Commissioner of Internal Revenue vs. South Entertainment Gallery, Inc.

A warrant of distraint or levy issued by the Commissioner of Internal Revenue, without a categorical ruling on the taxpayer's protest, operates as a constructive and final denial of that protest, and the 30-day period to appeal to the CTA is reckoned from the taxpayer's receipt of the warrant; a petition filed 282 days later is time-barred. A final assessment notice sent by registered mail is presumed received in the regular course of mail, and a taxpayer's bare and belated denial does not overcome that presumption.

South Entertainment Gallery, Inc. is a corporation engaged in operating and conducting bingo games and other games of chance pursuant to a Grant of Authority issued by the Philippine Amusement and Gaming Corporation (PAGCOR). It invokes PAGCOR's exemption under Presidential Decree No. 1869 against income tax and value-added tax liabilities. The Commissioner of Internal Revenue is the public officer tasked with assessing and collecting internal revenue taxes under the National Internal Revenue Code. The deficiency income tax and value-added tax assessment for taxable year 2005 and the Commissioner's collection measures are the subject of the dispute.

South Entertainment Gallery, Inc. operated bingo games and other games of chance under a Grant of Authority from the Philippine Amusement and Gaming Corporation (PAGCOR). On February 21, 2008, it received a Preliminary Assessment Notice dated February 4, 2008 informing it of its tax deficiencies. On April 10, 2008, the Commissioner sent by registered mail a Formal Letter of Demand and Assessment Notice No. 021-R-0604112007 dated April 2, 2008 to South Entertainment. South Entertainment denies receiving the mail.

Subsequently, South Entertainment received a Preliminary Collection Letter dated June 10, 2008 demanding payment of its internal revenue tax liabilities of P4,067,264.18. The letter listed income tax due of P247,216.00, VAT of P2,046,399.96, and withholding tax of P25,077.32, with surcharges, interest, and compromise penalties, for a total amount due of P4,067,264.18. South Entertainment replied to the Preliminary Collection Letter informing the Commissioner that it already paid the withholding tax deficiency. With regard to the income tax and value-added tax liabilities, South Entertainment claimed exemption from any kind and form of taxes invoking PAGCOR's exemption under Presidential Decree No. 1869. In its June 19, 2008 reply, South Entertainment did not raise non-receipt of the Formal Letter of Demand and Final Assessment Notice.

Nonetheless, on June 22, 2010, the Commissioner issued a Warrant of Distraint and/or Levy through the OIC-Revenue District Officer of South Pampanga. South Entertainment requested the cancellation and withdrawal of the Warrant through a letter dated September 24, 2010. It averred that it did not receive any Final Assessment Notice and that it is exempt from income tax and value-added tax liabilities. On March 25, 2011, South Entertainment received a letter from OIC-Revenue District Officer Amador P. Ducut reiterating the collection of the deficiency income and value-added taxes for 2005.

On March 31, 2011, South Entertainment filed a Petition for Review (With Prayer for Issuance of Temporary Restraining Order and/or Writ of Preliminary Injunction) with the CTA. It claimed that the Warrant of Distraint and Levy was premature and invalid because it had not received a Formal Assessment Notice from the Commissioner. During trial, both parties presented testimonial and documentary evidence. The Commissioner presented BLR Administrative Aide VI Ronnie SJ Ocampo, who testified that he placed the Formal Letter of Demand and Final Assessment Notice No. 021-R-0604112007 dated April 2, 2008 into a sealed envelope and delivered the mail matter to the Post Office of San Fernando, Pampanga; the notice was sent by registered mail under Registry Receipt No. 853, addressed to South Entertainment at 3F SM City San Fernando Pampanga, on April 10, 2008; and Registry Receipt No. 853 was received by Brian David on April 14, 2008, as shown in the Registry Return Card. Postman II Emelito M. Victoria testified that all mail matters addressed to tenants of SM City Pampanga are received through SM Warehouse by Warehouse Assistant Brian David, who receives such mail matters for the tenants; he issued a Certification dated February 7, 2012 stating that he delivered Registered Mail No. 853, addressed to South Entertainment and posted on April 10, 2008, and that it was received by Brian David on April 14, 2008 in SM City Pampanga. Warehouse Assistant Brian David testified that as part of his functions he receives mail matters and other documents for distribution to tenants of SM City Pampanga, confirmed his receipt of the mail matter on April 14, 2008 and his handwriting on the Registry Return Card, and confirmed that South Entertainment is one of the tenants of SM City Pampanga.

South Entertainment, for its part, claimed that the mail matter under Registry Receipt No. 853 was received by a certain Brian David at the warehouse on the ground floor of SM City Pampanga, not by South Entertainment at its registered address on the 3rd floor of the same mall, and that the Commissioner never established that Brian David was authorized to receive the Final Assessment Notice or any mail matter addressed to South Entertainment. The CTA Second Division found that the Commissioner failed to prove that the Final Assessment Notice was received by South Entertainment, and the CTA En Banc sustained that finding.

• Timeliness and Jurisdiction: Petitioner argued that the 30-day period to appeal under Republic Act No. 1125, as amended by Republic Act No. 9282, should be reckoned from June 22, 2010, when South Entertainment received the Warrant of Distraint and Levy; the petition filed on March 31, 2011, or 282 days later, was out of time and the CTA had no jurisdiction.
• Validity of Warrant and Service of Final Assessment Notice: Petitioner contended that the CTA En Banc erred in finding the Warrant void for non-service of the Final Assessment Notice; sufficient testimonial and documentary evidence, including Bureau of Posts records, proved that Formal Letter of Demand and Assessment Notice No. 021-R-0604112007 dated April 2, 2008 was served and received; official duty is presumed regularly performed unless rebutted by competent proof.
• Scope of Appealable "Other Matters": Petitioner argued in her Reply that the subject of South Entertainment's appeal was the validity of the Warrant of Distraint and Levy, which is subsumed under "other matters arising under the National Internal Revenue Code or other laws administered by the Bureau of Internal Revenue"; the period to appeal ended on July 22, 2010.
• Adequate Notice Despite Denial: Petitioner maintained that even assuming South Entertainment's denial of receipt is true, the assessment is not voided per se because South Entertainment was adequately informed of the basis of the assessment through the Preliminary Assessment Notice dated February 4, 2008 and the Preliminary Collection Letter dated June 10, 2008, which referred to the Final Assessment Notice; South Entertainment also paid the deficiency withholding taxes after receiving the collection letter.

• Invalid Assessment and Non-Receipt: Respondent countered that the deficiency tax assessments were not valid and are deemed non-existent because it did not receive any Formal Letter of Demand and Assessment Notice; without such receipt, there is no legal basis for collection.
• Timeliness: Respondent asserted that the "decision" appealable to the CTA is the Memorandum dated February 3, 2011, received on March 3, 2011, or the Letter dated March 25, 2011 with attached Memorandum dated February 3, 2011, received on even date; reckoning the 30-day period from these dates, its petition for review was timely.
• Service on Taxpayer or Agent: Respondent contended that the law, regulation, and jurisprudence require service of the Final Assessment Notice upon the taxpayer or at least upon its agent, not upon any other person; the Commissioner failed to establish by competent evidence that the Final Assessment Notice was actually received by respondent.
• Unauthorized Recipient: Respondent added that the evidence showed Registry Receipt No. 853 was received by a certain Brian David at the warehouse on the ground floor of SM City Pampanga, not by respondent at its registered address on the 3rd floor of the same mall, and the Commissioner never established that Brian David was authorized to receive the Final Assessment Notice or any mail matter addressed to respondent.

• Jurisdiction and Timeliness: Whether the CTA committed reversible error in ruling that it had jurisdiction over South Entertainment's petition for review despite the Commissioner's claim that the 30-day period to appeal should be reckoned from receipt of the Warrant of Distraint and Levy.
• Service of Final Assessment Notice: Whether the CTA erred in affirming the Second Division's ruling that the Commissioner failed to prove service of the Final Assessment Notice to South Entertainment.

• Jurisdiction and Timeliness: Yes. The CTA committed reversible error. The Warrant of Distraint and Levy issued on June 22, 2010 constituted a constructive and final denial of South Entertainment's belated protest; the 30-day period to appeal ran from receipt of the warrant, and the petition filed on March 31, 2011 was time-barred.
• Service of Final Assessment Notice: Yes. The CTA erred in affirming the Second Division's ruling. The Commissioner sufficiently proved service by registered mail, and the presumption of receipt in the regular course of mail was not overcome by South Entertainment's bare and belated denial.

• Jurisdiction and Timeliness: The CTA's jurisdiction is governed by Section 7 of Republic Act No. 1125, as amended by Republic Act No. 9282, which grants exclusive appellate jurisdiction over decisions of the Commissioner in cases involving disputed assessments, refunds, penalties, or other matters arising under the National Internal Revenue Code or other laws administered by the Bureau of Internal Revenue. For the CTA to acquire jurisdiction, the taxpayer must first dispute the assessment by filing a request for reconsideration or reinvestigation within 30 days from receipt, stating the reasons and submitting proof; the Commissioner must rule on the protest, and if the protest is denied or not acted upon within 180 days from submission of documents, the taxpayer may appeal to the CTA within 30 days from receipt of the decision or from the lapse of the 180-day period. Failure to comply with the 30-day period deprives the CTA of jurisdiction. If the taxpayer fails to file a valid protest within 30 days from receipt of the assessment, the assessment becomes final, executory, and demandable. Here, the Formal Letter of Demand and Final Assessment Notice dated April 2, 2008 was sent by registered mail on April 10, 2008; when no response came, the Commissioner sent a Preliminary Collection Letter dated June 10, 2008, which had a tenor of finality, referred to the Final Assessment Notice, directed payment within 10 days, and warned of administrative summary remedies without further notice. South Entertainment's June 19, 2008 letter-reply stated that it had paid the withholding tax deficiency and claimed exemption from income tax and VAT, but it did not raise non-receipt of the Final Assessment Notice. In the absence of a timely protest, the Commissioner reasonably presumed that the Final Assessment Notice had become final, executory, and demandable, and South Entertainment's protest in its June 19, 2008 letter was belatedly raised. The Warrant of Distraint and Levy issued on June 22, 2010 constituted a constructive denial or rejection of South Entertainment's claim in that letter and was the Commissioner's final decision on the belated protest appealable to the CTA. South Entertainment should have appealed within 30 days from June 22, 2010, or on July 22, 2010, but instead filed a request for withdrawal and cancellation of the Warrant on September 29, 2010, or 99 days from receipt. Revenue Regulations No. 12-99 requires the Commissioner's decision to state the facts, applicable law, rules and regulations, or jurisprudence, and to state that it is the final decision. Under Surigao Electric Co., Inc. vs. Court of Tax Appeals and Commissioner of Internal Revenue vs. Union Shipping Corp., the Commissioner should indicate in clear and unequivocal language what constitutes the final determination of the disputed assessment so the taxpayer knows when the right to appeal accrues. When the Commissioner, without categorically deciding the protest, proceeds with distraint and levy or institutes a collection action, the SC has considered this an implied denial; the taxpayer's remedy is to appeal to the CTA within 30 days from notification of the warrant or collection suit. Commissioner of Internal Revenue vs. Isabela Cultural Corporation treated a Final Notice Before Seizure as a denial of the protest. Commissioner of Internal Revenue vs. Union Shipping Corp. was not on point because the taxpayer there timely reiterated its motion for reconsideration two days after the warrant and the Commissioner had not clearly signified final action; Commissioner of Internal Revenue vs. Algue, Inc. was not on point because the protest could not be found in the Commissioner's office; and Advertising Associates, Inc. vs. Court of Appeals was not on point because the Commissioner issued a letter categorically stating that it was the final decision and that the taxpayer could appeal within 30 days. In this case, South Entertainment's request for withdrawal and cancellation was filed only after 99 days from receipt of the Warrant, the Commissioner did not deny receipt of South Entertainment's reply letter containing its protest, and the February 3, 2011 letter-response of BIR Regional Director Romulo L. Aguila, Jr. contained no categorical statement that it was the final decision. The 30-day period to appeal had long lapsed when South Entertainment filed its petition for review on March 31, 2011, and its belated request for cancellation and withdrawal of the Warrant did not extend the period. A taxpayer's right to contest assessments, particularly the right to appeal to the CTA, is a mere statutory right that may be waived or lost. Since the petition was filed way beyond the 30-day prescriptive period, the CTA should have dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction.
• Service of Final Assessment Notice: The issue on receipt or non-receipt of the Final Demand Letter and Assessment Notice is a factual question generally not proper in a Rule 45 petition, but the SC recognized exceptions when the lower court's findings are not supported by substantial evidence or the judgment is premised on a misapprehension of facts, as in this case. Rule 131, Section 3(v) of the Rules of Court provides that a letter duly directed and mailed is presumed to have been received by the addressee in the regular course of the mail. Under Nava vs. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, the facts to be proved are that the letter was properly addressed with postage prepaid and that it was mailed; once these facts are proved, the presumption is that the letter was received by the addressee as soon as it could have been transmitted in the ordinary course of the mails, but if one of the facts fails to appear, the presumption does not lie. The presumption is disputable and may be contradicted and overcome by evidence. Barcelon Roxas Securities, Inc. vs. Commissioner of Internal Revenue stated that independent evidence, such as the registry receipt of the assessment notice or a certification from the Bureau of Posts, should be presented to prove that the Formal Assessment Notice was released, mailed, and sent to the taxpayer. Here, the requirements were adequately shown: BLR Administrative Aide VI Ronnie SJ Ocampo testified that he placed the Formal Letter of Demand and Final Assessment Notice No. 021-R-0604112007 dated April 2, 2008 into the sealed envelope and delivered the mail matter to the Post Office of San Fernando, Pampanga; the notice was sent through registered mail under Registry Receipt No. 853, addressed to South Entertainment at 3F SM City San Fernando Pampanga, on April 10, 2008; and Registry Receipt No. 853 was received by Brian David on April 14, 2008, as shown in the Registry Return Card. There was thus a valid and effective issuance or release of the Formal Letter of Demand and Final Assessment Notice on April 10, 2008 through registered mail. Service by registered mail was authorized under Section 3.1.4 of Revenue Regulations No. 12-99, and because the mail was not returned to the sender, the Commissioner had no reason to suspect that it was not received in due course. Section 3.1.7 provides that if the notice required is served by registered mail and no response is received from the taxpayer within the prescribed period from the date of posting in the mail, the same shall be considered actually or constructively received by the taxpayer. The Commissioner then sent a Preliminary Collection Letter dated June 10, 2008 demanding payment. South Entertainment filed a protest on the preliminary collection letter, asserting payment of the withholding tax deficiency and exemption from income tax and VAT. On June 22, 2010, the Commissioner issued a Warrant of Distraint and/or Levy, which South Entertainment sought to cancel and withdraw in its letter dated September 24, 2010; there, South Entertainment denied for the first time having received the final assessment notice. Under Sebastian vs. Workmen's Compensation Commission, when a letter duly directed and mailed to a known addressee has not been returned to the sender, it is presumed that the addressee received the letter, and it is incumbent upon the addressee to show by indubitable evidence that it did not receive the letter. The Commissioner presented the registry receipts and return card along with the testimony of the Bureau of Internal Revenue personnel who prepared the mail matter and personally delivered it to the Post Office of San Fernando, Pampanga; Postman II Emelito M. Victoria testified that all mail matters addressed to tenants of SM City Pampanga are received through SM Warehouse by Warehouse Assistant Brian David, who receives such mail matters for the tenants, and issued a Certification dated February 7, 2012 stating that he delivered Registered Mail No. 853, addressed to South Entertainment and posted on April 10, 2008, and that it was received by Brian David on April 14, 2008 in SM City Pampanga; Warehouse Assistant Brian David testified that as part of his functions he receives mail matters and other documents for distribution to tenants of SM City Pampanga, confirmed his receipt of the mail matter on April 14, 2008 and his handwriting on the Registry Return Card, and confirmed that South Entertainment is one of the tenants of SM City Pampanga. It was then incumbent upon South Entertainment to overcome the presumption that the Final Assessment Notice, sent by registered mail, was received in the regular course of mail; bare denial of receipt will not suffice. Allied Banking Corp. vs. De Guzman, Sr. held that when a document is shown to have been properly addressed and actually mailed, there arises a presumption that it was duly received by the addressee, and it becomes the burden of the latter to prove otherwise; a bare, self-serving denial does little to persuade. Mindanao Terminal and Brokerage Service, Inc. vs. Court of Appeals upheld service by registered mail upon a front desk receptionist at the condominium where counsel held office and held that, as between a party's claim of non-receipt of notices of registered mail and the assertion of an official whose duty is to send notices, fortified by the presumption that official duty has been regularly performed, the latter prevails. At any rate, the records show that South Entertainment received the Preliminary Collection Letter dated June 10, 2008 demanding payment of its internal revenue tax liabilities; the letter referred to the Final Assessment Notice as the Commissioner's basis for collecting P4,067,264.18 and gave South Entertainment 10 days from receipt to pay, otherwise the Commissioner would enforce collection through administrative summary remedies without further notice. In its reply to the Preliminary Collection Letter, South Entertainment did not refute receipt of the Final Assessment Notice. Under Section 32, Rule 130 of the Rules of Court, an act or declaration made in the presence and within the hearing or observation of a party who does or says nothing when the act or declaration is such as naturally to call for action or comment if not true, and when proper and possible for him to do so, may be given in evidence against him. The SC has recognized the application of the rule to adverse statements in writing if the party was carrying on a mutual correspondence with the declarant. South Entertainment was communicating in writing with the Commissioner regarding the assessment and collection of taxes and had an interest to object promptly to the existence and/or its receipt of the Final Assessment Notice, as it would naturally have done if the statement was not true; its silence may reasonably be construed as an admission that it received the Final Assessment Notice referred to in the Preliminary Collection Letter. South Entertainment raised the issue of non-receipt only after two years, after it had received the Warrant of Distraint and Levy; by the principle of estoppel, it is barred from denying the existence and its receipt of the Final Assessment Notice. Rizal Commercial Banking Corporation vs. Commissioner of Internal Revenue applied estoppel where a party's subsequent action belied its insistence on invalidity and it could not gainsay its own act or deny rights it had previously recognized. South Entertainment's bare and belated denial did not overcome the testimonial and documentary evidence showing that the Final Assessment Notice was released, mailed, and sent.

• Constructive denial by warrant of distraint or levy — When the Commissioner, without categorically deciding the taxpayer's protest or request for reconsideration or reinvestigation, proceeds with distraint and levy or institutes a collection action, the SC treats this as an implied denial; the taxpayer must appeal to the CTA within 30 days from notification of the warrant or collection suit. The SC applied this to the June 22, 2010 Warrant, making it the final decision on South Entertainment's belated protest.
• Finality of assessment absent timely protest — If the taxpayer fails to file a valid protest within 30 days from receipt of the assessment, the assessment becomes final, executory, and demandable. South Entertainment did not timely protest the Final Assessment Notice and did not raise non-receipt in its June 19, 2008 reply, so the Commissioner reasonably presumed finality.
• Clear and unequivocal final decision requirement — The Commissioner should indicate in clear and unequivocal language what constitutes the final determination of a disputed assessment so the taxpayer knows when the right to appeal accrues. The SC found no categorical final-decision statement in the February 3, 2011 letter, but the warrant itself operated as the constructive final denial.
• Presumption of receipt of mail duly directed and mailed — Under Rule 131, Section 3(v), a letter duly directed and mailed is presumed received in the regular course of mail; the requisites are that it was properly addressed with postage prepaid and that it was mailed. The presumption is disputable, but a bare denial does not overcome it. The SC applied this to the registered Final Assessment Notice.
• Admission by silence — An act or declaration made in the presence and within the hearing or observation of a party who does or says nothing when the act or declaration naturally calls for action or comment if not true may be given in evidence against that party. South Entertainment's failure to deny receipt in its June 19, 2008 reply was construed as an admission that it received the Final Assessment Notice.
• Estoppel — A party may be barred from denying its own act or denying rights it previously recognized. South Entertainment raised non-receipt only after two years and after receiving the Warrant, so it was estopped from denying the existence and receipt of the Final Assessment Notice.
• Statutory right to appeal to the CTA — The right to contest assessments and to appeal to the CTA is a mere statutory right that may be waived or lost; failure to comply with the 30-day period deprives the CTA of jurisdiction. The SC applied this to dismiss South Entertainment's late petition.

• "The Warrant of Distraint and Levy on June 22, 2010 constitutes a constructive denial or rejection of respondent's claim in its June 19, 2008 letter. It is petitioner's final decision on respondent's belated protest that is appealable to the Court of Tax Appeals. Respondent should have filed its appeal to the Court of Tax Appeals within 30 days from June 22, 2010, or on July 22, 2010, but it failed to do so." — This passage establishes the constructive denial rule and the reckoning of the 30-day appeal period from receipt of the warrant.
• "In instances when the Commissioner, without categorically deciding the taxpayer's protest or request for reconsideration or reinvestigation, proceeds with distraint and levy or institutes an action for collection in the ordinary courts, this Court has considered this as an implied denial." — This is the SC's canonical formulation of the implied-denial doctrine when the Commissioner proceeds with collection without ruling on the protest.
• "Rule 131, Section 3(v) of the Rules of Court provides that "a letter duly directed and mailed" is presumed to have been received by the addressee thereof "in the regular course of the mail[.]"" — This states the presumption of receipt that the SC applied to the registered Final Assessment Notice.
• "Bare denial of receipt of the Final Assessment Notice will not suffice." — This encapsulates the burden on the taxpayer to overcome the presumption of receipt by competent evidence.

• Surigao Electric Co., Inc. vs. Court of Tax Appeals, 156 Phil. 517 (1974) — Controlling precedent; established the requirement that the Commissioner indicate in clear and unequivocal language the final determination on a disputed assessment so the taxpayer knows when the right to appeal accrues.
• Commissioner of Internal Revenue vs. Union Shipping Corp., 264 Phil. 132 (1990) — Distinguished; the collection suit, not the warrant, was the final action because the taxpayer timely reiterated its motion for reconsideration two days after the warrant and the Commissioner had not clearly signified final action.
• Commissioner of Internal Revenue vs. Isabela Cultural Corporation, 413 Phil. 376 (2001) — Followed; a Final Notice Before Seizure tantamount to a denial of the protest is the final decision appealable to the CTA.
• Commissioner of Internal Revenue vs. Algue, Inc., 241 Phil. 829 (1988) — Distinguished; the warrant was not a denial of the protest because the protest was filed four days after the notice and could not be located in the Commissioner's office.
• Advertising Associates, Inc. vs. Court of Appeals, 218 Phil. 730 (1984) — Distinguished; the Commissioner's letter categorically stating that it was the final decision, not the warrant, was the reviewable decision.
• Nava vs. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, 121 Phil. 117 (1965) — Followed; set out the requisites for the presumption of receipt of a letter duly directed and mailed.
• Barcelon Roxas Securities, Inc. vs. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, 529 Phil. 785 (2006) — Followed; independent evidence such as the registry receipt or a Bureau of Posts certification should be presented to prove release, mailing, and sending of the assessment notice.
• Allied Banking Corp. vs. De Guzman, Sr., 835 Phil. 985 (2018) — Followed; a bare, self-serving denial does not overcome the presumption that a document properly addressed and actually mailed was duly received.

• Section 7, Republic Act No. 1125, as amended by Republic Act No. 9282 — Grants the CTA exclusive appellate jurisdiction over decisions of the Commissioner in disputed assessments, refunds, penalties, or other matters arising under the National Internal Revenue Code or other laws administered by the Bureau of Internal Revenue; applied to determine whether the CTA had jurisdiction over South Entertainment's petition.
• Section 11, Republic Act No. 1125, as amended — Fixes the 30-day period to appeal to the CTA from receipt of the Commissioner's decision or from the lapse of the 180-day period; applied to bar South Entertainment's petition filed 282 days after receipt of the Warrant.
• Revenue Regulations No. 12-99, Sections 3.1.4, 3.1.5, and 3.1.7 — Section 3.1.4 authorizes service by registered mail; Section 3.1.5 makes an assessment final, executory, and demandable if no valid protest is filed within 30 days; Section 3.1.7 provides that a notice served by registered mail with no response within the prescribed period is considered actually or constructively received; applied to the Final Assessment Notice and the finality of the assessment.
• Rule 131, Section 3(v), Rules of Court — Provides that a letter duly directed and mailed is presumed received in the regular course of mail; applied to the registered Final Assessment Notice.
• Rule 130, Section 32, Rules of Court — Provides the rule on admission by silence; applied to South Entertainment's failure to deny receipt of the Final Assessment Notice in its June 19, 2008 reply.
• Rule 45, Rules of Court — Governs petitions for review on certiorari; the SC recognized that factual questions are generally improper in a Rule 45 petition but allowed exceptions where the lower court's findings are not supported by substantial evidence or the judgment is premised on a misapprehension of facts.

• Presiding Justice Roman G. Del Rosario (Dissenting, CTA En Banc) — He opined that the 30-day period should be reckoned from South Entertainment's receipt of the Warrant of Distraint and Levy on June 22, 2010, or until July 22, 2010; the warrant was an act of the Commissioner on "other matters" under the National Internal Revenue Code and appealable to the CTA under Philippine Journalist, Inc. vs. CIR. He noted that it took 99 days to question the warrant before the Bureau of Internal Revenue and 282 days before the CTA, so the warrant attained finality and the CTA had no jurisdiction. He also stated that the Commissioner proved service of the Final Assessment Notice in the regular course of mail and observed that South Entertainment paid the deficiency withholding tax after receiving the Preliminary Collection Letter despite insisting it did not receive the Final Assessment Notice.