CTA Decisions CTA Case No. AC-340AC-340 2026-09-07

NEW MOON HOLDINGS (PHILIPPINES) INC. v. THE CITY OF TAGUIG AND ATTY. J. VOLTAIRE L. ENRIQUEZ IN HIS CAPACITY AS THE CITY TREASURER OF THE CITY OF TAGUIG

111111111111 111111111111111 11111 1111111111111111111111111 11111 11111 1111111111111 CTA Form No. 8 (For DCC) 24-0006 14-0031 REPUBLIC OF THE PIDLIPPINES COURT OF TAX APPEALS QUEZON CITY SPECIAL FIRST DIVISION CTA AC NO. 340 NEW MOON HOLDINGS (PIDLIPPINES) INC., Petitioner, -versus- THE CITY OF TAGUIG AND NOTICE OF DECISION ATTY. J. VOLTAIRE L. ENRIQUEZ IN IDS CAPACITY AS THE CITY TREASURER OF THE CITY OF TAGUIG, Respondents. To: ALVAREZ NUEZ GALANG ESPINA & LOPEZ LAW OFFICES (Counsel for the Petitioner) Rm. 904 9th Floor Cebu Holdings Center Cebu Business Park, Cebu City 6000 Cebu CITY LEGAL OFFICE Thru:Atty. Fatima A. Alconcel-Relente (Counsel for the Respondents City ofTaguig and Office of the City Treasurer) 4th Floor, City Hall Building, Gen. Antonio Luna Street Barangay Tuktukan, 1637 Taguig City HON. ANTONIO M. OLIVETE Presiding Judge Thru : Branch Clerk of Cour t Regional Trial Court National Capital Judicial Region Branch 267 - Taguig City 2nd Floor, Hall of Justice Building DPWH Compound, General Santos Avenue Central Bicutan, Taguig City GREETINGS: You are hereby notified by these presents that on September 7, 2026, a Resolution was rendered in the above-entitled case, copy of which is attached hereto. Quezon City, Philippines, September 8, 2026. Atty. Maria J~~Chan-Te I l Executive C~ourt III ••. Page I of 1

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES COURT OF TAX APPEALS QUEZON CITY SPECIAL FIRST DIVISION NEW MOON HOLDINGS CTA AC NO. 340 (PHILIPPINES) INC., Petitioner, Members: -versus- BACORRO-VILLENA, Acting Chairperson, and CUI-DAVID, JJ. THE CITY OF TAGUIG AND ATTY. VOLTAIRE L. ENRIQUEZ IN HIS CAPACITY AS THE CITY Promulgated: TREASURER OF THE CITY OF TAGUIG, Respondents. SEP .0 ~ ~~ :'bO P~ X - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -0 ? - - - - - - - - - -X DECISION CUI-DAVID, J.: Before the Court is a Petition for Review [Pursuant to RA 1125 as Amended & Rule 42 of the Rules of Courtjl (Petition for Review), filed on October 10, 2024, assailing the Orders dated June 27, 2024 and August 22, 2024 issued by the Regional Trial Court, Branch 267, Taguig City (RTC), in Civil Case No. 1015 entitled "New Moon Holdings (Philippines) Inc. v. The City of Taguig and Atty. J. Voltaire L. Enriquez in his capacity as the City Treasurer of the City ofTaguig." The assailed Orders disposed of the case as follows: Order dated June 27, 2024 WHEREFORE, having no jurisdiction over the instant complaint because it was filed out of time, the instant complaint is hereby DISMISSED. SO ORDERED. 2 1 Division Docket, pp. 5-21. 2 /d. at 29.

DECISION CTA AC NO. 340 New Moon Holdings (Ph ilippines) Inc . v. The City of Taguig and Atty. Voltaire L. Enriquez in his capacity as the City Treasurer of the City of Taguig x------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------x Business Taxes (LBT) in the amount of P599, 197.00 for the 1st to 4 th quarters of 2023 .9 On January 19, 2023, petitioner paid the assessed LBT.1o Petitioner again filed an application for the renewal of its business license with respondent City of Taguig on January 12, 2024. 11 On January 14, 2024,12 petitioner was assessed LBT, deficiency LBT, surcharge, interest, and permit fees for the 1st to 4 th quarters of 2024 amounting to p 12,317' 153.56.13 On February 13, 2024, petitioner filed a letter dated January 29, 2024 14 (Protest Letter) formally protesting the assessment of LBT as reflected in the Notice of Assessment No. 240114140666 dated January 14, 2024 , in the amount of P12, 185,168.56 for 2024 and claiming a tax credit in the amount of P502,000.000 allegedly pertaining to its 2023 tax payment. Citing inaction on the part of respondent City Treasurer, petitioner filed a Complaint15 before the RTC . 16 The Complaint prayed that judgment be rendered as follows: 1. Ordering [respon d ents] to a nnul a nd / or cancel t h e Notice of Ass essment No. 240114140666, which a ssessed [petition er] with local busines s tax for the 1st to 4th quarters of 2024 in t h e total a mount of PHP 4 33,252 .55 a n d deficiency local business t ax, surcharge a nd interest for the 1st to 4th quarters of 20 23 in the tota l amount of PHP 11 ,751 ,9 15.68; a nd, 2. Ordering [respondents] to grant or allow [petitioner] a tax refund or tax credit in t h e a m ount of PHP 5 02 ,0 0 0. 00, representing the amount of erroneously paid by [petition er] on 19 J a nuary 2023 a s local busin ess tax for the 1st to 4 th quarters of 2023 .17 In the assailed Order dated June 27, 2024, the RTC dismissed petitioner's Complaint for having been filed out of time. The RTC held that although the Complaint was electronically filed on May 13, 2024, the electronic mail !d. at p. 26, Order dated June 27, 2024; 11 5, Exhibit " E". 10 /d. at 8, Petition for Review, par. I 0; 11 6, Exhibit " F"; RTC Docket, p. 12, Complaint, par. 8; 98, Exhibit " H" . 11 /d., Petition for Review, par. II. 12 /d. at 11 7, Exhibit "G", Assessment Date: 0 1114/2024. 13 /d. at 26, Order dated June 27, 2024; 117-11 8, Exhibit "G". 14 /d. at 11 9- 126, Exhibit " H"; 26-27, Order dated June 27, 2024. 15 RTC Docket, pp. 10-33. 16 Division Docket, p. 28, Order dated June 27, 2024. 7 1 RTC Docket, p. 32.

DECISION CTA AC NO. 340 New Moon Holdings (Ph ilippines) Inc. v. The City of Taguig and Atty. Voltaire L. Enriquez in his capacity a s the City Trea su rer of th e City of Tagu ig Page 5 of 2 4 x------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------x 1. The RTC committed serious errors of fact and law and committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to excess or lack of jurisdiction in issuing the assailed Orders dated June 27, 2024 and August 22 , 2024, dismissing petitioner's appeal on a rigid rule of technicality whose application has no basis in fact and in law; 2 . The RTC committed serious errors of fact and law and committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to excess or lack of jurisdiction in issuing the assailed Orders dated June 27, 2024 and August 22 , 2024 in that the RTC violated the basic doctrine that merits and substance should prevail over rigid technicalities; 3 . The RTC committed serious errors of fact and law and committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to excess or lack of jurisdiction in issuing the assailed Orders dated June 27, 2024 and August 22, 2024, in that the RTC blindly closed its eyes to the clear and obvious merit of petitioner's appeal.27 Petitioner's Arguments Petitioner insists that the filing of its Complaint before the RTC was timely. It submits that the RTC erred in concluding that, because the Complaint was filed via electronic mail on May 13, 2024, after office hours, the filing could not be deemed made on the same dat e. According to petitioner, there is no doctrine, principle, or legal authority providing that the term "last day" ends at 4 :30 p.m., 5:00 p .m ., or whatever. Rather, petitioner points to various legal authorities recognizing that the term "day" means 24 hours or the entire day. Petitioner cites Article 13 of the Civil Code,28 Section 31 of the Administr ative Code of 198729 and Section 3 , Rule 13 of the Rules of Court30 to bolster its position. J 27 28 Division Docket, pp. I 0-1 1. ll ARTICLE 13. When the laws speak of years, months, days or nights, it shall be understood that years are of three hundred sixty-five days each; months, of thirty days; days, of twenty-four hours; and nights from sunset to sunrise. If months are designated by their name, they shall be computed by the number of days which they respectively have. In computing a period, the first day shall be excluded, and the last day included. 29 Section 3 1. Legal Periods. - "Year" shall be understood to be twelve cal endar months; "month" of thirty days, unless it refers to a specific calendar month in which case it shall be computed according to the number of days the specific month contains: "day." to a day of twenty-fou r hours; and "night," from sunset to sunrise. 30 Section 3. Manner offiling.- T he fili ng of pleadings and other court submissions shall be made by:

DECISION CTA AC NO. 340 New Moon Holdings (Philippines) Inc . v. The City of Taguig and Atty. Voltaire L. Enriquez in his capacity as the City Treasurer of the City of Taguig x------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------x Petitioner further argues that the RTC erred in concluding that electronic filing was not allowed because mandatory electronic filing took effect only on September 2, 2024, referring to OCA Circular No. 117-2024, which provided that mandatory electronic mail or electronic filing was moved from April 5, 2024 to September 2, 2024. Petitioner asserts that electronic mail filing had already been allowed since the 2019 Amendment to the Rules of Court, even before it was made mandatory. The rule on mandatory electronic filing does not mean that electronic or electronic mail filing was not allowed before September 2 , 2024. Petitioner likewise posits that the Rules of Procedure must yield to demands of substantial justice and parties must be given the amplest opportunity to ventilate their case free from the restraints of technicalities. Petitioner laments that the RTC allowed technicalities to prevail over the merits of the case. Assuming, for the sake of argument (but not admitting), that petitioner's pleading was filed one day late, petitioner contends that the dismissal thereof was nonetheless unjustified and effectively deprived it of its right to appeal due to circumstances beyond its control. Petitioner narrates that on May 13, 2024, at 4:00 p.m., its personnel proceeded to the vicinity of the RTC to file the pleading necessary to perfect its appeal of the assessment. Upon arriving at the entrance of the court building, however, its personnel were allegedly informed by a security officer that the cut-off time for court filings was 3:30 p.m. Despite this, they proceeded to the Office of the Clerk of Court. But by then, all the court p ersonnel had already left, and no one was available to attend to petitioner's p ersonnel. Confronted with this situation, petitioner's personnel went back to their office. Thus, petitioner decided to avail of electronic filing of its appeal . .,; (a) Submitting personally the original thereof, plainly indicated as such, to the court; (b) Sending them by registered mail; (c) Sending them by accredited courier; or (d) Transmitting them by electronic mail or other electronic means as may be authorized by the [c]ourt in places where the court is electronically equipped. In the fi rst case, the clerk of court shall endorse on the pleading the date and hour of fil ing. In the second and th ird cases, the date of the mailing of motions, pleadings, [and other court submissions, and] payments or deposits, as shown by the post office stamp on the envelope or the registry receipt, shall be considered as the date of their fil ing, payment, or deposit in court. The envelope shall be attached to the record of the case. In the fourth case, the date of electronic transmission shall be considered as the date of fil ing.

DECISION CTA AC NO. 340 New Moon Holdings (Philippines) Inc. v. The City of Taguig and Atty. Voltaire L. Enriquez in his capacity as the City Treasurer of the City of Taguig x------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------x person, sent by registered mail, or sent by accredited courier. "39 Thus, notwithstanding petitioner's electronic transmittal of its Complaint on May 13,2024, at 6:11p.m. , the Complaint is deemed filed only on May 14, 2024, when the RTC received the paper copy thereof, as there 1s no showing that the RTC authorized its electronic filing. The RTC did not err in dismissing the Complaint with respect to petitioner's judicial appeal of the City Treasurer's inaction on its protest under Section 195 of the LGC. At the outset, the Court underscores that the Complaint filed before the RTC embodied two distinct causes of action: (1) a judicial appeal from the alleged inaction of the City Treasurer on petitioner's protest of the LBT assessment under Section 195 of the LGC; and (2) a judicial claim for refund or tax credit under Section 196 of the same Code. Accordingly, the timeliness of the Complaint must be examined in light of the distinct prescriptive periods governing these remedies. 39 3. Date and time offiling. - It shall be understood that: (a) when the primary manner of fi li ng is by personal filing, registered mai l, or accredited courier, the pleading or court submission shall be deemed to have been filed on the date and time of filing of the paper copy. and not the date and time of the transmittal of the electronic copy; and (b) when the primary manner of filing is through electronic transmittal pursuant to Rule 13, Section 3 (d) of the 20 19 Amendments to the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, the subsequent submission of a paper copy shall be dispensed with. The time and date of the electronic transmittal shall be considered as the time and date of fi ling. However, express permission must be granted by the court for the primary filin g through electronic transmittal of the following : (i) initiatory pleadings and in itial responsive pleadings, such as an answer to a complaint or a comment to a petition; (ii) annexes, appendi ces, exhibits, or other accompanying documents to pleadings or other court submissions not readily amenable to digitization to PDF; and (iii) sealed and confidential documents or records. In the absence of exp ress permissio n fr om the court to file the foregoing pleadings a nd court subm issions by electronic m ea ns, paper copies shall be req uired and the date of filing sha ll be the date w hen the paper copy was filed in person, sent by registered m ail, or sent by accredited courier. (Emphasis supplied)

DECISION CTA AC NO. 340 New Moon Holdings (Philippines) Inc. v. The City of Taguig and Atty. Voltaire L. Enriquez in his capacity as the City Treasurer of the City of Taguig x------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------x Section 195 of the LGC governs protests against local tax assessments made pursuant to the LGC. It reads: Section 195. Protest of Assessment.- When the local treasurer or his duly authorized representative finds that correct taxes, fees or charges have not been paid, he shall issue a notice of assessment stating the nature of the tax, fee, or charge, the amount of deficiency, the surcharges, interests and penalties. Within sixty (60) days from the receipt of the notice of assessment, the taxpayer may file a written protest with the local treasurer contesting the assessment; otherwise, the assessment shall become final and executory. The local treasurer shall decide the protest within sixty (60) days from the time of its filing. If the local treasurer finds the protest to be wholly or partly meritorious, h e shall issue a notice cancelling wholly or partially the assessment. However, if the local treasurer finds the assessment to be wholly or partly correct, h e shall deny the protest wholly or partly with notice to the taxpayer. The taxpayer shall have thirty (30) days from the receipt of the denial of the protest or from the lapse of the sixty (60)-day period prescribed herein within which to appeal with the court of competent jurisdiction otherwise the assessment becomes conclusive and unappealable. (Emphasis supplied) Under Section 195, 40 taxpayers are given sixty (60) days from the receipt of the notice of assessment to file a written protest before the local treasurer. The local treasurer, in turn, has 60 days from the filing of the protest within which to act thereon. In the event of an adverse decision or inaction, the taxpayer must appeal to the court of competent jurisdiction within thirty (30) days from receipt of the denial of the protest or from the lapse of the 60-day period within which the local treasurer is required to act. Here, petitioner received the Notice of Assessment on January 15, 2024 and filed its Protest Letter on February 13, 2024, well within the 60-day period prescribed by law. Respondent City Treasurer had 60 days, or until April 13, 40 Section 195. Protest ofAssessment. - When the local treasurer or hi s duly authorized representative finds that correct taxes, fees, or charges have not been paid, he shall issue a notice of assessment stating the nature of the tax, fee, or charge, the amount of deficiency, the surcharges, interests and penalties. Within sixty (60) days from the receipt of the notice of assessment, the taxpayer may file a written protest with the local treasurer contesting the assessment; otherwise, the assessment shall become final and executory. The local treasurer shall decide the protest within sixty (60) days from the time of its filing. If the local treasurer finds the protest to be wholly or partly meritorious, he shall issue a notice cancelling wholly or partially the assessment. However, if the local treasurer finds the assessment to be who lly or partly correct, he shall deny the protest wholly or partly with notice to the taxpayer. The taxpayer shall have thirty (30) days from the receipt of the denial of the protest or from the lapse of the sixty (60) day period prescribed herein within which to appeal with the court of competent j urisdiction otherwise the assessment becomes conclusive and unappealable.

DECISION CTA AC NO. 340 New Moon Holdings (Philippines) Inc. v. The City of Taguig and Atty. Voltaire L. Enriqu ez in his capacity as the City Treasurer of the City of Taguig Page 17 of24 X------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------X oppressive; (3) is not partial or discriminatory; (4) does not prohibit, but merely regulates trade; (5) is general and consistent with public policy; and (6) ts not be unreasonable. 4 5 Accordingly, while Taguig City Ordinance No. 47, Series of 2006 enjoys the presumption of validity, petitioner is not precluded from challenging the validity of its application on the ground that it exceeds the taxing authority granted to LGUs under the LGC. The Court notes that petitioner's status as a holding company is undisputed. Likewise, there is no dispute that the local business tax assessed against p etitioner was imposed solely on its dividend income pursuant to Section 5 ofTaguig City Ordinance No. 47, Series of 2006. Thus, the controversy presents a pure question of law: whether the City of Taguig may validly impose local business tax on petitioner's dividend income as a holding company. In National Food Authority v. City Government of Tagum, 4 6 the Supreme Court explained that a question of law exists when the doubt concerns the applicable law on a given set of facts , while a question of fact exists when the doubt concerns the truth or falsity of alleged facts. Where the resolution of an issue may be made without examining or weighing the evidence on record, the issue raised is one of law, viz. : A question of law arises when there is doubt as to what the law is on a certain state of facts, while t h ere is a question of fact wh en t h e dou b t arises a s to the truth or fa lsity of t he a lleged facts. It must n ot involve a n exa mination of t h e probative value of t he eviden ce presen ted by the litigants or an y of t h em. The resolution of the issue must rest solely on what the law provides on the given set of circumstances. Once it is clear t hat t he issu e invites a review of t he eviden ce p resented, t h e question posed is one of fact . Thus, th e test of wh ether a question is one of law or , of fact is n ot t h e appellation given to such question by t h e party raising th e sa me; rath er , it is whether the appellate court can determine the issue raised without reviewing or evaluating the evidence, in 45 !d. , citing City ofBatangas v. Philippine Shell Petroleum Corp., G.R. No. 195003, 07 June 2017 [Per J. Caguioa, First Di vision). 46 G. R. No. 261472, May 21 , 2024 [Per J. Lazaro-Javier, En Bane].

DECISION CTA AC NO. 340 New Moon Holdings (Philippines) Inc. v. The City of Taguig and Atty. Voltaire L. Enriquez in his capacity as the City Treasurer of the City of Taguig X------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------X shall be taxed only once, and subsequent declaration of the same dividend income to its parent holding company or parent holding companies also within the jurisdiction of City of Taguig shall not be further taxes accordingly. Section 6 . IMPOSITION OF BUSINESS TAX ON OTHER ACTIVITIES- There is hereby imposed a business tax on the gross sales / receipts of holding companies as defined above on tis other activities at the same taxable rate imposed on such other activities as enumerated in the Taguig Revenue Code, except dividend income. 4 8 Pursuant to Section 5 ofTaguig City Ordinance No. 47, respondents assessed, billed, and collected local business tax from petitioner, a holding company, on its dividend income in the amount of P502,000.00 in connection with the renewal of its business license for 2023. While the power to tax is inherent in the State, it is not the case for LGUs. The mandate to impose taxes granted to LGUs is categorical and long established in the Constitution; however, it is not all-encompassing, as it is subject to limitations.49 LGUs , including respondent City of Taguig, are authorized to impose local business taxes on the privilege of conducting business within their territorial jurisdictions. The term "doing business" contemplates some "trade or commercial activity regularly engaged in as a means of livelihood or with a view to profit." so A city, such as respondent City of Taguig, may impose taxes levied by a province or a municipality.5 1 Section 143 of the LGC lists business entities made liable to LBT by virtue of their being regularly engaged in their business as such within the city's locality: s2 48 ld.at 512. 49 National Food Aulhorily v. Ciry Government ofTagum, G.R. No. 26 1472, May 21 ,2024 [Per J. Lazaro Javier, En Bane]. 5° Ciry ofDavao v. ARC Investors, Inc., G.R. NO. 249668, July 13, 2022 {per J. Inting, Third Division]. 51 Section 151. Scope of Taxing Powers. - Except as otherwise provided in this Code, the city, may levy the taxes, fees, and charges which the province or municipality may impose: Provided, however, That the taxes, fees and charges levied and collected by highly urban ized and independent component cities shall accrue to them and di stributed in accordance with the provisions of this Code. The rates of taxes that the city may levy may exceed the maximum rates allowed for the province or municipality by not more than fifty percent (50%) except the rates of professional and amusement taxes. 51 The Cily Treasu rer of Makati Ciry v. Michigan Holdings, Inc. , G.R. No. 224322, March 24, 2021.

Open the source record ↗

NEW MOON HOLDINGS (PHILIPPINES) INC. v. THE CITY OF TAGUIG AND ATTY. J. VOLTAIRE L. ENRIQUEZ IN HIS CAPACITY AS THE CITY TREASURER OF THE CITY OF TAGUIG

More in CTA Decisions