SHIRLEY TAN FESTIN, doing business under the name and style of CSR CONSTRUCTION AND SUPPLY, v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES COURT OF TAX APPEALS QUEZON CITY SPECIAL THIRD DIVISION SHIRLEY TAN FESTIN, CTA Case No.10264 doing business under the Members: name and style of CSR REYES-FAJARDO, Chairperson, ANGELES,JL CONSTRUCTION AND SUPPLY, Petitioner, -versus- COMMISSIONER OF Promulgated: INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent. MAR 1 3 2026 ~ X------ ---- ------ ----- - -- - - --- ---- -~-: "}~ _f!. ~-~----- - ---X RESOLUTION REYES-FAJARDO, J.: In the Decision1 dated August 13, 2025, We found that: (1) jurisdiction was obtained over CTA Case No. 10264, because petitioner timely instituted its appeal, within thirty (30) days from her receipt of respondent's Warrant of Distraint and/or Levy (WDL) dated January 28, 2020; (2) the deficiency internal revenue tax assessments for Taxable Year (TY) 2014 were voided because there was no proof that the Formal Letter of Demand and Final Assessment Notice (FLD/FAN) pertaining thereto was actually received by petitioner or her duly authorized representative; and (3) petitioner failed to show entitlement to the issuance of a Tax Clearance Certificate, per pertinent regulations. Precisely, CTA Case No. 10264 was disposed as follows: WHEREFORE, We RESOLVE to: a. GRANT the Petition for Review dated March 2, 2020; Docket, pp. 1111-1130.

RESOLUTION CTA Case No. 10264 b. NULLIFY and LIFT the Warrant of Distraint and/ or Levy dated January 28, 2020 and Warrants of Garnishment, pertinent to the 2014 deficiency internal revenue taxes, and corresponding increments, for being fruits of a void assessment; c. PROHIBIT the Commissioner of Internal Revenue, his agents, or other persons acting on his behalf from collecting on Shirley Tan Festin, the deficiency Income Tax, Value-Added Tax, Expanded Withholding Tax, and Miscellaneous Charges in the total amount of P19,426,405.22, inclusive of interest, covering Taxable Year 2014; and d. DENY the Supplemental Petition for Review dated October 20, 2020, for lack of merit. SO ORDERED. Unfazed, respondent lodged his Motion for Reconsideration (Re: Decision dated 13 August 2025),2 praying that the Decision dated August 13, 2025 be overturned, attended by the following justifications: One. Jurisdiction was not obtained over CTA Case No. 10264, because petitioner failed to file its appeal within thirty (30) days from her receipt of the Final Decision on Disputed Assessment. Two. The tax assessments found by his agents are prima facie presumed true and correct. In the absence of proof that the same are flawed, then such tax assessments should be sustained. Via Comment/ Opposition (To the Motion for Reconsideration dated September 12, 2025), 3 petitioner ripostes that no reversible error was committed, in the rendition of the Decision dated August 13, 2025, with the following postulations: One. Jurisdiction was secured over CTA Case No. 10264, because she timely filed her appeal, within thirty (30) days from receipt of the WDL dated January 28, 2020. Two. She cannot be compelled to pay the 2014 deficiency taxes found under the FLD/FAN because she failed to receive the same, offensive of her right to due process. 2 Id. at pp. 1131-1140. 3 Id. at pp. 1147-1162.

RESOLUTION CTA Case No. 10264 Page 3 of4 We agree with petitioner. First. Respondent provided a myopic understanding of the Court's jurisdiction. Section 7(a)(1) of Republic Act No. 1125, as amended, reads: Sec. 7. Jurisdiction. -The CTA shall exercise: a. Exclusive appellate jurisdiction to review by appeal, as herein provided: 1. Decisions of the Commissioner of Internal Revenue in cases involving 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; True, as pointed out by respondent, a timely appeal of the Final Decision on Disputed Assessment (FDDA) is required for Us to acquire jurisdiction over respondent's decision on disputed assessment. However, petitioner's recourse to Us was not triggered by the FDDA. Rather, it was the service of the BIR's Warrant of Distraint and/ or Levy (WDL) to her on January 31, 2020, which prompted petitioner to seek judicial redress. Additionally, a WDL falls under other matters arising from the National Internal Revenue Code (NIRC), as amended. Thus, counting thirty (30) days such service, petitioner had until March 2, 2020 4 to seek recourse. Therefore, the timely filing of the Petition on March 2, 2020 clothed Us with jurisdiction over CTA Case No. 10264.5 Second. True, tax assessments prepared by respondent's examiners are presumed true and correct. 6 Yet, as found in the assailed Decision, no such formal assessment was validly issued, let alone, received by petitioner? Without the valid issuance and receipt of the formal assessment, petitioner was deprived of opportunity to contest the same, as guaranteed by Section 228 of the NIRC, as amended, as implemented by Revenue Regulations No. 18-2013, thereby exposing violation of petitioner's right to due process. For this reason, the formal assessment for 2014 deficiency internal 4 The 301h day, i.e., March 1, 2020, fell on a Sunday. 5 See page 12, assailed Decision. Docket, p. 1122. 6 Respondent cites plethora of cases in s upport of his position. !d. at p. 1137. 7 See pages 13-16 of the assailed Decision. ld. at pp. 1123-1126.

RESOLUTION CTA Case No. 10264 Page 4 of4 revenue taxes issued against petitioner rs void. Being void, it produces no valid effect.s ACCORDINGLY, respondent's Motion for Reconsideration (Re: Decision dated 13 August 2025) is DENIED, for lack of merit. The Decision dated August 13, 2025 is AFFIRMED. SO ORDERED. ~~f.~ .. foi~ MARIAN-I~ F. RE)4;S-FAJARDO Associate Justice I CONCUR: HENRY f!i.NGELES Associate Justice 8 See Prime Steel Mill, Incorporated v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, G.R. No. 249153, September 12, 2022.