Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Silkair (Singapore) Pte, Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Internal Revenue 544 SCRA 100
Silkair (Singapore) Pte, Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Internal Revenue 544 SCRA 100
Silkair (Singapore) Pte, Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Internal Revenue 544 SCRA 100
*
G.R. No. 173594. February 6, 2008.
* SECOND DIVISION.
101
102
CARPIO-MORALES, J.:
_______________
x x x [T]he claim for refund with the Bureau of Internal Revenue and the subsequent
appeal to the Court of Tax Appeals must be filed within the two-year period. “If,
however, the Collector takes time in deciding the claim, and the period of two years is
about to end, the suit or proceeding must be started in the Court of Tax Appeals before
the end of the two-year period without awaiting the decision of the Collector.”
103
“Petitioner failed to prove that the sale of the petroleum products was
directly made from a domestic oil company to the international carrier.
The excise tax on petroleum products is the direct liability of the
manufacturer/producer, and when added to the cost of the goods sold
to the buyer, it is no longer a tax but part of the price which the buyer
4
has to pay to obtain the article.” (Emphasis and italics supplied)
“The liability for excise tax on petroleum products that are being
removed from its refinery is imposed on the manufac-turer/producer
(Section 130 of the NIRC of 1997). x x x
xxxx
While it is true that in the case of excise tax imposed on petroleum
products, the seller thereof may shift the tax burden to the buyer, the
latter is the proper party to claim for the refund in the case of
exemption from excise tax. Since the excise tax was imposed upon
Petron Corporation as the manufacturer of petroleum products,
pursuant to Section 130(A)(2), and that the corresponding excise taxes
were indeed, paid by it, . . . any claim for refund of the subject excise
taxes should be filed by Petron Corporation as the taxpayer
contemplated under the law. Petitioner cannot be considered as the
taxpayer because it merely shouldered the burden of the excise tax and
not the excise tax itself.
Therefore, the right to claim for the refund of excise taxes paid on
petroleum products lies with Petron Corporation who paid and
remitted the excise tax to the BIR. Respondent, on the other hand, may
only claim from Petron Corporation the reimbursement of the tax
burden shifted to the former by the latter. The excise tax partak-
_______________
104
_______________
105
_______________
106
be with the firm but who had become a partner of the Pastrana
16
and Fallar Law Offices.
The CTA En Banc granted Silkair’s second Motion for
Extension of Time, giving Silkair until November 24, 2005 to
file its petition for review. On November 17, 2005, Silkair filed
17
its Petition for Review before the CTA En Banc.
By 18Resolution of May 19, 2006, the CTA En Banc dis-
missed Silkair’s petition for review for having been filed out
of time in this wise:
_______________
16 Id., at p. 11.
17 Id., at pp. 14-24.
18 Decision penned by CTA Presiding Justice Ernesto D. Acosta, with the
concurrence of Associate Justices Juanito C. Castañeda, Jr., Lovell R. Bautista,
Erlinda P. Uy, Caesar A. Casanova, and Olga Palanca-Enriquez. Id., at pp. 63-
72.
107
_______________
108
Silkair posits that “the instant case does not involve a situation
where the petitioner was represented by two (2) counsels on
record, such that notice to the former counsel would be held
binding on the petitioner, as in the case of Damasco v. Arrieta,
25 26
etc., et al. x x x heavily relied upon by the respondent”; and 27
that “the case of Dolores De Mesa Abad v. Court of Appeals
28
has more appropriate application to the present case.”
In Dolores De Mesa Abad, the trial court issued an order of
November 19, 1974 granting the therein private respondents’
Motion for Annulment of documents and titles. The order was
received by the therein petitioner’s counsel of record, Atty.
Escolastico R. Viola, on November 22, 1974 prior to which or
on July 17, 1974, Atty. Vicente Millora of the Millora, Tobias
and Calimlim Law Office had filed an “Appearance and
Manifestation.” Atty. Millora received a copy of the trial court’s
order on December 9, 1974. On January 4, 1975, the therein
petitioners, through Atty. Ernesto D. Tobias also of the Millora,
Tobias and Calimlim Law Office, filed their Notice of Appeal
and Cash Appeal Bond as well as a Motion for Extension of the
period to file a Record on Appeal. They filed the Record on
Appeal on January 24, 1975. The trial court dismissed the
appeal for having been filed out of time, which was upheld by
the Court of Appeals on the ground that the period within which
to appeal should be counted from November 22,
_______________
24 Id., at p. 18.
25 117 Phil. 246; 7 SCRA 224 (1963).
26 Rollo, p. 103.
27 G.R. No. L-42225, July 9, 1985, 137 SCRA 416.
28 Rollo, p. 108.
109
1974, the date Atty. Viola received a copy of the November 19,
1974 order. The appellate court held that Atty. Viola was still
the counsel of record, he not having yet withdrawn his
appearance as counsel for the therein petitioners. On petition for
29
certiorari, this Court held:
The facts of Dolores De Mesa Abad are not on all fours with
those of the present case. In any event, more recent
jurisprudence holds that in case of failure to 31comply with the
procedure established by Section 26, Rule 138 of the Rules of
_______________
Change of Attorneys—An attorney may retire at any time from any action or special
proceeding, by the written consent of his client filed in court. He may also retire at any
time from any action or special proceeding, without the consent of his client, should the
court, on notice to the client and attorney, and on hearing, determine that he ought to be
allowed to retire. In case of substitution, the name of the attorney newly employed
110
_______________
shall be entered on the docket of the court in the place of the former one, and written
notice of the change shall be given to the adverse party.
Vide Arambulo v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 105818, September 17, 1993,
226 SCRA 589, 597: “Under the first sentence of [Section 26 of Rule 138 of the
Rules of Court], the retirement is complete once the withdrawal is filed in
court.”
32 Aquino v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 109493, July 2, 1999, 309 SCRA
578, 584.
33 Vide Arambulo v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 105818, September 17,
1993, 226 SCRA 589, 597; Rinconada Telephone Company, Inc. v. Buenviaje,
G.R. Nos. 49241-42, April 27, 1990, 184 SCRA 701, 704-705; UERM
Employees Union-FFW v. Minister of Labor and Employment, G.R. No. 75838,
August 21, 1989, 177 SCRA 165, 177; Tumbagahan v. Court of Appeals, G.R.
No. L-32684, September 20, 1988, 165 SCRA 485, 488-489; Lee v. Romillo, Jr.,
G.R. No. L-60937, May 28, 1988, 161 SCRA 589, 599-600.
34 Vide Lee v. Romillo, Jr., G.R. No. L-60937, May 28, 1988, 161 SCRA
589, 600.
35 CTA 2nd Division Records, pp. 318-319.
36 Id., at pp. 320-322.
111
112
_______________
113
VOL. 544, FEBRUARY 6, 2008 113
Silkair (Singapore) Pte, Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Internal
Revenue
“It may be so that in Maceda vs. Macaraig, Jr., the Court held that an
exemption from “all taxes” granted to the National Power Corporation
(NPC) under its charter includes both direct and indirect taxes. But far
from providing PLDT comfort, Maceda in fact supports the case of
herein petitioner, the correct lesson of Maceda being that an exemption
from “all taxes” excludes indirect taxes, unless the exempting statute,
like NPC’s charter, is so couched as to include indirect tax from the
exemption. Wrote the Court:
x x x However, the amendment under Republic Act No. 6395 enumerated the
details covered by the exemption. Subsequently, P.D. 380, made even more
specific the details of the exemption of NPC to cover, among others, both
direct and indirect taxes on all petroleum products used in its operation.
Presidential Decree No. 938 [NPC’s amended charter] amended the tax
exemption by simplifying the same law in general terms. It succinctly exempts
NPC from “all forms of taxes, duties[,] fees. . .”
The use of the phrase “all forms” of taxes demonstrates the intention of the
law to give NPC all the tax exemptions it has been enjoying before. . .
xxxx
It is evident from the provisions of P.D. No. 938 that its purpose is to
maintain the tax exemption of NPC from all forms of taxes including indirect
taxes as provided under R.A. No. 6395 and P.D. 380 if it is to attain its goals.
42
(Italics in the original; emphasis supplied)”
_______________
42 Id., at pp. 76-77, citing Maceda v. Macaraig, Jr., G.R. No. 88291, May 31,
1991, 197 SCRA 771, 798, 800-801.
114
114 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
Silkair (Singapore) Pte, Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Internal
Revenue
43
taxing authority, and if an exemption
44
is found to exist, it must
not be enlarged by construction.
WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED.
Costs against petitioner.
SO ORDERED.
Petition denied.
——o0o——
_______________
115
© Copyright 2018 Central Book Supply, Inc. All rights reserved.