ZENITH FOODS CORPORATION v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE

CTA Fonn No. 8 (For DCC) 1111111 111111111111111 1111111111 1111111111111111111111111111111111111111 11111111 18-000552-0113 REPUBLIC OF THE PIDLIPPINES COURT OF TAX APPEALS QUEZON CITY SPECIAL FIRST DIVISION CTA CASE NO.lOOOl ZENITH FOODS CORPORATION, Petitioner, - versus - NOTICE OF RESOLUTION COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent. To: OFFICE OF THE SOLICITOR GENERAL 134 Amorsolo Street, Legazpi Village Makati City ATTY. AYESHA HANIA GUILING-MATANOG Bureau of Internal Revenue Room 703, Litigation Division, BIR National Office Building Sen. Miriam P. Defensor-Santiago Avenue Diliman, Quezon City SALVADOR LLANILLO & BERNARDO Units 815-816, Tower One & Exchange Plaza Ayala Triangle, Ayala Avenue, 1226 Makati City GREETINGS: You are hereby notified by these presents that on February 8, 2024, a Resolution was rendered in the above-entitled case, copy of which is attached hereto. Quezon City, Philippines, February 13, 2024. J~ AttyE. Mxearciautiv~~ F. Chan -Te Court II

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES COURT OF TAX APPEALS QUEZON CITY SPECIAL FIRST DIVISION ZENITH FOODS CTA Case No. 10001 CORPORATION, Petitioner, Members: -versus- DEL ROSARIO , P.J., Chairperson, MANAHAN, and REYES-FAJARDO, JJ. COMMISSIONER OF Promulgated: INTERNAL REVENUE, EEB 0 ~ f~l'l' Respondent. }(- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- ~ - - - - - - - - - J{ RESOLUTION This resolves petitioner Zenith Foods Corporation's Motion to Confirm Closure of the Case on the basis of the Certificate of Availment Issued under Revenue Regulations No. 30-2002, as amended, as Evidence ofthe Approval ofCompromise Settlement filed on November 30, 2023, praying for the confirmation as to the closure of the instant case as the necessary consequence of the Certificate of Availment issued by the National Evaluation Board (NEB) pu rsu ant to Revenue Regulations (RR) No. 30- 2002;and On July 28, 2022, petitioner filed a Manifestation with Motion to Submit Compromise Settlement for Confirmation and Render Judgment Based on Compromise, 1 to which respondent filed his Comment on September 6, 2022.2 In the Resolution dated August 11, 2022,3 the Court gave the parties thirty (30) days from receipt thereof to submit certain documents relative to the compromise settlement. 'Dock et, Vol. III, p p . 1896 to 190 1. 2 Id., Vol. III, pp . 1934 to 1939. 3 Id., Vol. III, pp . 1932 to 1933.

RESOLUTION CTA Case No. 10001 On September 21, 2022, petitioner filed the following: 1. Submission (Re: Resolution dated August 11, 2022),4 2. Motion to Admit Attached Reply (Re: Respondent's Comment dated August 30, 2022),s and 3. Petitioner's Reply (Re: Respondent's Comment dated August 30, 2022).6 Subsequently, in the Resolution dated October 14, 2022,7 the Court noted the submission, granted the Motion to Admit Attached Reply, and ordered the parties to submit the required Compromise Agreement, pursuant to CTA En Bane Resolution No. 7-2021 dated June 22, 2021. On November 2, 2022, petitioner filed a Manifestation,s praying that the Court consider the Certificate of Availment and petitioner's application for compromise as the Compromise Agreement agreed upon by the parties to close and terminate this case. In the Resolution dated November 21 , 2022,9 the Court noted and denied petitioner's Manifestation, and considered the case submitted for decision anew. On January 25, 2023, respondent filed a Motion to Dismiss, 10 to which petitioner filed a Comment (Re: CIR 's Motion to Dismiss dated January 10, 2023) on February 27, 2023.11 In the Resolution dated April 26, 2023, the Court denied respondent's Motion to Dismiss for lack of merit. 12 4 !d. , Vol. III, pp. 1941 to 1944. s Docket, Vol. III, pp. 1984 to 1985. 6 Id., Vol. III, pp. 1987 to 1990. 7 !d., Vol. III, pp. 2004 to 2006. s Id. , Vol. III, pp. 2007 to 2009. 9 !d., Vol. III, pp. 2016 to 2017. 1o Id., Vol. III , pp. 2018 to 2023. II /d., Vol. III , pp. 2028 to 2033. 12 Id. , Vol. III , pp. 2039 to 2040.

RESOLUTION CTA Case No. 10001 Respondent, however, filed a Motion for Reconsideration [re: Resolution dated 26 April 2023] on May 17, 2023. 13 Petitioner then filed its Comment (Re: CIR's Motion for Reconsideration dated May 15, 2023) on June 19, 2023. 14 In the Resolution dated September 12, 2023, 15 the Court denied the said Motion for Reconsideration for lack of merit. On November 30, 2023, petitioner filed aMotion to Confirm Closure of the Case on the basis of the Certificate of Availment Issued under Revenue Regulations No. 30-2002, as amended, as Evidence ofthe Approval of Compromise Settlement. Respondent was granted a period of five (5) days from receipt to file comment or opposition.16 However, instead of filing the required comment, respondent filed a Motion for Extension of Time to File Comment17 on December 23, 2023 which was expunged from the records of the case for being a prohibited pleading.1s On January 11, 2024, respondent filed his Commentl9 on petitioner's motion stating that upon inquiry with the Large Taxpayer's Collection Enforcement Division (LTCED) of the BIR, there was indeed an approved application for compromise settlement and an issuance of Certificate of Availment (CA), thus, an Authority to Cancel Assessment (ATCA) was likewise issued. On January 16, 2024, due to the pendency of petitioner's motion, the promulgation of the decision in the present case is deferred.2o It should be recalled that petitioner's Motion to Submit Compromise Settlement for Confirmation and Render Judgment Based on Compromise was finally denied in the Court's Resolution dated November 21 , 2022 for non-compliance with the requisite of CTA En Bane Resolution No . 7-2021 dated June 13 Id. , Vol. III, pp. 2041 to 2048. 14 Id., Vol. III, pp. 2082 to 2087. 1s Id. , Vol. III, pp. 2092 to 2096. 16 Docket Vol. III , Notice dated December 19,2023 , p . 2137. 17 Id., Vol. III, pp. 2139 to 2140. 18 Docket Vol. III , Notice dated J anuary 12, 2024, p. 2147. 19 Id., Vol. III, pp. 2143 to 21 44. 2o Docket Vol. III, Resolution dated January 16, 2024, pp. 2151 to 2152.

RESOLUTION CTA Case No. 10001 22, 2021, particularly on the parties' failure to submit a Compromise Agreement. However, the CTA En Bane Resolution No. 7-2021 presupposes that the compromise settlement was reduced into a Compromise Agreement, hence, the need for Judgment by Compromise Agreement. It is independent and separate from the administrative compromise settlement under Section 204(A) of the 1997 National Internal Revenue Code, as amended, by the NEB. The Court is likewise not precluded from recognizing the approved administrative compromise settlement which is evidenced by a CA and an ATCA. Section 2, Rule 129 of the Revised Rules of Court, as amended, provides: "SEC. 2. Judicial notice, when discretionary. - A court may take judicial notice of matters which are of public knowledge, or a re capa ble of unquestiona ble demonstration, or ought to be known to judges because of their judicial functions." (Emphasis supplied) Based on the records of this case, petitioner applied for a compromise settlement and was approved by the NEB as evidenced by theCA which was submitted to this Court. Further, respondent admitted in his Comment to petitioner's Motion to Confirm Closure ofthe Case on the basis of the Certificate of Availment Issued under Revenue Regulations No. 30-2002, as amended, as Evidence of the Approval of Compromise Settlement that there was already the issuance of ATCA on the subject assessment. Thus, petitioner has no subsisting tax liability anymore. WHEREFORE, in light of the foregoing, petitioner's Motion to Confirm Closure of the Case on the basis of the Certificate of Availment Issued under Revenue Regulations No. 3 0-2 002, as amended, as Evidence ofthe Approval of Compromise Settlement is hereby GRANTED. Accordingly, p etitioner 's Petition for Re view is DISMISSED for being moot and academic. The case is CLOSED and TERMINATED.

RESOLUTION CTA Case No. 10001 For clarification, the pronouncement herein does not in any way confirm that the Compromise Agreement entered into between the parties, where the assessment in the total amount of Php1,370,825,216.97 was settled for the amount of Php28,200,000.00, is not contrary to law or public policy. SO ORDERED. ROMAN Q. DE Presiding Justice ~�;:~ CATHERINE T. MANAHAN Associate Justice MA~fV� Y~';F...R~ EfLESn-~�~DO Associate Justice