G.R. No. 212825, December 07, 2015 - COMMISSIONER OF INTER... http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2015decemberdecisions.php?

id=1098

ChanRobles™ Virtua l Law Libra ry ™ | cha nrobles.com™

Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 2015 > December 2015 Decisions > G.R. No. 212825, December
07, 2015 - COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Petitioner, v. NEXT MOBILE, INC. (FORMERLY NEXTEL
COMMUNICATIONS PHILS., INC.), Respondent.:

G.R. No. 212825, December 07, 2015 - COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Petitioner, v. NEXT
MOBILE, INC. (FORMERLY NEXTEL COMMUNICATIONS PHILS., INC.), Respondent.
ChanRobles On-Line Bar Review

THIRD DIVISION

G.R. No. 212825, December 07, 2015

COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Petitioner, v. NEXT MOBILE, INC. (FORMERLY NEXTEL

COMMUNICATIONS PHILS., INC.), Respondent.

DECISION

VELASCO JR., J.:

This is a Petition for Review under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court seeking to reverse and set aside the
Decision of the Court of Tax Appeals En Banc affirming the earlier decision of its First Division in CTA Case
No. 7965, cancelling and withdrawing petitioner's formal letter of demand and assessment notices to
respondent for having been issued beyond the prescriptive period provided by law.

The Facts

DebtKollect Company, Inc.
On April 15, 2002, respondent filed with the Bureau of Internal Revenue (BIR) its Annual Income Tax
Return (ITR) for taxable year ending December 31, 2001. Respondent also filed its Monthly Remittance
Returns of Final Income Taxes Withheld (BIR Form No. 1601-F), its Monthly Remittance Returns of
Expanded Withholding Tax (BIR Form No. 1501-E) and its Monthly Remittance Return of Income Taxes
Withheld on Compensation (BIR Form No. 1601-C) for year ending December 31, 2001.

On September 25, 2003, respondent received a copy of the Letter of Authority dated September 8, 2003
signed by Regional Director Nestor S. Valeroso authorizing Revenue Officer Nenita L. Crespo of Revenue
District Office 43 to examine respondent's books of accounts and other accounting records for income
and withholding taxes for the period covering January 1, 2001 to December 31, 2001.

Ma. Lida Sarmiento (Sarmiento), respondent's Director of Finance, subsequently executed several
waivers of the statute of limitations to extend the prescriptive period of assessment for taxes due in
taxable year ending December 31, 2001 (Waivers), the details of which are summarized as follows:

Extended
Date of Date of BIR
Waiver Date of
Execution Acknowledgment Signatory
Prescription

March 30, August 26, Revenue

First Waiver August 30, 2004
2005 2004 District Officer

Second October 22, Revenue

June 30, 2005 October 22, 2004
ChanRobles Intellectual Property Waiver 2004 District Officer
Division September 30, January Revenue
Third Waiver January 18, 2005
2005 12,2005 District Officer

1 of 7 17/11/2019, 11:28 am
G.R. No. 212825, December 07, 2015 - COMMISSIONER OF INTER...
December-2015 Jurisprudence
G.R. No. 212058, December 07, 2015 - STAR
ELECTRIC CORPORATION, Petitioner, v. R & G
CONSTRUCTION DEVELOPMENT AND TRADING, INC.,
Respondent.
G.R. No. 210445, December 07, 2015 - NILO B.
ROSIT, Petitioner, v. DAVAO DOCTORS HOSPITAL
AND DR. ROLANDO G. GESTUVO, Respondent.
G.R. No. 195547, December 02, 2015 - MA. CORAZON
M. OLA, Petitioner, v. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES,
Respondent.
G.R. No. 209418, December 07, 2015 - W.M.
MANUFACTURING, INC., Petitioner, v. RICHARD R.
DALAG AND GOLDEN ROCK MANPOWER SERVICES,
Respondent.
G.R. No. 197763, December 07, 2015 - SMART
COMMUNICATIONS, INC., MR. NAPOLEON
NAZARENO, AND MR. RICKY P. ISLA, Petitioners, v.
JOSE LENI Z. SOLIDUM, Respondent.; G.R. No. 197836
- JOSE LENI Z. SOLIDUM, Petitioner, v. SMART
COMMUNICATIONS, INC., MR. NAPOLEON
NAZARENO, AND MR. RICKY P. ISLA, Respondent.
G.R. No. 207633, December 09, 2015 - PEOPLE OF
THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. JOHNLIE
LAGANGGA Y DUMPA, Accused-Appellant.
G.R. No. 203115, December 07, 2015 - ISLAND
OVERSEAS TRANSPORT CORPORATION/PINE CREST
SHIPPING CORPORATION/CAPT. EMMANUEL L.
REGIO, Petitioners, v. ARMANDO M. BEJA,
Respondent.
G.R. Nos. 216007-09, December 08, 2015 - PEOPLE
OF THE PHILIPPINES, Petitioner, v. LUZVIMINDA S.
VALDEZ AND THE SANDIGANBAYAN (FIFTH
DIVISION), Respondent.
G.R. No. 204275, December 09, 2015 - LILIOSA C.
LISONDRA, Petitioner, v. MEGACRAFT
INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION AND SPOUSES
MELECIO AND ROSEMARIE OAMIL, Respondent.
G.R. No. 201652, December 02, 2015 - HEIRS OF
SIMEON LATAYAN, NAMELY: LEONIDES Q. LATAYAN,
ARIEL Q. LATAYAN, AND ETHEL Q. LATAYAN-AMPIL,
REPRESENTED BY THEIR ATTORNEY-IN-FACT,
LEONIDES Q. LATAYAN, Petitioners, v. PEING TAN,
JOHNNY TAN, HERMTNIGILDO CASALAN, WEBINO
VILLAREAL, DIOSCOROMOLO, DAMACINO BAYAWA,
EDGAR NARITA, YOLANDA NARITA, POLICRONIA
CAPIONES, ANDRES LOZANO, GREGORIO YAGAO,
EMILIANO GUMATAY, JESUS ALCONTIN, ADAM
DULAUON, MARIO PEREZ, LARRY CEMAFRANCA,
FELIXBERTO BULADACO, CIPRIANOAHIT,
BUENAVENTURA B ACALSO AND SALDE ESPIA,
Respondents.
G.R. No. 196415, December 02, 2015 - Issue
COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Petitioner, v.
TOLEDO POWER COMPANY, Respondent.; G.R. No.
196451 - TOLEDO POWER COMPANY, Petitioner, v.
COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent.
G.R. No. 221318, December 16, 2015 - KABATAAN
PARTY-LIST, REPRESENTED BY REPRESENTATIVE
JAMES MARK TERRY L. RIDON AND MARJOHARA S.
TUCAY; SARAH JANE I. ELAGO, PRESIDENT OF THE
NATIONAL UNION OF STUDENTS OF THE
PHILIPPINES; VENCER MARI E. CRISOSTOMO,
2 of 7
http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2015decemberdecisions.php?id=1098
Fourth September 30, Revenue
None May 3, 2005
Waiver 2005 District Officer
October 31, March 17, Revenue
Fifth Waiver May 3, 2005
2005 2005 District Officer
On September 26, 2005, respondent received from the BIR a Preliminary Assessment Notice dated
September 16, 2005 to which it filed a Reply.
On October 25, 2005, respondent received a Formal Letter of Demand (FLD) and Assessment
Notices/Demand No. 43-734 both dated October 17, 2005 from the BIR, demanding payment of
deficiency income tax, final withholding tax (FWT), expanded withholding tax (EWT), increments for late
remittance of taxes withheld, and compromise penalty for failure to file returns/late filing/late remittance
of taxes withheld, in the total amount of P313,339,610.42 for the taxable year ending December 31,
2001.
On November 23, 2005, respondent filed its protest against the FLD and requested the reinvestigation of
the assessments. On July 28, 2009, respondent received a letter from the BIR denying its protest. Thus,
on August 27, 2009, respondent filed a Petition for Review before the CTA docketed as CTA Case No.
7965.
Ruling of the CTA Former First Division
On December 11, 2012, the former First Division of the CTA (CTA First Division) rendered a Decision
granting respondent's Petition for Review and declared the FLD dated October 17, 2005 and Assessment
Notices/Demand No. 43-734 dated October 17, 2005 cancelled and withdrawn for being issued beyond
the three-year prescriptive period provided by law.
It was held that based on the date of filing of respondent's Annual ITR as well as the dates of filing of its
monthly BIR Form Nos. 1601-F, 1601-E and 1601-C, it is clear that the adverted FLD and the Final
Assessment Notices both dated October 17, 2005 were issued beyond the three-year prescriptive period
provided under Section 203 ot the 1997 National Internal Revenue Code (NIRC), as amended.
The tax court also rejected petitioner's claim that this case falls under the exception as to the three-year
prescriptive period for assessment and that the 10-year prescriptive period should apply on the ground of
filing a false or fraudulent return. Under Section 222(a) of the 1997 NIRC, as amended, in case a
taxpayer filed a false or fraudulent return, the Commissioner of Internal Revenue (CIR) may assess a
taxpayer for deficiency tax within ten (10) years after the discovery of the falsity or the fraud. The tax
court explained that petitioner failed to substantiate its allegation by clear and convincing proof that
respondent filed a false or fraudulent return.
Furthermore, the CTA First Division held that the Waivers executed by Sarmiento did not validly extend
the three-year prescriptive period to assess respondent for deficiency income tax, FWT, EWT, increments
for late remittance of tax withheld and compromise penalty, for, as found, the Waivers were not properly
executed according to the procedure in Revenue Memorandum Order No. 20-90 (RMO 20-90)1 and
Revenue Delegation Authority Order No. 05-01 (RDAO 05-01).2
The tax court declared that, in this case, the Waivers have no binding effect on respondent for the
following reasons: chanRobl esvi rt ual Law l i brary
First, Sarmiento signed the Waivers without any notarized written authority from respondent's Board of
Directors. Petitioner's witness explicitly admitted that he did not require Sarmiento to present any
L.
notarized written authority from the Board of Directors of respondent, authorizing her to sign the
Waivers. Petitioner's witness also confirmed that Revenue District Officer Raul Vicente L. Recto (RDO
Recto) accepted the Waivers as submitted.
L.
Second, even assuming that Sarmiento had the necessary board authority, the Waivers are still invalid as
the respective dates of their acceptance by RDO Recto are not indicated therein.
Third, records of this case reveal additional irregularities in the subject Waivers:
(1) The fact of receipt by respondent of its copy of the Second Waiver was not
indicated on the face of the original Second Waiver;
(2) Respondent received its copy of the First and the Third Waivers on the same day,
May 23, 2005; and
(3) Respondent received its copy of the Fourth and the Fifth Waivers on the same
day, May 13, 2005.
Finally, the CTA held that estoppel does not apply in questioning the validity of a waiver of the statute of
limitations. It stated that the BIR cannot hide behind the doctrine of estoppel to cover its failure to
comply with RMO 20-90 and RDAO 05-01.
Petitioner's Motion for Reconsideration was denied on March 14, 2013.
Petitioner filed a Petition for Review before the CTA En Banc.
On May 28, 2014, the CTA En Banc rendered a Decision denying the Petition for Review and affirmed that
of the former CTA First Division.
It held that the five (5) Waivers of the statute of limitations were not valid and binding; thus, the three-
year period of limitation within which to assess deficiency taxes was not extended. It also held that the
records belie the allegation that respondent filed false and fraudulent tax returns; thus, the extension of
the period of limitation from three (3) to ten (10) years does not apply.
Petitioner has filed the instant petition on the issue of whether or not the CIR's right to assess
respondent's deficiency taxes had already prescribed.
Our Ruling
The petition has merit.
Section 2033 of the 1997 NIRC mandates the BIR to assess internal revenue taxes within three years
17/11/2019, 11:28 am
G.R. No. 212825, December 07, 2015 - COMMISSIONER OF INTER...
CHAIRPERSON OF THE ANAKBAYAN; MARC LINO J.
ABILA, NATIONAL PRESIDENT OF THE COLLEGE
EDITORS GUILD OF THE PHILIPPINES; EINSTEIN Z.
RECEDES, DEPUTY SECRETARY- GENERAL OF
ANAKBAYAN; CHARISSE BERNADINE I. BAÑEZ,
CHAIRPERSON OF THE LEAGUE OF FILIPINO
STUDENTS; ARLENE CLARISSE Y. JULVE, MEMBER OF
ALYANSA NG MGA GRUPONG HALIGI NG AGHAM AT
TEKNOLOHIYA PARA SA MAMAMAYAN (AGHAM); AND
SINING MARIA ROSA L. MARFORI, Petitioners, v.
COMMISSION ELECTIONS, ON, Respondent.
G.R. Nos. 197096-97, December 07, 2015 - ANTONIO
Z. KING, HEREIN REPRESENTED BY HIS ATTORNEY-
IN-FACT, EDGARDO SANTOS, Petitioner, v.
FRANCISCO A. ROBLES, ANTONIO T. DATU, RENE A.
MASILUNGAN, RESTITUTO S. SOLOMON, RODRIGO
MENDOZA, ROMEO MENDOZA REYNALDO DATU,
JOSEPH TIU, TERESITA TIU, ROGELIO GEBILAGUIN
AND PRESCILLA GEBILAGUIN, Respondent.
G.R. No. 207112, December 08, 2015 - PILIPINAS
TOTAL GAS, INC., Petitioner, v. COMMISSIONER OF
INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent.
G.R. No. 210855, December 09, 2015 - ROLANDO S.
ABADILLA, JR., Petitioner, v. SPOUSES BONIFACIO P.
OBRERO AND BERNABELA N. OBRERO, AND JUDITH
OBRERO-TIMBRESA, Respondent.
G.R. No. 199314 [Formerly UDK No. 14553],
December 07, 2015 - TAMBLOT SECURITY & GENERAL
SERVICES, INC., Petitioner, v. FLORENCIO ITEM,
LEONARDO PALM A, RTCARDO UCANG, FLORENCRO
AMORA, REYNALDO DANO, APOLLO JOTOJOT,
TEODORO BARONG, JUAN T. CUSI, TEODORO DE LOS
REYES, EFREN ESCOL, JOVANNE COSE, DARIO S.
GEALON, JULIO ESPADA AND DARIO PAJE,
Respondent.
G.R. No. 192659, December 02, 2015 - PHILIPPINE
RACE HORSE TRAINER'S ASSOCIATION, INC.,
Petitioner, v. PIEDRAS NEGRAS CONSTRUCTION AND
DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, Respondent.
G.R. No. 218787, December 08, 2015 - LEO Y.
QUERUBIN, MARIA CORAZON M. AKOL, AND
AUGUSTO C. LAGMAN, Petitioners, v. COMMISSION
ON ELECTIONS EN BANC, REPRESENTED BY
CHAIRPERSON J. ANDRES D. BAUTISTA, AND JOINT
VENTURE OF SMARTMATIC-TIM CORPORATION,
TOTAL INFORMATION MANAGEMENT CORPORATION,
SMARTMATIC INTERNATIONAL HOLDING B.V. AND
JARLTECH INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION,
REPRESENTED BY PARTNER WITH BIGGEST EQUITY
SHARE, SMARTMATIC-TIM CORPORATION, ITS
GENERAL MANAGER ALASTAIR JOSEPH JAMES
WELLS, SMARTMATIC CHAIRMAN LORD MALLOCH-
BROWN, SMARTMATIC-ASIA PACIFIC PRESIDENT
CESAR FLORES, AND ANY OR ALL PERSONS ACTING
FOR AND ON BEHALF OF THE JOINT VENTURE,
Respondent.
G.R. No. 179814, December 07, 2015 - WILFRED
N.CHIOK, Petitioner, v. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES
AND RUFINA CHUA, Respondents.; G.R. No. 180021 -
RUFINA CHUA, Petitioner, v. WILFRED N. CHIOK, AND
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES (AS AN
UNWILLING CO-PARTY PETITIONER), Respondent.
G.R. No. 209324, December 09, 2015 - REPUBLIC OF
THE PHILIPPINES, REPRESENTED BY THE BUREAU OF
CUSTOMS, Petitioner, v. PILIPINAS SHELL
PETROLEUM CORPORATION, Respondent.
G.R. No. 213832, December 07, 2015 - PEOPLE OF
THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. GILBERT
MERCADO A.K.A. "BONG", Accused-Appellant.
G.R. No. 198270, December 09, 2015 - ARMILYN
MORILLO, Petitioner, v. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES
AND RICHARD NATIVIDAD, Respondent.
G.R. No. 215201, December 09, 2015 - PEOPLE OF
THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. MARK
ANTHONY ROAQUIN Y NAVARRO, Accused-Appellant.
G.R. No. 203918, December 02, 2015 - SPOUSES
AMADOR C. CAYAGO, JR. AND ERMALINDA B.
CAYAGO, Petitioners, v. SPOUSES EVELITO CANTARA
AND SOLEDAD CANTARA, Respondents.
G.R. No. 203397, December 09, 2015 - AUGUSTO ONG
TRINIDAD II, AUGUSTO ONG TRINIDAD III FOR
HIMSELF AND REPRESENTING LEVY ONG TRINIDAD
AND ROHMEL ONG TRINIDAD, MARY ANN
NEPOMUCENO TRINIDAD FOR HERSELF AND
ASSISTING HER MINOR CHILDREN JOAQUIN GERARD
N. TRINIDAD IV, JACOB GABRIEL N. TRINIDAD, AND
JERED GYAN N. TRINIDAD, Petitioners, v. SPOUSES
BONIFACIO PALAD AND FELICIDAD KAUSAPIN,
Respondent.
G.R. No. 202215, December 09, 2015 - VICMAR
DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION AND/OR ROBERT KUA,
OWNER, AND ENGR. JUANITO C. PAGCALIWAGAN,
MANAGER, Petitioners, v. CAMILO ELARCOSA,
MARLON BANDA, DANTE L. BALAMAD, RODRIGO
COLANSE, CHIQUITO PACALDO, ROBINSON PANAGA,
JUNIE ABUGHO, SBLVERIO NARISMA, ARMANDO
GONZALES, TEOFILO ELBINA, FRANCISCO BAGUIO,
GELVEN RHYAN RAMOS, JULITO SIMAN, RECARIDO
PANES, JESUS TINSAY, AGAPITO CANAS, JR., OLIVER
3 of 7
http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2015decemberdecisions.php?id=1098
from the last day prescribed by law for the filing of the tax return or the actual date of filing of such
return, whichever comes later. Hence, an assessment notice issued after the three-year prescriptive
period is not valid and effective. Exceptions to this rule are provided under Section 2224 of the NIRC.
Section 222(b) of the NIRC provides that the period to assess and collect taxes may only be extended
upon a written agreement between the CIR and the taxpayer executed before the expiration of the three-
year period. RMO 20-90 issued on April 4, 1990 and RDAO 05-015 issued on August 2, 2001 provide the
procedure for the proper execution of a waiver. RMO 20-90 reads:
April 4, 1990
REVENUE MEMORANDUM ORDER NO. 20-90
Subject: Proper Execution of the Waiver of the Statute of Limitations under the
National Internal Revenue Code
To: All Internal Revenue Officers and Others Concerned
Pursuant to Section 223 of the Tax Code, internal revenue taxes may be assessed or
collected after the ordinary prescriptive period, if before its expiration, both the
Commissioner and the taxpayer have agreed in writing to its assessment and/or collection
after said period. The period so agreed upon may be extended by subsequent written
agreement made before the expiration of the period previously agreed upon. This written
agreement between the Commissioner and the taxpayer is the so-called Waiver of the
Statute of Limitations. In the execution of said waiver, the following procedures should be
followed:chanRobl esvi rt ual Law l ibrary
1. The waiver must be in the form identified hereof. This form may be reproduced by the
Office concerned but there should be no deviation from such form. The phrase "but not
after ______ 19____" should be filled up. This indicates the expiry date of the period
agreed upon to assess/collect the tax after the regular three-year period of prescription.
The period agreed upon shall constitute the time within which to effect the
assessment/collection of the tax in addition to the ordinary prescriptive period.
2. The waiver shall be signed by the taxpayer himself or his duly authorized
representative. In the case of a corporation, the waiver must be signed by any of its
responsible officials.
Soon after the waiver is signed by the taxpayer, the Commissioner of Internal Revenue .or
the revenue official authorized by him, as hereinafter provided, shall sign the waiver
indicating that the Bureau has accepted and agreed to the waiver. The date of such
acceptance by the Bureau should be indicated. Both the date of execution by the taxpayer
and date of acceptance by the Bureau should be before the expiration of the period of
prescription or before the lapse of the period agreed upon in case a subsequent agreement
is executed.
3. The following revenue officials are authorized to sign the waiver: chanRobl esvi rt ual Lawl i brary
xxxx
4. The waiver must be executed in three (3) copies, the original copy to be attached to the
docket of the case, the second copy for the taxpayer and the third copy for the Office
accepting the waiver. The fact of receipt by the taxpayer of his/her file copy shall be
indicated in the original copy.
5. The foregoing procedures shall be strictly followed. Any revenue official found not to
have complied with this Order resulting in prescription of the right to assess/collect shall
be administratively dealt with.
This Revenue Memorandum Order shall take effect immediately.
(SGD.)JOSEU. ONG
Commissioner of Internal Revenue
The Court has consistently held that a waiver of the statute of limitations must faithfully comply with the
provisions of RMO No. 20-90 and RDAO 05-01 in order to be valid and binding.
In Philippine Journalists, Inc. v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue6 the Court declared the waiver
executed by petitioner therein invalid because: (1) it did not specify a definite agreed date between the
BIR and petitioner within which the former may assess and collect revenue taxes; (2) it was signed only
by a revenue district officer, not the Commissioner; (3) there was no date of acceptance; and (4)
petitioner was not furnished a copy of the waiver.
Philippine Journalists tells us that since a waiver of the statute of limitations is a derogation of the
taxpayer's right to security against prolonged and unscrupulous investigations, waivers of this kind must
be carefully and strictly construed. Philippine Journalists also clarifies that a waiver of the statute of
limitations is not a waiver of the right to invoke the defense of prescription but rather an agreement
between the taxpayer and the BIR that the period to issue an assessment and collect the taxes due is
extended to a date certain. It is not a unilateral act by the taxpayer of the BIR but is a bilateral
agreement between two parties.
In Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. FMF Development Corporation7 the Court found the waiver in
question defective because: (1) it was not proved that respondent therein was furnished a copy of the
BIR-accepted waiver; (2) the waiver was signed by a revenue district officer instead of the Commissioner
as mandated by the NIRC and RMO 20-90 considering that the case involved an amount of more than
P1,000,000.00, and the period to assess was not yet about to prescribe; and (3) it did not contain the
date of acceptance by the CIR. The Court explained that the date of acceptance by the CIR is a requisite
necessary to determine whether the waiver was validly accepted before the expiration of the original
period.8
In CIR v. Kudos Metal Corporation,9 the waivers executed by Kudos were found ineffective to extend the
period to assess or collect taxes because: (1) the accountant who executed the waivers had no notarized
written board authority to sign the waivers in behalf of respondent corporation; (2) there was no date of
acceptance indicated on the waivers; and (3) the fact of receipt by respondent of its file copy was not
indicated in the original copies of the waivers.
The Court rejected the CIR's argument that since it was the one who asked for additional time, Kudos
should be considered estopped from raising the defense of prescription. The Court held that the BIR
cannot hide behind the doctrine of estoppel to cover its failure to comply with its RMO 20-90 and RDAO
05-01. Having caused the defects in the waivers, the Court held that the BIR must bear the
consequence.10 Hence, the BIR assessments were found to be issued beyond the three-year period and
declared void.11 Further, the Court stressed that there is compliance with RMO 20-90 only after the
taxpayer receives a copy of the waiver accepted by the BIR, viz:
17/11/2019, 11:28 am
G.R. No. 212825, December 07, 2015 - COMMISSIONER OF INTER...
LOBAYNON, SIMEON BAGUIO, JOSEPH SALCEDO,
DONIL INDINO, WILFREDO GULBEN, JESRILE TANIO,
RENANTE PAMON, RICHIE GULBEN, DANIEL ELLO,
REXY DOFELIZ, RONALD NOVAL, NORBERTO
BELARGA, ALLAN BAGUIO, ROBERTO PAGUICAN,
ROMEO PATOY, ROLANDO TACBOBO, WILFREDO
LADRA, RUBEN PANES, RUEL CABANDAY, AND
JUNARD ABUGHO, Respondent.
G.R. No. 188638, December 09, 2015 - PHILIPPINE
TRANSMARINE CARRIERS, INC. AND NORTHERN
MARINE MANAGEMENT, Petitioners, v. JOSELITO A.
CRISTINO, DECEASED AND REPRESENTED BY HIS
WIFE SUSAN B. BERDOS, Respondent.
G.R. No. 211543, December 09, 2015 - DOMINGO G.
PANGANIBAN, Petitioner, v. PEOPLE OF THE
PHILIPPINES., Respondent.
G.R. No. 209039, December 09, 2015 - PEOPLE OF
THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. MIRAFLOR
UGANIEL LERIO, Accused-Appellant.
G.R. No. 209559, December 09, 2015 - ENCHANTED
KINGDOM, INC., Petitioner, v. MIGUEL J. VERZO,
Respondent.
G.R. No. 160399, December 09, 2015 - THE CITY OF
ILOILO, REPRESENTED BY HON. MAYOR JERRY P.
TREÑAS, Petitioner, v. HON. JUDGE RENE B.
HONRADO, PRESIDING JUDGE, REGIONAL TRIAL
COURT, BRANCH 29, ILOILO CITY, AND JPV MOTOR
VEHICLE EMISSION TESTING & CAR CARE CENTER,
CO., REPRESENTED BY JIM P. VELEZ, Respondent.
G.R. No. 159979, December 09, 2015 - CAPITAL
INSURANCE AND SURETY CO., INC., Petitioner, v. DEL
MONTE MOTOR WORKS, INC., Respondent.
G.R. No. 213696, December 09, 2015 - QUANTUM
FOODS, INC., Petitioner, v. MARCELINO ESLOYO AND
GLEN MAGSILA, Respondent.
G.R. No. 209040, December 09, 2015 - PEOPLE OF
THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. RODOLFO
PATEÑO DAYAPDAPAN, Accused-Appellant.
G.R. No. 166581, December 07, 2015 - SOLIDBANK
CORPORATION, Petitioner, v. COURT OF APPEALS,
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, AND
DANILO H. LAZARO, Respondents.; G.R. No. 167187 -
DANILO H. LAZARO, Petitioner, v. COURT OF
APPEALS, NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS
COMMISSION AND SOLIDBANK CORPORATION,
Respondents.
G.R. No. 200901, December 07, 2015 - SM
INVESTMENTS CORPORATION, Petitioner, v. ESTELA
MARFORI POSADAS, MARIA ELENA POSADAS AND
AIDA MACARAIG POSADAS. Respondents.
G.R. No. 208113, December 02, 2015 - DOLORES
DIAZ, Petitioner, v. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES AND
LETICIA S. ARCILLA, Respondents.
G.R. No. 182375, December 02, 2015 - HADJA
RAWIYA SUIB, Petitioner, v. EMONG EBBAH AND THE
HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS, 22ND DIVISION,
MINDANAO STATION, CAGAYAN DE ORO CITY,
Respondents.
G.R. No. 211210, December 02, 2015 - RADAR
SECURITY & WATCHMAN AGENCY, INC., Petitioner, v.
JOSE D. CASTRO, Respondent.
G.R. No. 213814, December 02, 2015 - RAFAEL B.
QUILLOPA, Petitioner, v. QUALITY GUARDS SERVICES
AND INVESTIGATION AGENCY AND ISMAEL
BASABICA, JR., Respondents.
G.R. No. 193964, December 02, 2015 - ENGINEER BEN
Y. LIM, RBL FISHING CORPORATION, PALAWAN
AQUACULTURE CORPORATION, AND PENINSULA
SHIPYARD CORPORATION, Petitioners, v. HON.
SULPICIO G. GAMOSA, OFFICER-IN-CHARGE, NCIP
REGIONAL HEARING OFFICE, REGION IV AND
TAGBANUA INDIGENOUS CULTURAL COMMUNITY OF
BARANGAY BUENAVISTA, CORON, PALAWAN, AS
REPRESENTED BY FERNANDO P. AGUIDO, ERNESTO
CINCO, BOBENCIO MOSQUERA, JURRY CARPIANO,
VICTOR BALBUTAN, NORDITO ALBERTO, EDENG
PESRO, CLAUDINA BAQUID, NONITA SALVA, AND
NANCHITA ALBERTO, Respondents.
G.R. No. 197792, December 09, 2015 - CIVIL
SERVICE COMMISSION, Petitioner, v. MADLAWI B.
MAGOYAG, Respondent.
G.R. No. 192947, December 09, 2015 - MELANIE E. DE
OCAMPO, Petitioner, v. RPN-9/RADIO PHILIPPINES
NETWORK, INC., Respondent.
G.R. No. 204172, December 09, 2015 - HON.
HERMOGENES E. EBDANE, JR., IN HIS OFFICIAL
CAPACITY AS ACTING SECRETARY OF THE
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS AND HIGHWAYS
(DPWH), ATTY. JOEL L. JACOB, IN HIS OFFICIAL
CAPACITY AS OFFICER-IN-CHARGE, LEGAL SERVICE
(DPWH), ATTY. OLIVER T. RODULFO, IN HIS
OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS HEAD, INTERNAL AFFAIRS
OFFICE, (DPWH), AND HON. JAIME A. PACANAN, IN
HIS OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS REGIONAL DIRECTOR,
(DPWH), REGIONAL OFFICE NO. VIII, Petitioners, v.
4 of 7
http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2015decemberdecisions.php?id=1098
The flaw in the appellate court's reasoning stems from its assumption that the waiver is a
unilateral act of the taxpayer when it is in fact and in law an agreement between the
taxpayer and the BIR. When the petitioner's comptroller signed the waiver on September
22, 1997, it was not yet complete and final because the BIR had not assented. There is
compliance with the provision of RMO No. 20-90 only after the taxpayer received a copy of
the waiver accepted by the BIR. The requirement to furnish the taxpayer with a copy of
the waiver is not only to give notice of the existence of the document but of the
acceptance by the BIR and the perfection of the agreement.12 ChanRobl esVi rt ual aw l i brary
The deficiencies of the Waivers in this case are the same as the defects of the waiver in Kudos. In the
instant case, the CTA found the Waivers because of the following flaws: (1) they were executed without a
notarized board authority; (2) the dates of acceptance by the BIR were not indicated therein; and (3) the
fact of receipt by respondent of its copy of the Second Waiver was not indicated on the face of the
original Second Waiver.
To be sure, both parties in this case are at fault.
Here, respondent, through Sarmiento, executed five Waivers in favor of petitioner. However, her authority
to sign these Waivers was not presented upon their submission to the BIR. In fact, later on, her authority
to sign was questioned by respondent itself, the very same entity that caused her to sign such in the first
place. Thus, it is clear that respondent violated RMO No. 20-90 which states that in case of a corporate
taxpayer, the waiver must be signed by its responsible officials13 and RDAO 01-05 which requires the
presentation of a written and notarized authority to the BIR.14
Similarly, the BIR violated its own rules and was careless in performing its functions with respect to these
Waivers. It is very clear that under RDAO 05-01 it is the duty of the authorized revenue official to
ensure that the waiver is duly accomplished and signed by the taxpayer or his authorized
representative before affixing his signature to signify acceptance of the same. It also instructs that in
case the authority is delegated by the taxpayer to a representative, the concerned revenue
official shall see to it that such delegation is in writing and duly notarized. Furthermore, it
mandates that the waiver should not be accepted by the concerned BIR office and official
unless duly notarized.15
Vis-a-vis the five Waivers it received from respondent, the BIR has failed, for five times, to perform its
duties in relation thereto: to verify Ms. Sarmiento's authority to execute them, demand the presentation
of a notarized document evidencing the same, refuse acceptance of the Waivers when no such document
was presented, affix the dates of its acceptance on each waiver, and indicate on the Second Waiver the
date of respondent's receipt thereof.
Both parties knew the infirmities of the Waivers yet they continued dealing with each other on the
strength of these documents without bothering to rectify these infirmities. In fact, in its Letter Protest to
the BIR, respondent did not even question the validity of the Waivers or call attention to their alleged
defects.
In this case, respondent, after deliberately executing defective waivers, raised the very same deficiencies
it caused to avoid the tax liability determined by the BIR during the extended assessment period. It must
be remembered that by virtue of these Waivers, respondent was given the opportunity to gather and
submit documents to substantiate its claims before the CIR during investigation. It was able to postpone
the payment of taxes, as well as contest and negotiate the assessment against it. Yet, after enjoying
these benefits, respondent challenged the validity of the Waivers when the consequences thereof were
not in its favor. In other words, respondent's act of impugning these Waivers after benefiting therefrom
and allowing petitioner to rely on the same is an act of bad faith.
On the other hand, the stringent requirements in RMO 20-90 and RDAO 05-01 are in place precisely
because the BIR put them there. Yet, instead of strictly enforcing its provisions, the BIR defied the
mandates of its very own issuances. Verily, if the BIR was truly determined to validly assess and collect
taxes from respondent after the prescriptive period, it should have been prudent enough to make sure
that all the requirements for the effectivity of the Waivers were followed not only by its revenue officers
but also by respondent. The BIR stood to lose millions of pesos in case the Waivers were declared void,
as they eventually were by the CTA, but it appears that it was too negligent to even comply with its most
basic requirements.
The BIR's negligence in this case is so gross that it amounts to malice and bad faith. Without doubt, the
BIR knew that waivers should conform strictly to RMO 20-90 and RDAO 05-01 in order to be valid. In
fact, the mandatory nature of the requirements, as ruled by this Court, has been recognized by the BIR
itself in its issuances such as Revenue Memorandum Circular No. 6-2005,16 among others. Nevertheless,
the BIR allowed respondent to submit, and it duly received, five defective Waivers when it was its duty to
exact compliance with RMO 20-90 and RDAO 05-01 and follow the procedure dictated therein. It even
openly admitted that it did not require respondent to present any notarized authority to sign the
questioned Waivers.17 The BIR failed to demand respondent to follow the requirements for the validity of
the Waivers when it had the duty to do so, most especially because it had the highest interest at stake. If
it was serious in collecting taxes, the BIR should have meticulously complied with the foregoing orders,
leaving no stone unturned.
The general rule is that when a waiver does not comply with the requisites for its validity specified under
RMO No. 20-90 and RDAO 01-05, it is invalid and ineffective to extend the prescriptive period to assess
taxes. However, due to its peculiar circumstances, We shall treat this case as an exception to this rule
and find the Waivers valid for the reasons discussed below.
First, the parties in this case are in pari delicto or "in equal fault." In pari delicto connotes that the two
parties to a controversy are equally culpable or guilty and they shall have no action against each other.
However, although the parties are in pari delicto, the Court may interfere and grant relief at the suit of
one of them, where public policy requires its intervention, even though the result may be that a benefit
will be derived by one party who is in equal guilt with the other.18
Here, to uphold the validity of the Waivers would be consistent with the public policy embodied in the
principle that taxes are the lifeblood of the government, and their prompt and certain availability is an
imperious need.19 Taxes are the nation's lifeblood through which government agencies continue to
operate and which the State discharges its functions for the welfare of its constituents.20 As between the
parties, it would be more equitable if petitioner's lapses were allowed to pass and consequently uphold
the Waivers in order to support this principle and public policy.
Second, the Court has repeatedly pronounced that parties must come to court with clean hands.21
Parties who do not come to court with clean hands cannot be allowed to benefit from their own
wrongdoing.22 Following the foregoing principle, respondent should not be allowed to benefit from the
flaws in its own Waivers and successfully insist on their invalidity in order to evade its responsibility to
pay taxes.
Third, respondent is estopped from questioning the validity of its Waivers. While it is true that the Court
has repeatedly held that the doctrine of estoppel must be sparingly applied as an exception to the statute
17/11/2019, 11:28 am
G.R. No. 212825, December 07, 2015 - COMMISSIONER OF INTER...
ALVARO Y. APURILLO, ERDA P. GABRIANA, JOCELYN
S. JO, IRAIDA R. LASTIMADO, AND FRANCISCO B.
VINEGAS, JR., Respondents.
G.R. No. 215424, December 09, 2015 - ADINA B.
MANANSALA, Petitioner, v. PEOPLE OF THE
PHILIPPINES, Respondent.
G.R. No. 179741, December 09, 2015 - HEIRS OF
SPOUSES HILARIO MARINAS AND BERNARDINA N.
MARINAS, Petitioners, v. BERNARDO FRIANEZA,
RODRIGO FRIANEZA, ALEJANDRA FRIANEZA,
HILARIO VILLENA, SATURNINO VILLENA, FEDERICO
FLORES, PEDRO FLORES AND MARCELINA RAMOS,
Respondents.
G.R. No. 190482, December 09, 2015 - DEPARTMENT
OF AGRARIAN REFORM, REPRESENTED BY MS. FRITZI
C. PANTOJA IN HER CAPACITY AS PROVINCIAL
AGRARIAN REFORM OFFICER OF LAGUNA, Petitioner,
v. IGMIDIO D. ROBLES, RANDY V. ROBLES, MARY
KRIST B. MALIMBAN, ANNE JAMAICA G. ROBLES,
JOHN CARLO S. ROBLES AND CHRISTINE ANN V.
ROBLES, Respondents.
G.R. No. 212825, December 07, 2015 -
COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Petitioner, v.
NEXT MOBILE, INC. (FORMERLY NEXTEL
COMMUNICATIONS PHILS., INC.), Respondent.
G.R. No. 174387, December 09, 2015 - BF
CORPORATION, Petitioner, v. WERDENBERG
INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION, Respondent.
G.R. No. 209689, December 02, 2015 - MARISSA B.
QUIRANTE, Petitioner, v. OROPORT CARGO HANDLING
SERVICES, INC., ET AL. Respondents.
G.R. No. 202877, December 09, 2015 - NARRA
NICKEL MINING AND DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION,
TESORO MINING AND DEVELOPMENT, INC., AND
MCARTHUR MINING, INC., Petitioners, v. REDMONT
CONSOLIDATED MINES CORPORATION, Respondent.
G.R. No. 202947, December 09, 2015 - ASB REALTY
CORPORATION, Petitioner, v. ORTIGAS & COMPANY
LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, Respondent.
G.R. No. 213229, December 09, 2015 - FILINVEST
ALABANG, INC., Petitioner, v. CENTURY IRON WORKS,
INC., Respondent.
G.R. No. 210215, December 09, 2015 - ROGELIO S.
NOLASCO, NICANORA N. GUEVARA, LEONARDA N.
ELPEDES, HEIRS OF ARNULFO S. NOLASCO, AND
REMEDIOS M. NOLASCO, REPRESENTED BY ELENITA
M. NOLASCO Petitioners, v. CELERINO S. CUERPO,
JOSELITO ENCABO, JOSEPH ASCUTIA, AND DOMILO
LUCENARIO, Respondents.
G.R. No. 206942, December 09, 2015 - VICENTE C.
TATEL, Petitioner, v. JLFP INVESTIGATION AND
SECURITY AGENCY, INC., JOSE LUIS F. PAMINTUAN,
AND/OR PAOLO C. TURNO, Respondents.
G.R. No. 209271, December 08, 2015
INTERNATIONAL SERVICE FOR THE ACQUISITION OF
AGRI-BIOTECH APPLICATIONS, INC., Petitioner, v.
GREENPEACE SOUTHEAST ASIA (PHILIPPINES),
MAGSASAKA AT SIYENTIPIKO SA PAGPAPAUNLAD
NG AGRIKULTURA (MASIPAG), REP. TEODORO
CASIÑO, DR. BEN MALAYANG III, DR. ANGELINA
GALANG, LEONARDO AVILA III, CATHERINE
UNTALAN, ATTY. MARIA PAZ LUNA, JUANITO
MODINA, DAGOHOY MAGAWAY, DR. ROMEO
QUIJANO, DR. WENCESLAO KIAT, JR., ATTY. H. HARRY
ROQUE, JR., FORMER SEN. ORLANDO MERCADO, NOEL
CABANGON, MAYOR EDWARD S. HAGEDORN AND
EDWIN MARTHINE LOPEZ, Respondents.; CROP LIFE
PHILIPPINES, INC., Petitioner-in-Intervention.; G.R.
No. 209276 - ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT
BUREAU OF THE DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENT AND
NATURAL RESOURCES, BUREAU OF PLANT INDUSTRY
AND FERTILIZER AND PESTICIDE AUTHORITY OF THE
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, Petitioners, v.
COURT OF APPEALS, GREENPEACE SOUTHEAST ASIA
(PHILIPPINES), MAGSASAKAAT SIYENTIPIKO SA
PAGPAPAUNLAD NG AGRIKULTURA (MASIPAG), REP.
TEODORO CASINO, DR. BEN MALAYANG III, DR.
ANGELINA GALANG, LEONARDO AVILA III,
CATHERINE UNTALAN, ATTY. MARIA PAZ LUNA,
JUANITO MODINA, DAGOHOY MAGAWAY, DR. ROMEO
QUIJANO, DR. WENCESLAO KIAT, JR., ATTY. H. HARRY
ROQUE, JR., FORMER SEN. ORLANDO MERCADO, NOEL
CABANGON, MAYOR EDWARD S. HAGEDORN AND
EDWIN MARTHINE LOPEZ, RESPONDENTS. CROP LIFE
PHILIPPINES, INC. Petitioner-in-Intervention.; G.R.
No. 209301 - UNIVERSITY OF THE PHILIPPINES LOS
BANOS FOUNDATION, INC., Petitioner, v.
GREENPEACE SOUTHEAST ASIA (PHILIPPINES),
MAGSASAKAAT SIYENTIPIKO SA PAGPAPAUNLAD NG
AGRIKULTURA (MASIPAG), REP. TEODORO CASINO,
DR. BEN MALAYANG III, DR. ANGELINA GALANG,
LEONARDO AVILA III, CATHERINE UNTALAN, ATTY.
MARIA PAZ LUNA, JUANITO MODINA, DAGOHOY
MAGAWAY, DR. ROMEO QUIJANO, DR. WENCESLAO
KIAT, JR., ATTY. HARRY R. ROQUE, JR., FORMER SEN.
ORLANDO MERCADO, NOEL CABANGON, MAYOR
EDWARD S. HAGEDORN AND EDWIN MARTHINE
LOPEZ, Respondents.; G.R. No. 209430 - UNIVERSITY
OF THE PHILIPPINES, Petitioner, v. GREENPEACE
SOUTHEAST ASIA (PHILIPPINES), MAGSASAKAAT
SIYENTIPIKO SA PAGPAPAUNLAD NG AGRIKULTURA
5 of 7
http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2015decemberdecisions.php?id=1098
of limitations for assessment of taxes, the Court finds that the application of the doctrine is justified in
this case. Verily, the application of estoppel in this case would promote the administration of the law,
prevent injustice and avert the accomplishment of a wrong and undue advantage. Respondent executed
five Waivers and delivered them to petitioner, one after the other. It allowed petitioner to rely on them
and did not raise any objection against their validity until petitioner assessed taxes and penalties against
it. Moreover, the application of estoppel is necessary to prevent the undue injury that the government
would suffer because of the cancellation of petitioner's assessment of respondent's tax liabilities.
Finally, the Court cannot tolerate this highly suspicious situation. In this case, the taxpayer, on the one
hand, after voluntarily executing waivers, insisted on their invalidity by raising the very same defects it
caused. On the other hand, the BIR miserably failed to exact from respondent compliance with its rules.
The BIR's negligence in the performance of its duties was so gross that it amounted to malice and bad
faith. Moreover, the BIR was so lax such that it seemed that it consented to the mistakes in the Waivers.
Such a situation is dangerous and open to abuse by unscrupulous taxpayers who intend to escape their
responsibility to pay taxes by mere expedient of hiding behind technicalities.
It is true that petitioner was also at fault here because it was careless in complying with the
requirements of RMO No. 20-90 and RDAO 01-05. Nevertheless, petitioner's negligence may be
addressed by enforcing the provisions imposing administrative liabilities upon the officers responsible for
these errors.23 The BIR's right to assess and collect taxes should not be jeopardized merely because of
the mistakes and lapses of its officers, especially in cases like this where the taxpayer is obviously in bad
faith.24
As regards petitioner's claim that the 10-year period of limitation within which to assess deficiency taxes
provided in Section 222(a) of the 1997 NIRC is applicable in this case as respondent allegedly filed false
and fraudulent returns, there is no reason to disturb the tax court's findings that records failed to
establish, even by prima facie evidence, that respondent Next Mobile filed false and fraudulent
returns on the ground of substantial underdeclaration of income in respondent Next Mobile's
Annual ITR for taxable year ending December 31, 2001.25 cral aw red
While the Court rules that the subject Waivers are valid, We, however, refer back to the tax court the
determination of the merits of respondent's petition seeking the nullification of the BIR Formal Letter of
Demand and Assessment Notices/Demand No. 43-734.
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Court resolves to GRANT the petition. The Decision of the Court
of Tax Appeals En Banc dated May 28, 2014 in CTA EB Case No. 1001 is hereby REVERSED and SET
ASIDE. Accordingly, let this case be remanded to the Court of Tax Appeals for further proceedings in
order to determine and rule on the merits of respondent's petition seeking the nullification of the BIR
Formal Letter of Demand and Assessment Notices/Demand No. 43-734, both dated October 17, 2005.
SO ORDERED. chanrobl esvi rt ual l aw l i brary
Peralta, Villarama, Jr., Perez,* and Reyes, JJ., concur.
Endnotes:
* Jardeleza, J., no part, due to his prior action as Solicitor General; Perez, J., designated
Additional Member per Raffle dated January 7, 2015.
1 SUBJECT: PROPER EXECUTION OF THE WAIVER OF THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS
UNDER THE NATIONAL INTERNAL REVENUE CODE, dated April 4, 1990.
2
I. Revenue Officials Authorized to Sign the Waiver
The following revenue officials are authorized to sign and accept the Waiver of the Defense
of Prescription Under the Statute of Limitations (Annex A) prescribed in Sections 203, 222
- and other related provisions of the National Internal Revenue Code of 1997: chanRobl esvi rt ual Lawl i brary
A. Tor National Office cases Designated Revenue Official
1. Assistant Commissioner (AC1R), — For tax fraud and policy Enforcement Service cases
xxxx
In order to prevent undue delay in the execution and acceptance of the waiver, the
assistant heads of the concerned offices are likewise authorized to sign the same under
meritorious circumstances in the absence of the abovementioned officials.
The authorized revenue official shall ensure that the waiver is duly accomplished and
signed by the taxpayer or his authorized representative before affixing his signature to
signify acceptance of the same. In case the authority is delegated by the taxpayer to a
representative, the concerned revenue official shall see to it that such delegation is in
writing and duly notarized. The "WAIVER" should not be accepted by the concerned BIR
office and official unless duly notarized.
3SEC. 203. Period of Limitation Upon Assessment and Collection. - Except as
provided in Section 222, internal revenue taxes shall be assessed within three (3) years
after the last day prescribed by law for the filing of the return, and no proceeding in court
without assessment for the collection of such taxes shall be begun after the expiration of
such period: Provided, That in a case where a return is filed beyond the period prescribed
by law, the three (3)-year period shall be counted from the day the return was filed. For
purposes of this Section, a return filed before the last day prescribed by law for the filing
thereof shall be considered as filed on such last day.
4SEC. 222. Exceptions as to Period of Limitation of Assessment and Collection of
Taxes.
(a) In the case of a false or fraudulent return with intent to evade tax or of failure to file a
return, the tax may be assessed, or a preceeding in court for the collection of such tax
may be filed without assessment, at any time within ten (10) years after the discovery of
the falsity, fraud or omission: Provided, That in a fraud assessment which has become final
and executory, the fact of fraud shall be judicially taken cognizance of in the civil or
criminal action for the collection thereof.
(b) If before the expiration of the time prescribed in Section 203 for hte assessment of the
tax, both the Commissioner and the taxpayer have agreed in writing to its assessment
after such time, the tax may be assessed within the period agreen upon. The period so
agreed upon may be exteneded by subsequent written agreement made before the
expiration of the period previously agreed upon.
17/11/2019, 11:28 am
G.R. No. 212825, December 07, 2015 - COMMISSIONER OF INTER...
(MASIPAG), REP. TEODORO CASINO, DR. BEN
MALAYANG III, DR. ANGELINA GALANG, LEONARDO
AVILA III, CATHERINE UNTALAN, ATTY. MARIA PAZ
LUNA, JUANITO MODINA, DAGOHOY MAGAWAY, DR.
ROMEO QUIJANO, DR. WENCESLAO KIAT, ATTY.
HARRY R. ROQUE, JR., FORMER SEN. ORLANDO
MERCADO, NOEL CABANGON, MAYOR EDWARD S.
HAGEDORN AND EDWIN MARTHINE LOPEZ,
Respondents.
G.R. No. 169694, December 09, 2015 - MEGAWORLD
PROPERTIES AND HOLDINGS, INC., EMPIRE EAST
LAND HOLDINGS, INC., AND ANDREW L. TAN,
Petitioners, v. MAJESTIC FINANCE AND INVESTMENT
CO., INC., RHODORA LOPEZ-LIM, AND PAULINA CRUZ,
Respondents.
6 of 7
http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2015decemberdecisions.php?id=1098
(c) Any internal revenue tax which has been assessed within the period of limitaion as
prescribed in paragrpah (a) herof may be collected by distraint or levy or by a proceeding
in court within five (5) years following the assessment of the tax.
(d) Any internal revenue tax, which has been assessed within the period agreed upon as
provided in paragraph (b) hereinabove, may be collected by distraint or levy or by a
proceeding in court within the period agreed upon in writing before the expiration of the
five (5)-year period. The period so agreed upon may be extended by subsequent written
agreements made before the expiration of the period previously agreed upon.
(e) Provided, however, That nothing in the immediately preceding and paragraph (a)
hereof shall be construed to authorize the examination and investigation or inquiry into
any tax return filed in accordance with the provisions of any tax amnesty law or decree.
5 August 2, 2001
REVENUE DELEGATION AUTHORITY ORDER NO. 05-01
SUBJECT: Delegation of Authority to Sign and Accept the Waiver of the Defense of
Prescription Under the Statute of Limitations
TO: All Internal Revenue Officers and Employees and Others Concerned
I. Revenue Officials Authorized to Sign the Waiver. The following revenue officials are
authorized to sign and accept the Waiver of the Defense of Prescription Under the Statute
of Limitations (Annex A) prescribed in Sections 203, 222 and other related provisions of
the National Internal Revenue Code of 1997: chanRobl esvi rt ualLaw l i brary
A. For National Office cases
Designated Revenue Official
1. Assistant Commissioner (ACIR) — For tax fraud and policy Enforcement Service cases
2. ACIR, Large Taxpayers Service — For large taxpayers cases other than those cases
failing under Subsection B hereof
3. ACIR, Legal Service — For cases pending verification and awaiting resolution of certain
legal issues prior to prescription and for issuance/compliance of Subpoena Duces Tecum
4. ACIR, Assessment Service (AS) — For cases which are pending in or subject to review
or approval by the ACIR, AS
5. ACIR, Collection Service — For cases pending action in the Collection Service
B. For cases in the Large Taxpayers District Office (LTDO)
The Chief of the LTDO shall sign and accept the waiver for cases pending
investigation/action in his possession.
C. For Regional cases
Designated Revenue Official
1. Revenue District Officer — Cases pending investigation/verification/reinvestigation in the
Revenue District Offices
2. Regional Director — Cases pending in the Divisions in the Regional Office, including
cases pending approval by the Regional Director.
In order to prevent undue delay in the execution and acceptance of the waiver, the
assistant heads of the concerned offices are likewise authorized to sign the same under
meritorious circumstances in the absence of the abovementioned officials.
The authorized revenue official shall ensure that the waiver is duly accomplished and
signed by the taxpayer or his authorized representative before affixing his signature to
signify acceptance of the same. In case the authority is delegated by the taxpayer to a
representative, the concerned revenue official shall see to it that such delegation is in
writing and duly notarized. The "WAIVER" should not be accepted by the concerned BIR
office and official unless duly notarized.
II. Repealing Clause
All other issuances and/or portions thereof inconsistent herewith are hereby repealed and
amended accordingly.
III. Effectivity
This revenue delegation authority order shall take effect immediately upon approval.
(SGD.)
RENE G. BAÑEZ
Commissioner of Internal Revenue
6 G.R. No. 162852, December 16, 2004, 447 SCRA 214.
7 G.R. No. 167765, June 30, 2008, 556 SCRA 698.
8 Id. at 708-709.
9 G.R. No. 178087, May 5, 2010, 620 SCRA 232.
10 Id. at 247.
11 Id. at 244.
12 Id. at 230-231.
13 Paragraph 2. The waiver shall be signed by the taxpayer himself or his duly authorized
17/11/2019, 11:28 am
G.R. No. 212825, December 07, 2015 - COMMISSIONER OF INTER... http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2015decemberdecisions.php?id=1098

representative. In case of a corporation, the waiver must be signed by any of its

responsible officials.

14See last paragraph under 1(C)(2) of RDAO 05-01: The authorized revenue official shall
ensure that the waiver is duly accomplished and signed by the taxpayer or his authorized
representative before affixing his signature to signify acceptance of the same. In case the
authority is delegated by the taxpayer to a representative, the concerned revenue official
shall see to it that such delegation is in writing and duly notarized. The "WAIVER" should
not be accepted by the concerned BIR office and official unless duly notarized.

15 Id.

16 SUBJECT: Salient Features of Supreme Court Decision on Waiver of the Statute of

Limitations under Tax Code, issued on February 2, 2005.

17Rollo, pp. 175-176.

18Enrique T. Yuchengco, Inc. v. Velayo, No. L-50439, July 20, 1982, 115 SCRA 307.

19Gerochi v. Department of Energy, G.R. No. 159796, July 17, 2007, 527 SCRA 696.

20Visayas Geothermal Power Company v. Commission of Internal Revenue, G.R. No.

197525, June 4, 2014, 725 SCRA 130.

21Osmeña v. Osmeña, G.R. No. 171911, January 26, 2010, 611 SCRA 164, 168.

22Department of Public Works and Highways v. Quiwa, G.R. No. 183444, February 8,
2012, 665 SCRA 479.

23 Paragraph 5 of RMO 20-90.

24Visayas Geothermal Power Company v. Commission of Internal Revenue, supra note 20.

25Rollo, p. 144.

Back to Home | Back to Main

QUICK SEARCH

1901 1902 1903 1904 1905 1906 1907 1908

1909 1910 1911 1912 1913 1914 1915 1916
1917 1918 1919 1920 1921 1922 1923 1924
1925 1926 1927 1928 1929 1930 1931 1932
1933 1934 1935 1936 1937 1938 1939 1940
1941 1942 1943 1944 1945 1946 1947 1948
1949 1950 1951 1952 1953 1954 1955 1956
1957 1958 1959 1960 1961 1962 1963 1964
1965 1966 1967 1968 1969 1970 1971 1972
1973 1974 1975 1976 1977 1978 1979 1980
1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988
1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996
1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012
2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018

Copyright © 1998 - 2019 ChanRobles Publishing Company | Disclaimer | E-mail Restrictions ChanRoble s™ Virtua l La w Libra ry ™ | chanroble s.com™ RED

7 of 7 17/11/2019, 11:28 am