the Letter- Protest but opted to file a Petition for Review after 180 days had passed without receiving any resolution from the BIR.47 As respondent's counsel failed to appear in the said hearing, the First Division deemed respondents to have waived their right to cross-examine Bobis.48 Aggrieved, on 30 May 2017, respondents filed a Motion for Reconsideration (MR), asking to be allowed to cross-examine petitioner previous witness.49 The First Division ultimately denied the same, after finding that respondent's counsel failed to sufficiently justify failing to appear at the previous hearing.'L? 47 ld. 48 See Minutes of the Hearing and Order, both dated 02 May 2017, id., Volume VI, pp. 3869-3871 and 3872-3873, respectively. 49 See Respondents' Motion for Reconsideration dated 30 May 2017, id., pp. 3879-3880. 50 See Resolution dated 17 November 2017, id., Volume VII, pp. 4593-4597.

CTA Case No. 9245 Getz Pharma (Phils.), Inc. v. Hon. Commissioner Kim S. Jacinto-Henares, Hon. Alfredo V. Misajon, Regional Director, Revenue Region No. 7 and Hon. Josephine S. Virtucio, Regional District Officer, Revenue District No. 43-A, East Pasig DECISION x--------------------------------------------------------------------x In the Resolution dated 17 November 201760, the First Division acted upon petitioner's FOE, admitting most of its offered exhibits, save for some exceptions. In particular, the Court denied admission of (1) EXh1.b1.tS "P-2"' "P-6"' "P-7"' "P-8"' "P-11"' "P-11-1" t0 "P-11-21"' "P-11-23"' "P-11-25" to "P-11-29", "P-11-31" to "P-11-33", "P-11-37" to "P-11-38", "P-11-44" to "P-11-45", "P-11-47" to "P-11-49", "P-12", "P-13", "P-14", "P-15", "P-16", "P-17","P-19", "P-20", "P-21", "P-22" to "P-22-1", "P-23", "P-24", "P-25", and "P-26': for petitioner's failure to submit the duly marked exhibits; and (2) Exh1.b.Its "P-8-1 sen.es", "P-11-22", "P-11-24", "P-11-30", "P-11-34" to "P-11-36", "P-11-39" to "P-11-43", "P-11-46", "P-12-1 sen.es", "P-13-1 sen.es", "P-14-1 series", "P-15-1 series", and "P-16-1 series", for petitioner's failure to submit the originals for comparison. In an effort to remedy the denials, petitioner filed a Motion for Partial Reconsideration61 (MPR) on o8 December 2017. Respondents failed to file their comment thereto.62 Thus, in the Resolution dated 11 September 201863, the First Division granted the MPR, admitting all of the previously denied Exhibits from petitioner's FOE. In the same Resolution, the First Division set the next hearing, for respondents' presentation of evidence, on o8 November 2018. PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE SECOND DIVISION Pursuant to CTA Administrative Circular No. 02-2018 dated 18 September 201864, the present case was transferred to this Court's Second Division, which continued to hear the same.65 On 29 November 2018, respondents filed an "Urgent Motion to Reset and Cancel Hearing"66 (Urgent Motion), asking the Court to postpone the upcoming hearing. Respondents manifested that there had been a change with the handling counsel for the present case, and that 60 Supra at note 50. 61 Division Docket, Volume VII, pp. 4601-4609. 62 See Records Verification dated 17 January 2018, id., p. 5236. 63 Id., pp. 5259-526 I. 64 Reorganizing the Three (3) Divisions of the Court. 65 In an Order dated 26 September 20 18, the First Division cancelled the hearing scheduled on 08 November 2018. It was then reset to 05 December 2018, by the Second Division, pursuant to an Order dated 12 November 2018; id., pp. 4586A and 4587A, respectively. ( 66 Id., pp. 4589A-4591A. f

CTA Case No. 9245 Getz Pharma (Phils.), Inc. v. Han. Commissioner Kim S. Jacinto-Henares, Han. Alfredo V. Misajon, Regional Director, Revenue Region No.7 and Han. Josephine S. Virtucio, Regional District Officer, Revenue District No. 43-A, East Pasig DECISION x--------------------------------------------------------------------x the old counsel of record still had custody over the case's records, while the new counsel had yet to interview their intended witnesses. The scheduled hearing proceeded on os December 20I8.67 Noting petitioner's objection in open court, the Second Division denied respondents' Urgent Motion. The Second Division then granted petitioner's oral motion to deem as waived respondents' right to present evidence. It then gave the parties 30 days to file their respective memoranda. On I8 January 2019, respondents filed an MR68 praying that the Court reconsider its ruling on their Urgent Motion and that they be allowed to present evidence. On 04 February 2019, petitioner filed its Opposition69 thereto. In the Resolution dated IS February 201970, the Second Division denied the MR for being filed beyond the Is-day reglementary period (counted from the Second Division's Order made in open court on os December 2oi8), holding that respondents failed to demonstrate any excusable circumstances for their delay in filing their MR. Meanwhile, on 2I January 20I9, petitioner filed its Memorandum7\ after a Is-day extension72 granted by the Second Division. On the other hand, respondents had not filed one by IO April 20I9.73 Thus, in the Resolution dated 22 April20I974, the Second Division submitted the case for decision. On 09 June 2020, the Second Division promulgated its Decision75, dismissing the Petition for Review for lack of jurisdiction. The dispositive portion thereof reads: 67 See Minutes of the Hearing and Order, both dated 05 December 2018, id., pp. 4592A and 4593A- 4594A, respectively. 68 Respondents' "Motion for Reconsideration (Order dated December 5, 20 18)" dated 18 January 2019, id., pp. 4602A-4605A. 69 Petitioner's "Opposition (To the Motion for Reconsideration ofthe Respondents dated 18 January 2019)" dated OJ February 2019, id., pp. 4638A-4644A. 70 Id., pp. 4648A-4650A. 71 Id., pp. 4606A-4633A. 72 See Order dated 07 January 2019, id., p. 4601A. 73 See Records Verification dated 10 April2019, id., p. 4651A. 74 Id., p. 4652A. 75 Id., pp. 4654A-4670A. I

CTA Case No. 9245 Getz Pharma (Phils.), Inc. v. Han. Commissioner Kim S. Jacinto-Henares, Han. Alfredo V. Misajon, Regional Director, Revenue Region No. 7 and Han. Josephine S. Virtucio, Regional District Officer, Revenue District No. 43-A, East Pasig DECISION x--------------------------------------------------------------------x WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Petition for Review is DISMISSED for this Court's lack of jurisdiction. SO ORDERED. In dismissing the petition, the Second Division mainly held that petitioner's filing of a Letter-Protest in the form of a Request for Reconsideration meant that the applicable periods should be observed in determining the timeliness of the Petition for Review. Accordingly, counting from petitioner's filing of its Letter-Protest on 25 February 2015, the Second Division declared that the prescribed 18o-day period for respondents to act thereupon ended on 24 August 2015. It then concluded that a Petition for Review should have been filed within the trailing 3o-day period, or until23 September 2015; hence, the Court lacked jurisdiction to entertain the Petition for Review filed on 20 January 2016. Dissatisfied with the Second Division's findings, petitioner filed an MR76 on o6 July 2020. Petitioner insinuated that it was the BIR that treated its Letter-Protest as a Request for Reinvestigation when it asked petitioner to submit additional documents. For petitioner, it timely filed its Petition for Review, as the rules applicable to Request for Reinvestigation should have been applied (and not those applicable to Requests for Reconsideration). Respondents failed to comment.77 In a Resolution dated 18 December 202078, the Second Division denied petitioner's MR, finding no merit thereon. The dispositive portion reads as follows: WHEREFORE, premises considered, petitioner's Motion for Reconsideration (of the Decision dated 09 June 2020) is DENIED for lack of merit. 76 I Petitioner's "Motion for Reconsideration (ofthe Decision dated 09 June 2020)" dated 04 July 2020, 77 id., pp. 4671A-4691A. 78 See Records Verification dated 0 I October 2020, id., p. 4870A. Id., pp. 4873A-4880A. .

CTA Case No. 9245 Getz Pharma (Phils.), Inc. v. Hon. Commissioner Kim S. Jacinto-Henares, Han. Alfredo V. Misajon, Regional Director, Revenue Region No. 7 and Han. Josephine S. Virtucio, Regional District Officer, Revenue District No. 43-A, East Pasig DECISION x--------------------------------------------------------------------x Thus, in the Resolution dated 17 January 20249\ the Court En Bane denied respondents' MR, finding that the same contained mere reiterations of arguments already passed upon in the En Bane Decision. The Court En Bane held thusly: WHEREFORE, premises considered, respondents' Motion for Reconsideration (En Bane Decision dated 15 September 2023) is hereby DENIED for lack of merit. Accordingly, the Court's Decision dated September 15, 2023 is AFFIRMED. SO ORDERED. By 26 April2024, the Court En Bane noted that no appeal had been filed with the Supreme Court.93 With this, the Court En Bane caused the recording of the Court En Bane's Decision dated 15 September 2023 into the Book of Entries of Judgments. Accordingly, on 29 April 2024, the En Bane Clerk of Court issued an Entry of Judgment, declaring that the Court En Bane's Decision dated 15 September 2023 had become final and executory.94 PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE SPECIAL SECOND DIVISION With the case's remand, the Special Second Division issued a Resolution dated 27 June 202495, giving the parties 15 days to file a Manifestation alleging any supervening event that may have transpired during the case's pendency which they want to present to the Court for its consideration. On 17 July 2024, petitioner filed its Compliance/Manifestation96, stating that there has been no such supervening event. Respondents, on the other hand, failed to file one.97 92 Id., pp. I098-110 I; Emphasis and italics in the original text. 93 See Records Verification dated 26 April2024, id., p. 1102. 94 Id., pp. II 03-1104. 95 Division Docket, Volume XI, pp. 5959-5960. 96 Petitioner's "Compliance/Manifestation" dated 16 July 2024, id., pp. 5961-5964. I 97 See Records Verification dated 12 September 2024, id., p. 5969.

CTA Case No. 9245 Getz Pharma (Phils.), Inc. v. Han. Commissioner Kim S. Jacinto-Henares, Han. Alfredo V. Misajon, Regional Director, Revenue Region No. 7 and Han. Josephine S. Virtucio, Regional District Officer, Revenue District No. 43-A, East Pasig DECISION X--------------------------------------------------------------------X RULING OF THE COURT At the outset, We must highlight that the Court En Bane had affirmed the Court in Division's exercise of jurisdiction. In CTA EB No. 2435 entitled Getz Pharma (Phils.), Inc. v. Commissioner Kim S. ]aeinto- Henares, et al., the Court En Bane explicitly declared- The 18o-day period shall be reckoned from the submission of documents, which in this case happened on June 24, 2015. Notably, petitioner made further submission of documents after June 24, 2015 pursuant to the October 5, 2015 Letter of the ROO. However, these are mere re-submission of documents that are already in the possession of the revenue officers, i.e., the October 22, 2015 Letter pointed out that the documents requested were already submitted in the Letter dated June 5, 2015, and the November 13, 2015 Letter stated that the requested AFS was already submitted at the start of the audit of petitioner. Indeed, Section 3.1.4 of RR No. 12-99, as amended by RR No. 18-2013, provides that it is the taxpayer who determines which pieces of evidence may be treated as "relevant supporting documents" necessary to support the legal and factual bases of the protest. That determination was made by petitioner when it submitted all such documents on June 24, 2015. In fine, respondent had 180 days from June 24, 2015, or until December 21, 2015, within which to act on the protest. Considering that no FDDA was issued on said date, petitioner had the option of filing a petition for review within thirty (3o) days therefrom, or until January 20, 2016. Thus, the filing of the original Petition for Review on January 2o, 2016 vested jurisdiction with the Court in Division.100 We proceed to the merits of the instant case. Notably, this is a case remanded from the Court En Bane, for the Court in Division's to determine whether petitioner is liable under the subject assessment for CY 2on. 100 Rollo, Volume II, p. I002; Emphasis in the original text and supplied. ! f

CTA Case No. 9245 Getz Pharma (Phils.), Inc. v. Hon. Commissioner Kim S. Jacinto-Henares, Hon. Alfredo V. Misajon, Regional Director, Revenue Region No. 7 and Hon. Josephine S. Virtucio, Regional District Officer, Revenue District No. 43-A, East Pasig DECISION x--------------------------------------------------------------------x 3.1.2 Preliminary Assessment Notice (PAN). - If after review and evaluation by the Assessment Division or by the Commissioner or his duly authorized representative, as the case may be, it is determined that there exists sufficient basis to assess the taxpayer for any deficiency tax or taxes, the said Office shall issue to the taxpayer, at least by registered mail, a Preliminary Assessment Notice (PAN) for the proposed assessment, showing in detail, the facts and the law, rules and regulations, or jurisprudence on which the proposed assessment is based... If the taxpayer fails to respond within fifteen (15) days from date of receipt of the PAN, he shall be considered in default, in which case, a formal letter of demand and assessment notice shall be caused to be issued by the said Office, calling for payment of the taxpayer's deficiency tax liability, inclusive of the applicable penalties.102 Following the above-stated rules, the CIR or his or her duly authorized representative is required to issue a PAN against the taxpayer whenever there is a finding of any deficiency tax due. The taxpayer is then given 15 days, counted from receipt thereof, to respond. The taxpayer's failure to respond within the period prescribed results in the taxpayer being considered in default, leading to the issuance of an FLD/FAN. The Supreme Court had long since settled the mandatory nature of the issuance of the PAN and compliance with the due process requirements in Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Metro Star Superama, Inc. 103: Indeed, Section 228 of the Tax Code clearly requires that the taxpayer must first be informed that he is liable for deficiency taxes through the sending of a PAN. He must be informed of the facts and the law upon which the assessment is made. The law imposes a substantive, not merely a formal, requirement. To proceed heedlessly with tax collection without first establishing a valid assessment is evidently violative of the cardinal principle in administrative investigations - that taxpayers should be able to present their case and adduce supporting evidence. 102 Emphasis supplied and italics in the original text. 103 G.R. No. I 8537 I, 08 December 20 I0; Citations omitted and italics in the original text. I

Want an analysis of this document?

Ask ASG Legal AI to summarize it, compare it with other rulings, or explain how it applies to your situation — it researches from this same library.