Reitoh Cold Storage Inc., et al. vs. Bureau of Internal Revenue

DECISION

Reitoh Cold Storage Inc., et al. vs. Bureau of Internal Revenue

POWERSOURCE

PHILIPPINES, INC., Petitioners, -versus-

INTERNAL Promulgated:

BUREAU

OF

REVENUE,

APR 1 9 2023

Respondent. ------------~--

X--------------------------

J; ('J , .. , -----

--------X

DECISION

CUI-DAVID, J.:

Before the Court is a Petition for Review 1 filed by petitioners by way of Mandamus2 under Rule 65 of the Revised Rules of Court, as amended, praying that the Court "mandate respondent to issue the Certificate of Tax Delinquencies/Tax Liabilities (CTD) and Acceptance Payment Form (APF) in favor of petitioners so that they may be deemed to have fully complied with all the conditions set forth in the Tax Amnesty Act, including the payment of their amnesty tax, their tax delinquency may be considered settled, and the tax amnesty granted becomes final and irrevocable."

THE PARTIES

Petitioner Exequiel Balanlay Adora is a sole proprietor with office address at 3F Room 303-305 Caroline Building, Brgy. 178 Kika Camarin, Caloocan City.3 He is represented by Maureen Braza,4 with office address at Unit 203 STG Corporate Centre Building, No. 76 Timog Avenue, Quezon City.s The other petitioners are domestic corporations with the following addresses and authorized representatives: 1 Division Docket (Docket)- Vol. I, pp. 12-620, with annexes. 2 /d., Petition for Review, par. 4, p. 13. J /d., p. 16.

Reitoh Cold Storage Inc., et a!. vs. Bureau of Internal Revenue

Taxpayer

Address

1 Reitoh Cold Storage Inc.

Km

30

National

Highway,

Amante

Street, Bo. Poblacion, San Pedro, Laguna 2

We Lead Group Holdings Unit 2102 Robinsons

Inc.

Galleria

Corporate

Center Ortigas Avenue, Edsa cor. Quezon City 3

Elence

Marine

and Bldg. 9 Unit315 Urban

Industrial Corporation

Dec a

Homes

Vitas

Street, Tondo, Manila 4

MBPS

Cabling 2156-D P. Florentino

Corporation

Street, Sampaloc,

Manila

5

Garuda

Construction 8760

Santo!

Street,

Corporation

San Antonio Village,

Makati City

6

BCP

Dermatological Del a

Paz

Building,

Corporation

1570 Dapitan Street, Zone 047, Brgy. 481 Sampaloc, Manila 7

Audio-Video

Solutions Unit

3301

Atlanta

Corporation

Center, 31 Annapolis St., Greenhills,

San

Juan City

8 Dunamis Import-Export Room 202 Esna Bldg.,

Philippines Incorporated

No. 30 Timog Avenue, Brgy. Laging Handa,

Quezon City

9

Alen

v.

Dragon 51 Maharlika Hi-Way

Corporation

Sta.

Anastacia,

Sto

Tomas, Batangas 10

Medev Medical Devices Red

Flower

MJ46

Corporation

Compound, Sta. Ana

Drive

Sun

Valley,

Paraftaque

11

Chrysalis

Construction 2404 Tenorio Street,

and Trading Corporation San

Andres

Bukid,

Manila

12 Papisss Inc.

Villa

Mariquita

Subdivision, Lumbangan, Nasugbu, Batan_gas 6 /d., Annex P-1, Board Resolution, p. 49. 7 /d., Annex P-2, Secretary's Certificate, pp. 50-51. 8 /d., Annex P-3, Secretary's Certificate, pp. 52-53. 9 /d., Annex P-4, Secretary's Certificate, pp. 54-55. 10 !d., Annex P-5, Secretary's Certificate, pp. 56-57. 11 /d., Annex P-6, Secretary's Certificate, pp. 58-59. 12 /d., Annex P-7, Secretary's Certificate, pp. 60-61. 13 /d., Annex P-8, Secretary's Certificate, pp. 62-63. 14 /d., Annex P-9, Secretary's Certificate, pp. 64-65. 15 /d., Annex P-10, Secretary's Certificate, pp. 66-67. 16 /d., Annex P-11, Secretary's Certificate, pp. 68-69. 17 /d., Annex P-12, Secretary's Certificate, pp. 70-71.

Authorized

Representative

Maureen Braza6

Maureen Braza7

Maureen BrazaS

Maureen Braza9

Maureen BrazalO

Maureen Braza 11

Gina Mandigmai2

Maureen Braza 13

Maureen Brazai•

Maureen Braza Is

Maureen Braza 16

Maureen Brazai7

Reitoh Cold Storage Inc., et al. vs. Bureau of Internal Revenue

Taxpayer

Address

13

Icon Reefer Corporation

Unit

3QC,

ODC

International

Plaza, 219

Salcedo

Street, Legaspi Village, Makati

City

(formerly

11/F

Vernida IV Bldg., 128 Alfaro Street, Salcedo Village, Makati City) 14 JRT Const. and Trading 082 Sta. Cruz Street,

Corporation

Ilawod Poblacion, Bato,

Catanduanes

15

OAT ALINK

Solutions Sticra Signal Village,

Technology

and Katuparan, Taguig City Consultancy Inc.

cjo Philippine Korea Technological Center,

Taguig City

16

ABBE

Technology UG-29

Cityland

Solutions Inc.

Pioneer Condominium, 128

Pioneer

Street,

Highway

Hills,

Mandaluyong City

17 KEN N RIE Transport, Brgy. San Pioquinto, Inc.

Malvar, Batangas 18

R2B2

Realty

& Penthouse,

R&L

Development

Center, 1695

Baler

Corporation

Street, Makati City 19

G2K Corporation

Unit

3301

Atlanta

Center, 31 Annapolis Street, Greenhills, San

Juan City

20

Maxx Energie Ventures Unit

3301

Atlanta

Corporation

Center, 31 Annapolis Street, Greenhills, San

Juan City

21 Powersource Philippines, lOF The Athenaeum Inc.

Bldg., 160 L.P. Leviste Street, Salcedo Village,

Makati City

Authorized

Representative

Gina Mandigma'"

Gina Mandigma'9

Maureen Braza2o

Maureen Braza21

Maureen Braza22

Maureen Braza23

Gina Mandigma24

Gina Mandigma2s

Maureen Braza26

Respondent Bureau of Internal Revenue (BIR) is the government agency charged with, among other powers and duties, the collection of all national internal revenue taxes. It has the power to decide disputed assessments, refunds of internal revenue taxes, fees or other charges, penalties imposed in relation thereto, or other matters arising under the 1997

Reitoh Cold Storage Inc., et al. vs. Bureau of Internal Revenue

National Internal Revenue Code (NIRC), as amended (Tax Code), and other laws administered by it, with office address at BIR National Office Building, BIR Road, Diliman, Quezon City.

THE FACTS

On February 14,2019, Republic Act (RAJ No. 11213 or the Tax Amnesty Act (TAA), was approved and became effective on April 24, 2019. It covered all unpaid internal revenue taxes for the taxable year 2017 and prior years concerning (1) estate tax and (2) tax on delinquencies.

On April24, 2019, Revenue Regulations (RR) No. 4-201927 came into effect to implement the TAA and provide guidelines on the processmg of tax amnesty applications on tax delinquencies.

Petitioners received from respondent the following notices:

Taxpayer

BIR Notices

Issuing BIR

Issuing BIR

Issued

Office

Officer

1

Reitoh

Cold Notice for Informal Revenue

Revenue

Storage Inc.

Conference dated District

Office District Officer

March 13, 20192s (ROO) No. 57- An to nino L.

Biiian

City, !lagan

Laguna

2 We Lead Group Formal Letter of Revenue Region OIC-Regional Holdings Inc.

Demand and (RR)

No.

7A-

Director Albino

Assessment Notice Quezon City

M. Galanza dated October 25, 201929 3

Elence

Marine Notice for Informal ROO

No.

29-

Revenue

and

Industrial Conference

Tondo/San

District Officer

Corporation

(undatedpo Nicolas, Manila Teresita Y.

Lumayag

4

MBPS

Cabling Notice for Informal ROO

No.

32-

Revenue

Corporation

Conference dated Quiapo,

District Officer

January 7, 202031 Sampaloc, San Jose G. Luna Miguel, Sta.

Mesa, Manila 5

Garuda

Preliminary

ROO

No.

49-

Regional

Construction

Assessment Notice North Makati

Director

Glen

Corporation

dated

July

2, A. Geraldino 201832 27 lmplementing Rules and Regulations (IRR) of Republic Act No. 11213, Otherwise Known as the "Tax Amnesty Act", Providing for the Guidelines on the Processing ofT ax Amnesty Application on Tax Delinquencies.

Reitoh Cold Storage Inc., et al. vs. Bureau of Internal Revenue

Taxpayer

6

BCP

Dermatological

Corporation

7

Audio-Video

Solutions

Corporation

8

Dunamis

lm port-Export

Philippines

Incorporated

9 Alen V. Dragon

Corporation

10

Medev

Medical

Devices

Corporation

11

Chrysalis

Construction

and

Trading

Corporation

12 Papisss Inc.

13

Icon

Reefer

Corporation

14 JRT Canst. and

Trading

Corporation

15

OAT ALINK

Solutions

Technology and

Consultancy

Inc.

16

ABBE

Technology

Solutions Inc.

33 /d .. Annex P-28. pp. 115-119.

34 !d.. Annex P-29, pp. 120-128.

35 !d.. Annex P-30, pp. 129-132.

36 /d.. Annex P-31, pp. 133-135.

31 !d.. Annex P-32, pp. 136-137.

38 /d.. Annex P-33, pp. 138-140.

39 !d.. Annex P-34, pp. 141-142.

"!d.. Annex P-35, pp. 143-144.

4'/d.. Annex P-36, pp. 145-147.

BIR Notices

Issuing BIR

Issued

Office

Notice for Informal ROO

No.

32- Conference dated Quiapo,

December

26, Sampaloc, San 201933 Miguel, Sta.

Mesa, Manila

Formal Letter of Revenue Region

Demand

dated (RR) No.

7-

January

10, Quezon City 201934

Notice for Informal ROO

No.

39- Conference dated South, Quezon March 9, 202035

City

Formal Letter of Revenue Region

Demand

dated (RR) No.

9A-

October 2, 201936

CaBaMiRo

Notice for Informal ROO

No.

52- Conference dated Paraftaque City May 31, 201937

Notice for Informal ROO

No.

34- Conference dated Paco- July 19, 201838 Pandacan-Sta.

Ana-San

Andres, Manila

Notice for Informal ROO

No.

58- Conference dated West, Batangas May 24, 201939

Formal Letter of RR

No.

8A-

Demand

dated Makati

November

28, 201940

Notice for Informal ROO

No.

69- Conference dated Virac,

September

23, Catanduanes 201941

None42

Notice for Informal

ROO

No.

41- Conference dated

Mandaluyong

City

Issuing BIR

Officer

Revenue

District Officer

Jose G. Luna

Assistant

Regional

Director Albino

M. Galanza

Revenue

District Officer

Arnulfo

A.

Galapia

Regional

Director Gerry

0. Dumayas

Revenue

District Officer

Antonio

J.

Mangubat, Jr.

Revenue

District Officer

Atty. Helen D.

Vista

Revenue

District Officer

Atty. Elmer F.

Carolina

Regional

Director

Maridur

v.

Rosario

Revenue

District Officer

Princini

B.

Parco

Revenue

District Officer

Atty.

42 JRT Const. and Trading Corporation did not receive any notice from the BIR but filed a Monthly Remittance Return of Creditable Income Taxes Withheld (Expanded) or BIR Fonn No. 1601-E received by the BIRon February 12,2020 with "late filing/late payment penalties computed" annotation, id., Annex P-37, pp. 148-159.

Reitoh Cold Storage Inc., et al. vs. Bureau of Internal Revenue

Taxpayer

BIR Notices

Issuing BIR

Issued

Office

October 11, 201943 17

Exequiel

Request for Lease ROO

No.

27-

Balanlay Adora

Contract

re: Caloocan City

Penalty

Assessment

(undated)44 18

KEN

N

RIE None45

Transport, Inc.

19

R2B2 Realty &

Letter

dated ROO No.

49-

Development

January 16, 2020 North Makati

Corporation

re:

request for computation of penalty for unpaid fringe benefits taxes46 20

G2K

Final Decision on RR No. 78-East

Corporation

Disputed

NCR

Assessment dated March 25, 202047 21

Maxx

Energie Formal Letter of RR

7-Quezon

Ventures

Demand

dated City

Corporation

January

12, 201648 22

Powersource

Notice for Informal ROO

No.

47- Philippines, Inc.

Conference dated East Makati May 18, 202049

Issuing BIR

Officer

Deogracias

T.

Villar, Jr.

Revenue Officer

Jolina

Suwala wan

Revenue

District Officer

Frederico

Q.

Pilarca

Regional

Director

Romulo Aguila, Jr.

Revenue

District Officer

Renata L. Ruiz To avail of the benefits of the TAA, petitioners accomplished their Tax Amnesty Returns on Delinquencies (TAR or BIR Form 2118-DA), APFs (BIR Form 0621-DA), and bank deposit slips. so Petitioners followed up with respondent regarding the issuance of their respective CTDs and duly endorsed APFs. Respondent acted upon petitioners' requests m the following manner:

43 /d., Annex P·38, pp. 160-162.

"/d., Annex P-39, pp. 163-166.

~ 45 KEN N RIE Transport, Inc. did not receive any notice from the BIR but filed a Monthly Remittance Return of Creditable Income Taxes Withheld (Expanded) or BIR Fonn No. 1601-E received by the BIRon February 21,2020 with "late filing" stamp, id., Annex P-40, pp. 167-177.

Reitoh Cold Storage Inc., et a!. vs. Bureau of Internal Revenue

Taxpayer

BIRAction

Reitoh

Cold Denial Letters dated Storage Inc.

August 9, 201951 and

September

17, 2019: 52 assessment is not yet considered delinquent We Lead Group Denial Letters dated Holdings Inc.

December

27, 2019,55 and February 13, 2020:

56 not qualified pursuant to

Revenue

Memorandum

Circular (RMC)

No.

57-2019, Ql.

Denial Letter dated February 3, 2020:57 not yet a delinquent account

Elence Marine None and Industrial

Corporation

MBPS Cabling Denial Letters dated

Corporation

July

28, 2020, 60

September

22, 2020 6t and October 16, 2020:

62 not considered a delinquent account;

no records of tax delinquency/ deficien cy /liability; and not a case of "withholding tax liabilities arising from failure to remit taxes withheld" 51 /d .. Annex P-210A, pp. 587-588.

52 /d., Annex P-21 0, p. 586.

Issuing BIR

Office

RDO

No.

57-West

Laguna

(Biiian)

RR No. 7A-

Quezon City

RDO

No.

40-Cubao

RR No. 6-

Manila

Issuing BIR

Officer

Revenue

District Officer

Atty. Timm B.

Renomeron

Regional

Director Albino

M. Galanza

Revenue

District Officer

Corazon

R.

Balin as

Regional

Director

Atty.

Jethro

M.

Sabariaga

Taxpayer's

Receipt

Date

August

9, 201953

September

7, 201954

December

27,201958

February

13, 202059

July

28, 202063

September

22, 202064 53 Par. 18, Petition for Review, Docket- Vol. I, p. 34, vis-il-vis par. 6, Memorandum for Petitioners, Docket- Vol. II, p. 795.

54 /d.

55 Petition for Review, Annex P-211, Docket- Vol. I, p. 589. 56 /d., Annex P-212, pp. 590-591.

57 /d., Annex P-212A, p. 592.

58 Par. 18, Petition for Review, Docket- Vol. I, p. 34, vis-ii-vis par. 6, Memorandum for Petitioners, Docket- Vol. II, p. 795.

59 /d.

60 /d., Annex P-213, pp. 593-595; Annex P-214A, pp. 597-599. 61 /d., Annex P-214, p. 596.

62 /d., Annex P-2148, p. 600.

63 Par. 18, Petition for Review, Docket- Vol. I, p. 34, vis-ii-vis par. 6, Memorandum for Petitioners, Docket- Vol. II, p. 796.

64 Par. 18, Petition for Review, Docket- Vol. I, p. 35, vis-il-vis par. 6, Memorandum for Petitioners, Docket- Vol. II, p. 796.

Reitoh Cold Storage Inc., et a!. vs. Bureau of Internal Revenue

Taxpayer

BIRAction

Issuing BIR

Issuing BIR

Office

Officer

Garuda

Denial Letter dated RDO No. Revenue

Construction

September

30, 49-North

District Officer

Corporation

2020:

65 "subject Makati City

Frederico

Q.

taxes" not covered by

Pilarca the TAA

BCP

Denial Letter dated RR No. 6-

Dermatological

August 3, 2020: 67 Manila

Corporation

subject withholding taxes not covered by

the TAA

Audio-Video

None

Solutions

Corporation

Dunamis

Letter dated October ROO No.

Revenue

Import-Export

12, 2020: 69 request 39-South,

District Officer

Philippines

for

APF -Signature Quezon City Arnulfo

A.

Incorporated

and demand to Gala pia sign/follow up on tax amnesty request for approval are forwarded to

Legal

Division of RR No.

7 A-Quezon City

A! en V. Dragon None

Corporation

Medev Medical Denial Letter dated RR No. 88-

Devices

December 5, 2019:71 South NCR

Corporation

subject

EWT

not covered by the TAA

Chrysalis

Denial Letters dated RR No. 6-

Regional

Construction

October 7, 2019 73

Manila

Director

Atty.

and

Trading and

October

18,

Jethro

M.

Corporation

2019: 74 assessment

Sabariaga

has not yet attained finality since it was able to file timely protest/request for reinvestigation 65 /d., Annex P-215, p. 603.

Taxpayer's

Receipt

Date

September

30, 202066

August

3, 202068 October 12, 202070

December

5, 201972 October 23, 201976 66 Par. 18, Petition for Review, Docket- Vol. I, p. 35, vis-b.-vis par. 6, Memorandum for Petitioners, Docket- Vol. II, p. 796.

67 /d., Annex P-216, pp. 604-605, with missing pages and signature page. 68 Par. 18, Petition for Review, Docket- Vol. I, p. 35, vis-il-vis par. 6, Memorandum for Petitioners, Docket- Vol. II, p. 796.

69 /d., Annex P-217, p. 606.

70 Par. 18, Petition for Review, Docket- Vol. I, p. 35, vis-0.-vis par. 6, Memorandum for Petitioners, Docket- Vol. II, p. 796.

71 /d., Annex P-218, pp. 607-608, with missing signature page. 72 Par. 18, Petition for Review, Docket- Vol. I, p. 35, vis-il-vis par. 6, Memorandum for Petitioners, Docket- Vol. ll, p. 796.

73 /d., Annex P-219A, pp. 610-612; id., Annex P-219C, p. 616. 74 /d., Annex P-2198, pp. 613-615.

76 Par. 18, Petition for Review, Docket- Vol. I, p. 36, vis-il-vis par. 6, Memorandum for Petitioners, Docket- Vol. ll, p. 796.

Reitoh Cold Storage Inc., et al. vs. Bureau of Internal Revenue

Taxpayer

BIRAction

Issuing BIR

Issuing BIR

Taxpayer's

Office

Officer

Receipt

Date

Letter dated October RDO No.

OIC-Revenue

22, 2019:

75 not 34-Paco-

District Officer

qualified to avail of Pandacan-

Caroline

M.

the TAA

Sta.

Ana-

Takata

San Andres

Papisss Inc.

None

Icon

Reefer None

Corporation

JRT Canst. and None

Trading

Corporation

DATALINK

None

Solutions

Technology and

Consultancy

Inc.

ABBE

Letter dated January RR No. 7B- Chief,

January

Technology

21, 2020:

77 East NCR

Collection

31, 202078 Solutions Inc.

forwarded to the CIR for appropriate action

Exequiel

Denial Letter dated Balanlay Adora December 11,2019:79 penalties arising from the non-filing of returns/ open cases, self-assessed taxes and electronic Filing and Payment cases are not included m

the TAA80

KEN

N

RIE None

Transport, Inc.

R2B2 Realty &

Denial Letters dated

Development

June 2, 2020:82 failed

Corporation

to provide an entitlement for the issuance of Notice of

Issuance of Authority to Cancel Assessment

(NIATCA)

under Section 6 of RR No. 4- 20 19, in relation to III (1)E of RMO No. 33- 2018; endorsed to the 15 /d., Annex P-219, p. 609.

17 /d., Annex P-220, p. 617.

Division

Ceferina

M.

Ong

RR No.

5-

December

Caloocan

11, 202081

City

RR No. 8A- OIC-Chief,

July

Makati

Collection

202084

Division

Benilda

M.

Nicosia

78 Par. 18, Petition for Review, Docket~ Vol. I, p. 36, vis-il-vis par. 6, Memorandum for Petitioners, Docket- Vol. II, p. 796.

79 !d., Annex P-221, p. 618, with missing pages and signature page. 80 Petition for Review, no. 17, p. 36.

81 Par. 18, Petition for Review, Docket- Vol. I, p. 36, vis-il-vis par. 6, Memorandum for Petitioners, Docket- Vol. II, p. 797.

82 Petition for Review, Annex P-222A, p. 620. 84 Par. 18, Petition for Review, Docket- Vol. I, p. 37, vis-ii-vis par. 6, Memorandum for Petitioners, Docket- Vol. II, p. 797.

1'

Reitoh Cold Storage Inc., et al. vs. Bureau of Internal Revenue

Taxpayer

BIRAction

Issuing BIR

Issuing BIR

Office

Officer

Legal

Division

for appropriate action Letter dated July 1, RDO No. Revenue 2020:

83 stop-filer 49-North

District Officer

cases are not Makati

Federico

Q.

considered

Pilarca

delinquent account

G2K

None

Corporation

Maxx

Energie None

Ventures

Corporation

Powersource

None

Philippines, Inc.

Taxpayer's

Receipt

Date

On December 14, 2020, petitioners filed a Petition for Review dated December 8, 2020.

On December 21, 2020, the Court issued Summons85 ordering respondent to submit an Answer within thirty (30) days from service. On January 5, 2021, respondent received the Summons.

In the Motion for Extension of Time to File Answer86 and Final Motion for Extension of Time to File Answer,87 respondent requested an additional period of thirty (30) days from February 4, 2021, or until March 6, 2021, and thereafter, a further extension of fifteen (15) days from March 6, 2021, or until March 21, 2021, to file an Answer. The Court granted both Motions in its Orders dated February 8, 2021,88 and March 18, 2021,89 respectively.

On May 19, 2021, the Court received respondent's Answer9o filed via registered mail on March 19, 2021, with the following special and affirmative defenses:

Reitoh Cold Storage Inc., et a!. vs. Bureau of Internal Revenue a. The Court has no jurisdiction over the instant petition;

b. A collateral attack on presumably valid administrative issuance is not allowed; and

c. The approval of the application for tax amnesty should be in accordance with RA No. 11213; thus, mandamus is not tenable.

On May 20, 2021, the Court issued a Notice of Pre-Trial Conference91 and set the case for pre-trial on June 14, 2021. In compliance with the Court's order, respondent filed a Pre-Trial Brief92 on June 8, 2021, while petitioners filed a Motion to Admit Petitioners' Pre-Trial Brie.f3 with the attached Pre-Trial Brief94 on June 14, 2021.

On May 24, 2021, the Court received petitioners' Motion 1. To Declare Respondent in Default 2. For Judgment on the Pleadings95 filed through registered mail on April 20, 2021, to which respondent posted a Comment/ Opposition96 on May 25, 2021, and received by the Court on May 26, 2021. On June 14, 2021, the Court issued a Resolution 97 denying petitioners' Motion 1. To Declare Respondent in Default

2. For Judgment on the Pleadings for lack of merit and noted petitioners' counsel's change of address. During the pre-trial conference, the Court granted petitioners' Motion to Admit Petitioners' Pre-Trial Briefwith the attached Pre-Trial Brief in the interest of justice. It referred the case to the Philippine Mediation Center-Court of Tax Appeals (PMC-CTA) for mediation on July 7, 2021.98 On July 7, 2021, petitioners filed a Manifestation99 stating that there is no need to proceed with the mediation proceedings considering that the issues, in this case, are purely a question of law. On even date, the Court received the PMC-CTA's "Back to Court" report100 since petitioners refused mediation. 91 Docket- Vol. 11. pp. 657-660.

92 Docket- Vol. 11. pp. 696-700.

93 Docket- Vol. II, pp. 707-709.

94 Docket- Vol. II. pp. 710-734.

95 Docket- Vol. II, pp. 661-665.

96 Docket~ Vol. II, pp. 670-694, with annexes. 97 Docket- Vol. II. pp. 702-706.

98 Docket- Vol. II, Minutes of the Hearing, p. 735; Order dated June 14, 2021, p. 736; Resolution dated June 17, 2021,

p. 739.

Reitoh Cold Storage Inc., et al. va. Bureau of Internal Revenue

On July 28, 2021, the Court issued a Resolution101 noting petitioners' Manifestation and set the pre-trial conference on September 29, 2021. Still, it was cancelled and reset to January 17, 2022, given the physical closure of the Court under Supreme Court Administrative Circular No. 56-2021. 1o2 The pre-trial set on January 17, 2022, was again cancelled and reset to March 9, 2022, due to the court's physical closure brought about by rising COVID-19 cases.103 On February 21, 2022, petitioners filed a Motion to Submit Memorandum104 praying that the Court directs the parties to file their respective memoranda alleging that the only issue, in this case, involves a question of law.

On March 1, 2022, the Court promulgated a Resolution1os ordering respondent to file a comment/ opposition within five (5) days from receipt. On March 8, 2022, respondent filed a Comment106 interposing no objection to petitioners' Motion to Submit Memorandum.

In its Resolution 107 dated March 25, 2022, the Court granted petitioners' Motion to Submit Memorandum and ordered the parties to submit their respective memoranda within fifteen

(15) days from receipt. Respondent's Memorandum108 was filed on April 11, 2022, while the Memorandum for Petitioners109 was filed on April 18, 2022.

In the Resolution dated April 26, 2022, 11o the Court submitted the present case for decision. Hence, this Decision. ~

Reitoh Cold Storage Inc., eta!. vs. Bureau of Internal Revenue

ISSUES

Petitioners put forth the following issues111 for the Court's resolution, to wit:

I

Whether or not a Petition for Certiorari under the Rules of Court, Rule 65, Section 1 filed with the Court of Tax Appeals is the correct remedy.

II

Whether or not respondent has the ministerial duty to issue a Certificate of Tax Delinquency and Acceptance Payment Form in favor of petitioners for taxable year 2017 and prior years even if the assessment notices or similar documents are issued after the effectivity of the implementing rules and regulations.

III

Whether or not petitioners are entitled to avail themselves of the benefits of the Tax Amnesty Law, even if respondent refused to sign their Certificate of Tax Delinquency and Acceptance Payment Form, as it is respondent's ministerial duty to issue a Notice of Issuance of Authority to Cancel Assessment (NIATCA) in petitioners' favor after they filed their TARs and APFs as well as paid the amnesty taxes.

IV

Whether or not petitioners have no other plain, speedy and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law. The issues may be summed up into whether or not respondent BIR may be compelled by mandamus to issue in favor of petitioners the Certificates of Tax Delinquencies/Tax Liabilities and Acceptance Payment Forms under RA No. 11213 or the Tax Amnesty Act.

Petitioners' arguments:

Petitioners argue that it is the ministerial duty of the BIR to issue a CTD and APF in their favor for the taxable year (TY) 2017 and prior years, even if the assessment notices or similar documents are issued after the effectivity of the implementing rules and regulations (IRR). Petitioners claim that they are entitled to avail of the benefits of the TAA, even if respondent refuses to issue the CTDs and sign the APFs, as it 1s \1

Reitoh Cold Storage Inc., et a!. vs. Bureau of Internal Revenue respondent's ministerial duty to issue a Notice of Issuance of Authority to Cancel Assessment (NIATCA) in petitioners' favor after they filed their TARs and APFs and paid their amnesty taxes.

However, in their Memorandum, petitioners allege for the first time that a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Revised Rules of Court is the correct remedy. According to petitioners, the denial of the requests for the issuance of the NIATCA in their favor after they filed their TARs and APFs and paid the amnesty taxes is a decision of the Commissioner of Internal Revenue (CIR) arising under the NIRC and its related laws; hence, the Court of Tax Appeals (CTA) is the proper court for the filing of a Petition for Review, pursuant to A.M. No. 05- 11-07-CTA or the Revised Rules of the Court of Tax Appeals (RRCTA), specifically, Section 3, Rule 4 thereof. Further, petitioners cite the case of Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Hambrecht & Quist Philippines, Inc., 112 wherein the Supreme Court held that the CTA's jurisdiction is not limited to cases that involve decisions of the CIR on matters involving assessments or refunds but also covers other cases arising from the NIRC113 "where the power is exercised in an arbitrary and despotic manner by reason of passion or hostility."11 4 Petitioners assert that the CTA's judicial power to determine whether there is grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction on the part of respondent is enshrined in the Constitution, as enunciated in Department of Transportation v. Philippine Petroleum Sea Transport Association, et al. 115 Further, "(a) petition for certiorari is proper where the impugned dispositions, as in this case, are tainted with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction." 116 Petitioners maintain that they can apply for tax amnesty under Section 17(d) of the TAA. Petitioners explain that the previous tax amnesty law (RA No. 9480) excluded tax cases that were already the subject of final and executory judgments by the courts and withholding tax agents with respect to their 112 G.R. No. 169225. November 17.2010, cited in CIR v. Philippine Aluminum Wheels Inc .. CTA EB No. 994 (CTA Case No. 7817), May 19. 2014.

113 WPP Marketing Communications, Inc. v. CJR, CTA Case No. 9704, June 5, 2020. 114 /d.

115 G.R. No. 230107. July 24. 2018.

116 Rural Bank afCa/inog (Iloilo). Inc. v. CA. G.R. No. 146519, August 8, 2005. ~

Reitoh Cold Storage Inc., et a!. vs. Bureau of Internal Revenue withholding tax liabilities; during the deliberation of the TAA, the legislators included these tax liabilities. Petitioners claim that Section 19 of the TAA provides that the taxpayer who wishes to avail of the Tax Amnesty on Delinquencies shall file a sworn Tax Amnesty on Delinquencies Return with a Certification of Delinquency and pay the amnesty tax, after which the respondent shall issue the APF. Section 5(A) of RR No. 4-2019, or the IRR of the TAA also provides that the taxpayer who wishes to avail of the Tax Amnesty on Delinquencies shall file a TAR, an APF and CTD issued by respondent. Hence, petitioners argue that respondent is mandated and obligated to issue their respective CTDs and APFs to allow them to complete the other requirements of the TAA and eventually avail themselves of its benefits. Petitioners insist that there is nothing more left but for respondent to issue the CTDs and APFs to those who have already complied with the provisions of the TAA, as held in the case of CS Gannent, Inc. v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue. 117 However, respondent ignored or denied their request for the issuance of the CTDs and APFs on the ground that under RR No. 4-2019, the coverage of the TAA is only for tax delinquencies with assessment notices or similar documents issued on or before the effectivity date of RR No. 4-2019. In effect, petitioners posit that respondent imposed additional conditions for availing of the tax amnesty when it issued RMC No. 57-2019. 11s Petitioners also state that the TAA does not impose a cut-off date of April 24, 2019 or the condition that the assessment notices have become final and executory on or before April 24, 2019, which RMC No. 57-2019 does.

Petitioners aver that the law cannot be amended by a mere regulation since an administrative agency may not enlarge, alter or restrict the provisions of the statute being administered, 119 even on the pretext of clarifying specific issues by imposing other conditions not found in the law itself. Such restrictions or conditions, according to petitioners, should be declared null and void and should not prevent petitioners from exercising what is their legal right. In relation thereto, petitioners cited the cases of Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Philippine ~ 117 G.R. No. 182399. March 12, 2014.

118 Clarifies Certain Issues on Tax Amnesty on Delinquencies under Revenue Regulations No. 4-2019 which Implemented Title IV of Republic Act No. 11213 or the Tax Amnesty Act, May 22, 20 I 9.

Reitoh Cold Storage Inc., eta!. vs. Bureau of Internal Revenue

Aluminum Wheels, Inc 120 and CS Garment, Inc. v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue.121 Petitioners further submit that it is clear from Section 20 ofthe TAA that respondent shall issue the NIATCA to petitioners availing of the Tax Amnesty on Delinquencies within fifteen (15) calendar days from submission of the APF and the TAR. Petitioners opine that they have no other plain, speedy, and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law. Petitioners state that they only have until December 31, 2020 to avail themselves of the TAA under RR No. 15-2020 and RMC No. 61- 2020.

In their Memorandum, petitioners state that they may lose the right to avail of Tax Amnesty on Delinquencies unless they can seek a judicial determination by way of certiorari as to whether respondent's actions constitute grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction. Respondent's arguments:

Respondent contends that the Court has no jurisdiction over the instant petition, praying that the alleged decision denying the application for tax amnesty be reversed. Respondent points out that the same is among its discretionary powers which the Court cannot properly pass upon. Respondent counters that RMC No. 57-2019 was issued in accordance with its rule-making power or quasi-legislative power; it is a circular issued under its power to interpret, clarify, or explain tax laws and to decide tax cases under Section 4 of the NIRC. RMC No. 57-2019 provides the reckoning date of the finality of tax assessment or delinquent accounts for purposes of availing tax amnesty in accordance with RA No. 11213. Respondent adds that with RMC No. 57-2019 issued in the exercise of respondent's quasi-legislative function, the regular courts and not this Court has jurisdiction to render the said RMC null and void. In support, respondent cites Smart Communication, Inc. (SMART) and Pilipino Telephone Corporation (PILTEL) v. National Telecommunication Commission (NTC), 122 1- UTAK, et al. v. Bureau of Internal Revenue and Joel L. Tan- 120 G.R. No. 216161, August 9, 2017.

121 /d.

122 G.R. No. 151908, August 12,2003.

t/

Reitoh Cold Storage Inc., et al. vs. Bureau of Internal Revenue

Torres, 123 and British American Tobacco v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue,124 Respondent further argues that the nullification of a provision of RMC No. 57-2019 that petitioners pray for is a collateral attack on a presumably valid administrative issuance, which is not allowed. Correspondingly, respondent mentioned the cases of Dasmarifias Water District v. Monterey Foods Corporation,12s Tan v. Bausch & Lomb, Inc.,126 and San Miguel Brewery v. Magno127 as the basis thereof. Respondent asserts that Section 19 of the TAA128 provides explicitly the reckoning date when and where to file and pay the application for tax amnesty. Respondent insists that the TAA requires that the tax liability should be final and executory or delinquent at the time of its effectivity. Thus, since its implementing rules and regulations or RR No. 4-2019 took effect on April 24, 20 19, the same should be the reckoning date of the finality or delinquency of the tax liability sought to be applied for amnesty.

More, respondent argues that based on the records, the tax assessments against petitioners are not yet delinquent or have not yet attained finality as of April24, 2019; thus, they are not qualified to avail of the tax amnesty in accordance with the law.

According to respondent, petitioners failed to allege that there is a compelling legal duty on its part to approve the application for tax amnesty without a proper legal basis; hence, the petition is dismissible.

Respondent concludes that the petition failed to allege that it gravely abused its power when it denied the application for tax amnesty due to lack of legal basis. Citing Carabeo v. Court of Appeals et a/.,129 the abuse of discretion must be so patent 123 CTA Case No. 8101, July 21, 2010, citing Smart Communications, Inc. et. a/., v. NTC, G.R. No. 151908, August 12, 2003; Globe ond ISLA COM v. Court of Appeals ond NTC, G.R. No. 152063, August 12, 2003. 124 G.R. No. 163583, August 20, 2008.

125 G.R. No. 175550, September 17, 2008. 126 G.R. No. 148420, December 15,2005,478 SCRA 115, 123-124, citing Olsen ondCo. v. A/danese, G.R. No. L-18740, April 28, 1922.

127 G.R. No. L-21879, September 29, 1967. 128 SEC. 19. Availment of the Tax Amnesty on Delinquencies; When and Where to File and Pay.- Any person, natural or juridical, who wishes to avail of the Tax Amnesty on Delinquencies shall, within one ( 1) year from the effectivity of the Implementing Rules and Regulations of this Act, file with the appropriate office of the Bureau oflntemal Revenue, which has jurisdiction over the residence or principal place of business of the taxpayer, a sworn Tax Amnesty on Delinquencies Return accompanied by a Certification of Delinquency. The payment of the amnesty tax shall be made at the time the Return is filed. (Emphasis added) 129 G.R. Nos. 178000 and 178003, December 4. 2009. ¥

Reitoh Cold Storage lnc., et al. vs. Bureau of Internal Revenue and gross as to amount to an evasion of positive duty or to a virtual refusal to perform the task enjoined or to act at all in contemplation of law. What has been bestowed to the CIR by law is not only the power to approve tax amnesty but also the discretion when or when not to exercise it.

THE RULING OF THE COURT

The CTA has iurisdiction over petitions (or certiorari, prohibition, and/or mandamus under Rule 65 of the Revised Rules o(Court.

We

shall first discuss the basis of the CTA's certiorari power under Rule 65 of the Revised Rules of Court.

It is settled that jurisdiction over the subject matter of a case is conferred by law and determined by the allegations in the complaint which comprise a concise statement of the ultimate facts constituting the plaintiffs cause of action.l3o The averments in the complaint and the character of the relief sought are the ones to be consulted.l31 In other words, what determines the nature of the action and which court has jurisdiction over it are the allegations in the complaint, and the character of the relief sought. 132 The designation or caption is not controlling more than the allegations in the complaint.l33 While this petition is captioned as "Petition for Review," an examination of petitioners' allegations, arguments, and relief sought reveals that it is a Petition for Mandamus, to wit:

4. This Petition for Review is filed by way of Mandamus under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court seeking to command Respondent to issue a Certificate of Tax Delinquency /Tax Liabilities (CTD), and Acceptance Payment Form (APF) protect the rights of the Petitioners pursuant to Republic Act No. 11213 or the Tax Amnesty Act, Section 17(d). 130 Pad/an v. Dinglasan, G.R. No. 180321, March 20,2013. 131 !d.

"'Vi/lena v. Payoyo. G.R. No. 163021, Apri127. 2007.

Reitoh Cold Storage Inc., et a!. vs. Bureau of Internal Revenue

19. Petitioners were prevented from availing of the benefits of the Tax Amnesty Law. Despite filing with the Respondent's appropriate office which has jurisdiction over the residence or principal place of business of the taxpayer, a sworn Tax Amnesty on Delinquencies Return accompanied by a Certification of Delinquency (CTD), as well as the Acceptance Payment Form (APF), Respondent refused and continues to refuse to issue Petitioners' respective CTD and APF: ...

PRAYER

WHEREFORE . . . It is respectfully prayed of this Honorable Court to mandate respondent to issue the CTD and APF in favor of petitioners in order that they may be deemed to have fully complied with all the conditions set forth in the Tax Amnesty Law, including the payment of their amnesty tax, their tax delinquency may be considered settled, and the tax amnesty granted becomes final and irrevocable. The Supreme Court ruled that the caption of the pleading should not be the governing factor, but rather the allegations in it should determine the nature of the action, because even without the prayer for a specific remedy, the courts may nevertheless grant the proper relief as may be warranted by the facts alleged in the complaint and the evidence introduced.I34 Here, petitioners alleged in their Memorandum that a Petition for Certiorari under Rule 65 is the correct remedy135 but maintain the same prayer for mandamusi36 as reflected in their Petition for Review.I37 Given the foregoing, the Court treats the instant Petition for Review as a Petition for Mandamus.

Besides, in the Resolution dated March 25, 2022, the Court has already resolved that this Petition for Review is a Petition for Mandamus, and it has the authority to issue auxiliary writs of certiorari, mandamus, and prohibition as ruled in the case of The City of Manila, et al. v. Han. Grecia-Cuerdo, et al. (Grecia-Cuerdo):I3B \1 134 Evangelista v. Santiago, G.R. No. 157447, April29, 2005, citing Chacon Enterprises v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. L-46418, September 29, 1983.

"' Docket- Vol. II, par. 4, p. 798; pars. 9-11; pp. 801-802. 136 /d., pp. 815-816. For easy reference, petitioners' prayer in its Memorandum reads: "WHEREFORE, with Petitioner's availment of the tax amnesties on delinquencies pursuant to Republic Act No. 11213, otherwise known as the Tax Amnesty Act, it is respectfully prayed ofthis Honorable Court to mandate Respondent to issue the CTD and APF in favor of Petitioners in order that they may be deemed to have fully complied with all the conditions set forth in the, including the payment of their amnesty tax, their tax delinquency may be considered settled, and the tax amnesty granted becomes final and irrevocable."

137 Docket- Vol. I, p. 47.

ns G.R. No. 175723, February 4, 2014.

Reitoh Cold Storage Inc., et al. vs. Bureau of Internal Revenue

... (While] there is no express grant of such power, with respect to the CTA, Section 1, Article VIII of the 1987 Constitution provides, nonetheless, that judicial power shall be vested in one Supreme Court and in such lower courts as may be established by law and that judicial power includes the duty of the courts of justice to settle actual controversies involving rights which are legally demandable and enforceable, and to determine whether or not there has been a grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction on the part of any branch or instrumentality of the Government.

Indeed, in order for any appellate court to effectively exercise its appellate jurisdiction, it must have the authority to issue, among others, a writ of certiorari. In transferring exclusive jurisdiction over appealed tax cases to the CTA, it can reasonably be assumed that the law intended to transfer also such power as is deemed necessary, if not indispensable, in aid of such appellate jurisdiction. There is no perceivable reason why the transfer should only be considered as partial, not total.

Furthermore, Section 6, Rule 135 of the present Rules of Court provides that when by law, jurisdiction is conferred on a court or judicial officer, all auxiliary writs, processes and other means necessary to carry it into effect may be employed by such court or officer. (Emphasis supplied) Although what is involved in Grecia-Cuerdo is a petition for certiorari, the Supreme Court clarified that under Section 6, Rule 135139 of the Rules of Court, the Court's authority extends to the issuance of all writs and processes essential for the exercise of its powers in cases within its appellate jurisdiction. Echoing its pronouncement in Grecia-Cuerdo, the Supreme Court, in the case of Banco de Oro, et al. v. Republic of the Philippines, et al., 140 declared in no uncertain terms that petitions for certiorari against the acts and omissions of quasi- judicial agencies, i.e., CIR, should be filed with the CTA, vzz.: ~ u9 SEC. 6. Means to carry jurisdiction into effect. -When by law jurisdiction is conferred on a court or judicial officer, all auxiliary writs, processes and other means necessary to carry it into effect may be employed by such court or officer; and if the procedure to be followed in the exercise of such jurisdiction is not specifically pointed out by law or by these rules, any suitable process or mode of proceeding may be adopted which appears comfortable to the spirit of the said law or rules.

Reitoh Cold Storage Inc., et a!. vs. Bureau of Internal Revenue

Section 7 of Republic Act No. 1125, as amended, is explicit that, except for local taxes, appeals from the decisions of quasi-judicial agencies (Commissioner of Internal Revenue, Commissioner of Customs, Secretary of Finance, Central Board of Assessment Appeals, Secretary of Trade and Industry) on tax-related problems must be brought exclusively to the Court of Tax Appeals . ... within the judicial system, the law intends the Court of Tax Appeals to have exclusive jurisdiction to resolve all tax problems. Petitions for writs of certiorari against the acts and omissions of the said quasi-judicial agencies should, thus, be filed before the Court of Tax Appeals.l41 (Emphasis supplied) Given the foregoing, this Court has jurisdiction over petitions for certiorari, prohibition and/ or mandamus against the acts and omissions of the BIR.

We shall now determine the timeliness of the Petition. Petitioners failed to file this Petition on time.

Section 4, Rule 65 of the Rules of Court provides that: SEC. 4. When and where petition filed.- The petition shall be f"lled not later than sixty (601 days from notice of the judgment, order, or resolution. In case a motion for reconsideration or new trial is timely filed, whether such motion is required or not, the sixty (60) day period shall be counted from notice of the denial of said motion. (Emphasis supplied) In the case of Oasis Park Hotel v. Leslee G. Navaluna, et al. (Oasis Park}, 142 the Supreme Court emphasized that to establish the sixty (60) day timeline for the filing of the petition, the date of receipt of the assailed judgment, final order, or resolution must be stated in the petition; otherwise, the petition for certiorari must be dismissed, vzz.: 141 The Supreme Court "[applied] by analogy the ruling In National Water Resources Board v. A. LAng Network, Inc., 632 Phil. 22, 28-29 (2010) [Per J. Carpio Morales, First Division], which states that '[s]ince the appellate court has exclusive appellate jurisdiction over quasi-judicial agencies under Rule 43 of the Rules of Court, petitions for writs of certiorari, prohibition or mandamus against the acts and omissions of quasi-judicial agencies, like petitioner, should be filed with it.'

Reitoh Cold Storage Inc., et a!. vs. Bureau of Internal Revenue

The Court, in Vinuya v. Romulo, expounded on the importance of stating the material dates in a petition for certiorari:

As the rule indicates, the 60-day period starts to run from the date petitioner receives the assailed judgment, final order or resolution, or the denial of the motion for reconsideration or new trial timely filed, whether such motion is required or not. To establish the timeliness of the petition for certiorari, the date of receipt of the assailed judgment, final order or resolution or the denial of the motion for reconsideration or new trial must be stated in the petition; otherwise, the petition for certiorari must be dismissed. The importance of the dates cannot be understated, for such dates determine the timeliness of the filing of the petition for certiorari. As the Court has emphasized in Tambong v. R.

Jorge Development Corporation:

There are three essential dates that must be stated in a petition for certiorari brought under Rule 65. First, the date when notice of the judgment or final order or resolution was received; second, when a motion for new trial or reconsideration was filed; and third, when notice of the denial thereof was received. Failure of petitioner to comply with this requirement shall be sufficient ground for the dismissal of the petition. Substantial compliance will not suffice in a matter involving strict observance with the Rules. . . . . (Emphasis supplied) Indeed, failure to state the material dates in a petition for mandamus or certiorari is sufficient ground for the dismissal of the Petition under Section 3, Rule 46 of the Rules of Court,l 43 in relation to Rule 65 thereof.144 Here, petitioners filed the Petition for Review, which We treat as a Petition for Mandamus, on December 14, 2020, without any statement of material dates. Thus, the Court is unable to determine whether it was filed within the 60-day reglementary period.

Upon perusal of petitioners' evidence, the Court finds that the dates indicated under the heading "date of receipt of BIR response" are dates of respondent's denial letters, not the actual receipt. The date of petitioner Exequiel Balanlay Adora's denial letter was erroneously stated in the Petition and Memorandum 143 SEC. 3. Contents and filing of petition; effect of noncompliance with requirements.-... ¥' In actions filed under Rule 65, the petition shall further indicate the material dates showing when notice of the judgment or final order or resolution subject thereof was received, when a motion for new trial or reconsideration, if any, was filed and when notice of the denial thereof was received .... The failure of the petitioner to comply any of the requirements shall be sufficient ground for the dismissal of the petition. (Emphasis supplied)

CTA Caae No. 10420 Reitoh Cold Storage Inc., et a!. vs. Bureau of Internal Revenue as December 11, 2020, when it should be December 11, 201 9. Moreover, only eleven (11) petitioners received denial letters, while the others did not rece1ve any response from respondent.14 5 Petitioners denial letters were dated between August 9, 2019 and October 12, 2020. If the Court counts the 60-day period from the date of the latest denialletter, 146 petitioners had until December 11, 2020, to file a Petition for Mandamus or Certiorari. However, the Petition was filed only on December 14, 2020; thus, not one of petitioners has timely filed the Petition. Accordingly, the dismissal of the instant Petition for being time-barred is proper.

However, even if the Petition has been timely filed, it must still be dismissed for being moot and academic. The instant petition has been rendered moot and academic by the expiration of the period (or the ava.ilment of Tax Amnesty on Delinquencies.

Section 19 of the TAA provides the period for availing of the tax amnesty on delinquencies, viz:

SEC. 19. Availment of the Tax Amnesty on Delinquencies; When and Where to File and Pay. - Any person, natural or juridical, who wishes to avail of the Tax Amnesty on Delinquencies shall, within one (1) year from the effectivity of the Implementing Rules and Regulations of this Act, file with the appropriate office of the Bureau of Internal Revenue, ... , a sworn Tax Amnesty on Delinquencies Return accompanied by a Certification of Delinquency. The payment of the amnesty tax shall be made at the time the Return is filed. (Emphasis supplied) On April 5, 2019, RR No. 4-2019 147 was issued to implement the provisions of the TAA. It states that all persons with internal revenue tax liabilities for the taxable year 2017 ~ 145 Petition for Review, par. 18, Docket- Vol. I, pp. 34-37; Memorandum for Petitioners, par. 6, Docket- Vol. II, pp. 795-797.

l46Jd.

147 Implementing Rules and Regulations (IRR) of Republic Act No. 11213, Otherwise Known as the "Tax Amnesty Act", Providing for the Guidelines on the Processing of Tax Amnesty Application on Tax Delinquencies.

Reitoh Cold Storage Inc., et al. vs. Bureau of Internal Revenue and prior years may avail of the Tax Amnesty on Delinquencies within one (1) year from its effectivity. 148 On March 16, 2020, RR No.

5-2020 was issued amending RR No. 4-2019. It explicitly provides that the period for the availment of the Tax Amnesty on Delinquencies is until April 23, 2020.

Thereafter, RMC No. 33-2020 dated March 24, 2020 149 was issued, moving the deadline for the availment from April 23, 2020 to May 23, 2020.

On April 7, 2020, RMC No. 38-2020 150 was issued, extending the deadline from May 23, 2020 to June 8, 2020. Meanwhile, on April 29, 2020, RR No. 11-2020151 was issued, extending the availment period of the Tax Amnesty on Delinquencies from April 23, 2020 to June 22, 2020.152 On June 9, 2020 and June 19, 2020, respectively, RMC No. 61-2020153 and RR No. 15-2020 154 were issued, further extending the availment period from June 22, 2020 to December 31, 2020. 155 Lastly, on December 17, 2020, RR No. 32-2020156 was issued, extending the availment period until June 30, 2021. 157 No further extension of the deadline was issued thereafter. tvtJ 148 SEC. 3. Coverage.- All persons, whether natural or juridical, with internal revenue tax liabilities covering taxable year 2017 and prior years, may avail of Tax Amnesty on Delinquencies within one (I) year from the effectivity of these Regulations, ...

149 Extends Deadline on Availment of Tax Amnesty on Delinquencies Under Revenue Regulations (RR) No. 4-2019 as Amended by RR No. 5-2020.

15° Further Extension of Deadline on Availment of Tax Amnesty on Delinquencies under Revenue Regulations (RR) No. 4-2019 as Amended by RR No. 5-2020 in Relation with Revenue Memorandum Circular (RMC) No. 33-2020 dated March 24, 2020.

151 Amends Section 2 of Revenue Regulations No. 10-2020 Relative to the Extension of Statutory Deadlines and Timelines for the Filing and Submission of any Document and the Payment ofT axes Pursuant to Section 4 (z) of Republic Act No. 11469, Otherwise Known as "Bayanihan to Heal as One Act," April29, 2020. 152 /d., Section 2, line 34.

153 Further Extension of Deadline on Availment of Tax Amnesty on Delinquencies under Revenue Regulations (RR) No. 4-2019 as Amended by RR No. 5-2020 in Relation with Revenue Memorandum Circular (RMC) No. 33-2020 dated March 24,2020, RMC No. 38-2020 dated April 7, 2020 and RR No. 11-2020 dated April29, 2020. 154 Further Amendments to Revenue Regulations No. 4-2019, as Amended, on Tax Amnesty on Delinquencies, June 19, 2020.

155 /d., SEC. 2. Amendment to Section 3. - Section 3 of RR No. 4-2019, as amended, is hereby further amended to read as follows:

"SECTION 3. COVERAGE.- Any person, .. may avail of Tax Amnesty on Delinquencies within one (I) year from the effectivity of these Regulations or until December 31. 2020 ..... However. the said date may be extended if the circumstances warrant an extension such as in case of country-wide economic or health reasons." (Underscoring on the original) 156 Further Amendments to Revenue Regulations No. 4-2019, as Amended, on Tax Amnesty on Delinquencies, December 17,2020.

157 /d., SEC. 2. Amendment to Section 3.- Section 3 of RR No. 4-2019, as amended, is hereby further amended to read as follows:

Reitoh Cold Storage Inc., et a!. vs. Bureau of Internal Revenue

Hence, when petitioners filed the Petition on December 14, 2020, the effectivity of the extended Tax Amnesty on Delinquencies was about to end on December 31, 2020. In

Express

Telecommunications

Co., Inc., v.

AZ

Communications, Inc. (Express Telecommunications}, 158 the Supreme Court explained when a case becomes moot, viz.: A case or issue is considered moot and academic when it ceases to present a justiciable controversy by virtue of supervening events, so that an adjudication of the case or a declaration on the issue would be of no practical value or use. In such instance, there is no actual substantial relief which a petitioner would be entitled to, and which would be negated by the dismissal of the petition. Courts generally decline jurisdiction over such case or dismiss it on the ground of mootness. This is because the judgment will not serve any useful purpose or have any practical legal effect because, in the nature of things, it cannot be enforced. (Emphasis supplied) In this case, the supervening issuance of RR No. 32-2020 finally extended the deadline for the availment of the Tax Amnesty on Delinquencies until June 30, 2021, and the subsequent expiration of the period has mooted the present case. Only Congress, in exercising its legislative powers, can extend or fix the effectivity date of the law. As the Supreme Court held, "[i]f the law is too narrow in scope, it is for the Legislature rather than the courts to expand it."I59 It must be stressed that even if the Court disregards the belated filing of the Petition and grants petitioners' prayer, such would be of no practical use since the availment period of the Tax Amnesty on Delinquencies has already expired. As held in Express Telecommunications, no actual substantial relief can be granted to petitioners as the judgment will serve no useful purpose or have any practical legal effect because, in the nature of things, it cannot be enforced. Apart from being moot and academic, the Petition also lacks merit.

"SECTION 3. COVERAGE. All persons, ... , may avail of Tax Amnesty on Delinquencies within one (I) year from the effectivity of these Regulations or until June 30.2021, under any of the instances listed below. However, the said date may be extended if the circumstances warrant an extension such as in case of country-wide economic or health reason/s." (Emphasis on the original) 158 G.R. No. 196902, July 13, 2020.

159 Lacson v. Roque, G.R. No. L·6225, 92 Phil. 456,464, January 10, 1953, citing Cornejo v. Naval. G.R. No. L-33648, 54 Phil. 809, 814, July 30, 1930.

Reitoh Cold Storage Inc., et al. vs. Bureau of Internal Revenue

Petitioners failed to satisfy the essential requisites of a Petition for Mandamus.

Petitioners pray that the Court mandate respondent to issue the subject CTDs and duly endorsed APFs in their favor to avail of the Tax Amnesty on Delinquencies under RA No. 11213.

Section 3, Rule 65 of the Revised Rules of Court provides: SEC. 3. Petition for mandamus. - When any tribunal, corporation, board, officer, or person unlawfully neglects the performance of an act which the law specifically enjoins as a duty resulting from an office, trust, or station, or unlawfully excludes another from the use and enjoyment of a right or office to which such other is entitled, and there is no other plain, speedy and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law, the person aggrieved thereby may file a verified petition in the proper court, alleging the facts with certainty and praying that judgment be rendered commanding the respondent, immediately or at some other time to be specified by the court, to do the act required to be done to protect the rights of the petitioner, and to pay the damages sustained by the petitioner by reason of the wrongful acts of the respondent. The petition shall also contain a sworn certification of non-forum shopping as provided in the third paragraph of Section 3, Rule 46. (Emphases supplied) Accordingly, before a writ of mandamus may be issued, the following requisites must concur: (1) petitioner must show a clear legal right to the act demanded; (2) respondent must have the duty to perform the act because the same is mandated by law; (3) respondent unlawfully neglects the performance of the duty enjoined by law; (4) the act to be performed is ministerial, not discretionary; and (5) there is no other plain, speedy, and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law. 160 The Petition in this case is utterly devoid of merit. As discussed hereunder, the remedy of mandamus is improper. 160 Philippine Statistics Authority (Formerly National Statistics Office) and Philippine Statistics Authority-Legazpi City

v. Fero/ino, G.R. No. 238021, June 14, 2021; Molingin v. Sandagan, eta/., G.R. No. 240056, October 12, 2020; Datu Malingin (Lemuel Talingting Y Simborio), et al., v. POJ Sandagan, eta/., G.R. No. 240056, October 12,2020.

Reitoh Cold Storage Inc., et al. vs. Bureau of Internal Revenue

First:

Petitioners should have proved a clear legal right to the issuance of the CTDs and duly endorsed APFs.

Petitioners insist that they have a legal right to be issued their respective CTDs and APFs because they are eligible to apply for tax amnesty under Section 17 (d)l61 of the TAA, viz.: SEC. 17. Coverage. - There is hereby authorized and granted a tax amnesty herein called the Tax Amnesty on Delinquencies, which shall cover all national internal revenue taxes such as, but not limited to, income tax, withholding tax, capital gains tax, donor's tax, value-added tax, other percentage taxes, excise tax and documentary stamp tax collected by the Bureau of Internal Revenue, including value- added tax and excise taxes collected by the Bureau of Customs for taxable year 20 17 and prior years. For purposes of this Act, the Tax Amnesty on Delinquencies may be availed of in the following instances:

(a) Delinquencies and assessments, which have become final and executory ... ;

(d) Withholding tax agents who withheld taxes but failed to remit the same to the Bureau of Internal Revenue. (Emphasis supplied) Section 3 of RR No. 4-2019, 162 which implements the above provision of the TAA, states:

SEC. 3. Coverage. - All persons, whether natural or juridical, with internal revenue tax liabilities covering Tax Code, as amended, may avail

of Tax Amnesty on

Delinquencies within one (1) year from the effectivity of these Regulations, !63 under any of the following instances: A. Delinquent

Accounts

as of the effectivity of these Regulations, including the following:

1. Delinquent

Accounts

with application for compromise settlement ... ;

161 Item 4, Statement of the Facts, Memorandum for Petitioners. 162 SUBJECT: Implementing Rules and Regulations of Republic Act No. 11213, Otherwise Known as the "Tax Amnesty Act," Providing for the Guidelines on the Processing of Tax Amnesty Application on Tax Delinquencies, Revenue Regulations No. 04-19, April 5, 2019.

163 RR No. 4-2019 was published on April9, 2019, and took effect on April24, 2019.

Reitoh Cold Storage Inc., et al. vs. Bureau of Internal Revenue

2. Delinquent Withholding Tax liabilities arising from non-withholding of tax; and D. Withholding tax liabilities of withholding agents arising from their failure to remit withheld taxes. (Emphasis supplied) Further, Section 19 of the TAA provides the period for availing of the tax amnesty, viz:

SEC. 19. Availment of the Tax Amnesty on Delinquencies; When and Where to File and Pay. - Any person, natural or juridical, who wishes to avail of the Tax Amnesty on Delinquencies shall, within one (1) year from the effectivity of the Implementing Rules and Regulations of this Act, file with the appropriate office of the Bureau of Internal Revenue, ... , a sworn Tax Amnesty on Delinquencies Return accompanied by a Certification of Delinquency. The payment of the amnesty tax shall be made at the time the Return is filed. (Emphasis supplied) Whereas RMC No. 57-2019 clarifies the reckoning date, and defines who is qualified to avail of the tax amnesty, viz.: Ql. Who are qualified to avail of the Tax Amnesty on Delinquencies?

Al. All persons, whether natural or juridical, with delinquent internal revenue tax liabilities covering taxable year 2017 and prior years, on or before April 24, 2019, may avail of Tax Amnesty on Delinquencies within one year from the effectivity of RR No. 4-2019, under any of the following instances:

A. Delinquent accounts:

1. Delinquent Accounts, whether without or with application for compromise settlement, ... ;

2. Delinquent withholding tax liabilities arising from non-withholding of tax; and D. Withholding tax liabilities of withholding agents arising from their failure to remit withheld taxes. (Section 3, RR No. 4-20 19) (Emphasis supplied).

Reitoh Cold Storage Inc., et al. vs. Bureau of Internal Revenue

Here, respondent argues that the lawl64 demands that the tax liability be final and executory or delinquent at the time of its effectivity. Thus, since the IRR165 took effect on April 24, 20 19, the same should be the reckoning date of the finality or delinquency of the tax liability sought to be applied for amnesty. Respondent further argues that the tax assessments against petitioners were not yet delinquent or have not yet attained finality as of April 24, 2019. Thus, they are not qualified to avail of the tax amnesty.

We agree with respondent.

To reiterate, petitioners anchor their entitlement to apply for a tax amnesty on Section 17 (d)166 of the TAA relative to the tax liabilities of withholding tax agents who withheld taxes but failed to remit the same to the BIR.

Based on Section 17(d) of the TAA, as implemented by Section 3 ofRR No. 4-2019, and clarified under Q1/A1 ofRMC No. 57-2019, there are two (2) instances when the TAA may be availed of in case of withholding tax liabilities for the taxable year 2017 and prior years, to wit:

(1) Delinquent withholding tax liabilities ansmg from the failure to withhold taxes or non-withholding of taxes; 167 and (2) Withholding tax liabilities arising from the failure to remit withheld taxes to the BIR.l68 RMC No. 57-2019 explains that the delinquentwithholding tax liabilities arising from the failure to withhold must be delinquent on or before April24, 2019. 169 A delinquent account pertains to a tax due from a taxpayer arising from the audit of the BIR, which had been issued Assessment Notices that have become final and executory.J7o 164 Referring to RA No. 11213 orthe Tax Amnesty Act. ~ 165 Referring toRR No. 4-2019 that became etTective on April24, 2019. 166 Item 4, Statement of the Facts, Memorandum for Petitioners. 167 QI/Al(A)(2), RMC No. 57-2019.

168 QI/AI(D), RMC No. 57-2019.

169 QI/Al, RMC No. 57-2019.

170 Section 2 (A) of RR No. 4-2019 defines a delinquent account to mean as follows: A. Delinquent Account- shall pertain to a tax due from a taxpayer arising from the audit of the Bureau of Internal Revenue (BIR) which had been issued Assessment Notices that have become final and executory due to the following instances: I. Failure to pay the tax due on the prescribed due date provided in the Final Assessment Notice (F AN)/Fonnal Letter of Demand (FLD) and for which no valid Protest, whether a request for reconsideration or reinvestigation, has been filed within thirty (30) days from receipt thereof; ... B. Assessment Notice- ... This tenn includes Final Assessment Notice (F AN)/Fonnal Letter of Demand (FLD) and Final Decision on Disputed Assessment (FDDA).

Reitoh Cold Storage Inc., eta!. vs. Bureau of Internal Revenue

However, the requirement that tax liabilities must be delinquent does not apply to withholding tax liabilities arising from the failure to remit withheld taxes which may be the subject of Tax Amnesty on Delinquencies at any stage/time of investigation as long as the amount is properly determined by the BIR. 171 Further, Tax Amnesty on Delinquencies can be availed of even if no Assessment Notice has become final and executory on or before April24, 2019, if the tax liabilities pertain to unremitted tax withheld by withholding agents.172 A judicious review and study of petitioners' evidence submitted together with the instant Petition reveal that petitioners' deficiency withholding taxes were due to failure to withhold taxes or non-withholding of taxes. 173 Contrary to the averments in the Petition, none of the petitioners appear to be liable for failure to remit or non-remittance of withheld taxes.l74 To qualify for tax amnesty, petitioners withholding tax liabilities must be delinquent or have attained finality as of April24, 2019. More importantly, petitioners must have been issued a Final Assessment Notice (FAN)/Formal Letter of Demand (FLD) or Final Decision on Disputed Assessment (FDDA) that has become final and executory as of April24, 2019.175 Here, out of twenty-two (22) petitioners, only six (6) have attached to the Petition a copy of the FAN/FLD or FDDA; eleven

(11) claimed to have received only Notices of Informal Conference (NIC); 176 two (2) received letters from respondent in response to their request for penalty assessment or computation; two (2) did not receive any communication from respondent; and one (1) received a Preliminary Assessment Notice (PAN).m The six (6) petitioners with Assessment Notices attached to the Petition are:

Petitioners

Notice Received

Date

We Lead Group

FLD/FAN

October 25, 2019 Holdings, Inc.

Audio-Video Solutions

FLD

January 10,2019

Cornoration

171 Q7/A7, id 172 Q9/A9(2); QS AS, RMC No. 57-2019.

173 Section 3 (A)(2) ofRR No. 4-2019 and clarified under QI/A I A(2) of RMC No. 57-2019. 174 Section 17 (d) of the TAA and Section 3 (D) of RR No. 4-2019. 175 Section 2 (A), RR No. 4-2019.

176 RMC No. 57-2019:

Q8/A8. The tax liabilities as informed during the informal conference are not yet considered delinquent and cannot be the subject of tax amnesty on delinquencies except when the tax liability pertains to unremitted withheld taxes.

Reitoh Cold Storage Inc., et al. vs. Bureau of Internal Revenue

Alen V. Dragon Corp.

FLO

October 2, 2019 Icon Reefer Corp.

FLO

November 28, 2019 G2K Corp.

FDDA

March 25, 2020

Maxx Energie

FLO

January 12, 2016

Ventures Corporation

Only petitioners Audio-Video Solutions Corporation and Maxx Energie Ventures Corporation have been issued FLDs before April 24, 20 19. However, they failed to prove that the FLDs were unprotested and that their tax liabilities have become delinquent as of April24, 2019. Neither did they provide proof that their protest to the FLDs, if any, had been withdrawn on or before April 24, 20 19 _178 Similarly, the tax liabilities of the other twenty (20) petitioners are not yet delinquent. The documents they attached to the Petition confirm that there is no final and executory assessment against any one of them as of April 24, 2019, that can qualifY them for the tax amnesty.

Indeed, records reveal that respondent denied the issuance of the CTDs and the endorsement of the APFs because petitioners' tax liabilities have yet to become delinquent; 179 they were self-assessed tax liabilities for TY s 2018 and 20 19, hence, not covered by the TAA;18o they were not qualified under RMC No. 57-2019, particularly in Q26 and A26;181 they were open stop-filer cases, hence, not covered under RR No. 4-20 19; 182 178 RMC No. 57-2019:

Q22. Will the tax liabilities covered by a FAN which was timely protested yet withdrawn on or before Apri\24, 2019 be considered delinquent account qualified for tax amnesty? A22. If the protest was withdrawn on or before April 24, 2019, the tax liabilities shall be considered delinquent from the date of lapse of the period to protest, as if there is no protest filed. The taxpayer shall be qualified to avail of the tax amnesty on delinquencies provided the delinquent accounts pertain to taxable year 2017 and prior years and the period to protest lapsed on or before April24, 2019. 179 Docket- Vol. I. pp. 586-588; pp. 593-600; pp. 604-605; pp. 607-608; p. 609; pp. 610-612; pp. 613-615; p. 616; p. 618; p. 619.

180 Id.. pp. 590-592.

181 Docket- Vol. I. pp. 594-595; pp. 598-599. RMC No. 57-2019:

Q26. Under RR 4-2019, Preliminary Assessment Notice (PAN)/Notice for Informal Conference (NIC) or equivalent document is sufficient document of the taxpayer to support the tax liabilities pertaining to unremitted tax withheld. What are those equivalent document being referred to? A26. Equivalent document can be any of the following, provided the same was issued on or before April 24, 2019, and the taxable period involved are 2017 and prior years: a.

Letter to the withholding agent demanding remittance of the amount not remitted based on the withholding tax returns filed;

b.

Letter to the withholding agent demanding the remittance of tax withheld based on the Commission on Audit (COA) reports, for those subject to COA audit; c.

Preliminary Collection Letter demanding the payment of tax withheld declared per returns filed 182 RMC No. 57-2019:

Ql4. Are open stop-filer cases included in the amnesty? A 14. No, these are not covered under RR No. 4-2019.

Reitoh Cold Storage Inc., et al. vs. Bureau of Internal Revenue they were only at the informal conference stage; 183 among others.

Presented below are the BIR notices or communications to petitioners and respondent's action to their request for CTD release and APF endorsement, viz.:

Petitioner

BIRAction

Reitoh Cold Storage Inc. Denial Letter dated August 9, 2019:184 The deficiency expanded withholding tax was assessed due to failure to withhold. Assessment is not

BIR Notice Received -

yet considered a delinquent account.

NIC dated March 13, 2019 Denial Letter dated September 17, 2019:185 The assessment on deficiency withholding tax was due to non-withholding and not due to non-remittance. Hence, the assessment has yet to become delinguent. Further, only a NIC dated March 13, 2019, was issued and received by Reitoh.

We

Lead

Group Denial Letter dated December 27,2019:186 Holdings Inc.

Not qualified to avail of the Tax Amnesty Program (RA No. 11213). Previous letters were sent informing We Lead that it may settle its tax liability through compromise settlement or abatement of penalties in accordance with the provisions of RR No. 30-2002.

BIR Notice Received -

FLD

and Assessment Denial Letter dated February 13, 2020:187 Notice dated October 25, Under RMC No. 57-2019, We Lead has unpaid self- 2019 assessed tax returns filed through EFPS for the taxable years 2018 and 2019. It is required to pay the total basic tax due, and penalties shall be imposed as stated in the NIRC of 1997.

Denial Letter dated February 3, 2020:188 Pursuant to Section 2A.l of RR No. 4-2019, its delinquency tax for 2016 is not a delinquent account because it still has a valid protest. Even if no valid protest was submitted by it, the effectivity of RR No. 4-2019 was April 24, 2019. There is no delinquent account as of April 24, 2019, because the Formal Letter of Demand was issued only on October 25, 2019.

Elence

Marine and None

Industrial Corporation

BIR Notice Received -

183 RMC No. 57-2019:

QS. If the taxpayer is amenable to the deficiency tax resulting from the audit conducted pertaining to taxable year 2017 and prior years, as presented during the informal conference, can the tax liabilities be settled through availment of tax amnesty on delinquencies?

AS. The tax liabilities as informed during the informal conference are not yet considered delinquent and cannot be the subject of tax amnesty on delinquencies except when the tax liability pertains to unremitted withheld taxes.

Reitoh Cold Storage Inc., et al. vs. Bureau oflnternal Revenue

Petitioner

BIRAction

Undated NIC

MBPS

Cabling Denial Letter dated July 28, 2020:189

Corporation

The assessment for EWT resulted from MBPS Cabling Corp.'s failure to withhold taxes on the payment of services, food, commissions, and professional fees.

BIR Notice Received -

This is not a case of "withholding tax liabilities arising NIC dated January 7, from failure to remit taxes withheld," as provided in 2020 Section 3(0) ofRR No. 4-2019. Likewise, records of the Collection Division revealed that MBPS Cabling Corp. has no records of tax delinquency J deficiency /liability account. At the same time, verification with the Legal Division showed no criminal case for tax evasion and other criminal offenses under Chapter II of Title X and Section 275 of the Tax Code, as amended, is pending against MBPS Cabling Corp., nor any final and executory judgment rendered by the courts against it. Denial Letters dated September 22, 2020 190 and October 16, 2020:191 Absence of delinguent account, Qending case, final and executory judwent, and eguivalent document in case of unremitted tax withheld, as required under RR No. 4-2019.

Garuda

Construction Denial Letter dated September 30, 2020:192

Corporation

There is no valid aQQlication and comQliance for Tax Amnestv as subject taxes are not covered by the RA

BIR Notice Received -

No. 11213.

PAN dated July 2, 2018

BCP

Dermatological Denial Letter dated August 3, 2020:193

Corporation

Subject withholding taxes are not covered by the TAA.

BIR Notice Received -

NIC dated December 26, 2019

Audio-Video

Solutions None

Corporation

BIR Notice Received -

FLO dated January 10, 2019 Dunamis Import-Export Letter dated October 12, 2020:194 Philippines Incorporated Request for APF-Signature and demand to sign/follow up on tax amnesty request are forwarded to Legal

BIR Notice Received -

Division of RR No. 7 A-Quezon City

NIC

dated March 9, 2020 189 /d., Annex P-213, pp. 593-595; Annex P-214A, pp. 597-599. 190 /d., Annex P-214, p. 596.

1" /d., Annex P-2148, p. 600.

192 /d.., Annex P-215, p. 603.

193 /d., Annex P-216, pp. 604-605, with missing pages and signature page. 1"Jd., Annex P-217, p. 606.

Reitoh Cold Storage Inc., et a!. vs. Bureau of Internal Revenue

Petitioner

BIRAction

Alen

v.

Dragon None

Corporation

BIR Notice Received -

FLD dated October 2, 2019 Medev Medical Devices Denial Letter dated December 5, 2019:195

Corporation

Medev's case is not a delinquent account that would fall under Section 17 (A) of RA No. 11213, nor is it covered by Section 17 (D) of the same law and

BIR Notice Received -

reproduced under Section 3 (D) of RR No. 4-2019. Tax NIC dated May 31,2019 Amnesty can be availed only by those: ( 1) with delinquent internal revenue tax liabilities covering TY 2017 and prior years; and (2) the related assessment notices have become final and executory on or before 24 April 2019. In this case, there was no assessment notice yet that has become final and executory. As of June 7, 2019, the case is still under an Informal Conference.

Further, the EWT liabilities arises from non- withholding of interest expense of Medev; thus, there is failure to withhold taxes on the said expense, and not failure to remit withheld taxes.

Chrysalis Construction Denial Letters dated October 7, 2019,196 October 18, and Trading 2019197 and October 22, 2019:198

Corporation

The subject assessment for taxable year 2016 issued against Chrysalis has not yet attained finality since the taxpayer was able to file timely QrotestLrequest for

BIR Notice Received -

reinvestigation. Moreover, the said FAN was issued NIC dated July 19,2018 only after the effectivity of RR No. 4-2019. Finally, verification with the records of the Legal Division would show that there is no pending criminal case filed against Chrysalis/its responsible officers for tax evasion and other criminal offenses under Chapter II of Title X and Section 275 of the Tax Code, as amended, nor any final and executory judgment rendered by the courts against the taxpayer. Papisss Inc.

None

BIR Notice Received -

NIC dated May 24,2019

Icon Reefer Corporation

None

BIR Notice Received -

FLD dated November 28, 2019 JRT Canst. and Trading None

Corporation

Reitoh Cold Storage Inc., et al. vs. Bureau of Internal Revenue

Petitioner

BIRAction

BIR Notice Received -

NIC

dated September 23, 2019

DATALINK

Solutions None

Technology

and Consultancy Inc.

BIR Notice Received -

None

ABBE

Technology Letter dated January 21, 2020:199 Solutions Inc.

Forwarded to the CIR for appropriate action.

BIR Notice Received -

NIC dated October 11, 2019 Exequiel Balanlay Adora Denial Letter dated December 11, 20 19:2oo Penalties arising from the non-filing of returnsLo2en

BIR Notice Received -

cases, self-assessed taxes and electronic Filing and

Request

for Lease Pavment cases are not included in the TAA20I

Contract

re:

Penalty

Assessment (undated) KEN N RIE Transport, None Inc.

BIR Notice Received -

None

R2B2

Realty

& Denial Letters dated June 2, 2020:202

Development

R2B2 failed to provide entitlement for the issuance of

Corporation

Notice of Issuance of Authority to Cancel Assessment

(NIATCA) pursuant to Section 6 of RR No. 4-2019, in

BIR Notice Received -

relation to III (1)E of RMO No. 33-2018; endorsed to the Legal Division for appropriate action

Letter

dated January 16, 2020 re: request for Letter dated July 1, 2020:203 computation of penalty Stop-filer cases are not covered under RR No. 4-2019 for unpaid fringe as they are not considered "delinguent accounts" for benefits taxes purposes of the implementation of RA No. 11213.

G2K Corporation

None

BIR Notice Received -

FDDA dated March 25, 2020

Maxx Energie Ventures None

Corporation

BIR Notice Received -

199 ld.. Annex P-220, p. 617.

200 /d., Annex P-221, p. 618, with missing pages and signature page. 201 Petition for Review, no. 17, p. 36. 202 Petition for Review, Annex P-222A, p. 620. 20' /d., Annex P-222, p. 619.

Reitoh Cold Storage Inc., et al. vs. Bureau of Internal Revenue

Petitioner

BIR Action

FLO dated January 12, 2016

Powersource

None

Philippines, Inc.

BIR Notice Received -

NIC dated Mav 18 2020 Clearly, petitioners have no legal right to the issuance of the CTDs and the endorsement of the APFs. Second: Respondent has the duty to perform the act because the same is mandated by law.

Third: Petitioners Jailed to prove that respondent neglected to perform any ministerial duty.

Fourth: The issuance of CTDs, APFs, and

NIATCAs

lS a discretionary function of respondent, not a ministerial one.

Petitioners claim that they are entitled to avail of the benefits of the TAA as respondent has the ministerial duty to issue in their favor the CTDs, APFs, and NIATCAs after they filed their TAR and APF, albeit without the required endorsement and paid the amnesty tax.

The Court disagrees.

A writ of mandamus cannot be availed of against an official or government agency whose duty requires the exercise of discretion or judgment.204 A writ of mandamus will not issue either to compel officials to do something which is not their duty to do or which it is their duty not to do or to give to the applicant anything to which he or she is not entitled by law.2os

Respondent's

authority under the

TAA

includes determining who is qualified to avail of the tax amnesty under

Reitoh Cold Storage Inc., et al. vs. Bureau of Internal Revenue the TAA, which is a discretionary function and not merely a ministerial one.

A determination that reqmres a review of evidentiary matters and an application of the law and administrative guidelines is considered a discretionary, quasi-judicial function, demanding an exercise of independent judgment on the part of certain public officers.206 Having ascertained from the factual circumstances of the case that petitioners' tax liabilities are not covered under the TAA and its implementing regulations, respondent cannot be compelled to introduce exceptions to the coverage of the TAA nor disregard its provisions. Noteworthy is the case of CIR v. Transfield Philippines, Inc., 207 wherein the Supreme Court explained the nature of a tax amnesty:

A tax amnesty operates as a general pardon or intentional overlooking by the State of its authority to impose penalties on persons otherwise guilty of evasion or violation of a revenue or tax law. It is an absolute forgiveness or waiver by the government of its right to collect what is due it and to give tax evaders who wish to relent a chance to start with a clean slate. A tax amnesty, much like a tax exemption, is never favored nor presumed in law. The grant of a tax amnesty is akin to a tax exemption; thus, it must be construed strictly against the taxpayer and liberally in favor of the taxing authority. (Emphasis and underscoring supplied) Respondent is guided by the provisions of the TAA, its IRR as found in RR No. 4-2019 and RMC No. 57-2019, and other related issuances about tax amnesty in exercising its discretion and finally denying petitioners' request for the release of the CTDs and endorsed APFs.

Section 5(C) of RR No. 4-2019 provides the step-by-step procedures that taxpayers, like petitioners, must undertake in availing of the T AA, viz.:

C. PROCEDURES- The taxpayer-applicant shall: Step 1. Secure the Certificate of Delinquencies/Tax Liabilities from the concerned SIR Office as specified below:

Reitoh Cold Storage Inc., et a!. vs. Bureau of Internal Revenue

Step 2. Present the duly accomplished TAR made under oath and APF, together with the other required documents, to the concerned RDO/LTD/LTCED for endorsement of the APF and pay the tax amnesty amount with the AABs or RCOs, whichever is applicable, by presenting the RDO/LTD/LTCED-endorsed or approved APF:

Step 3. Submit/file immediately to the RDO/LTD/LTCED where the taxpayer is registered, in triplicate copies, the duly accomplished TAR, made under oath, together with the complete documentary requirements and proof of payment, which in no case shall be beyond the one (1) year availment period. The taxpayer/applicant shall be furnished with a copy, stamped as received, of said TAR and APF.

Availment of Tax Amnesty on Delinquencies shall be considered fully complied with upon completion of the above enumerated steps within the one (1) year availment period. (Emphasis supplied) On the other hand, RMO No. 23-2019 outlines the basis for issuing the required CTD to the taxpayer.2os From the foregoing, a CTD showing taxpayers' tax delinquencies/liabilities based on the records209 must first be secured from the concerned BIR office having custody or jurisdiction over the taxpayer. A CTD is issued upon determination and verification that the taxpayer's liabilities are delinquent and covered under the TAA. Only upon the issuance of a CTD may a taxpayer be assessed the tax liabilities as indicated above.2JO The taxpayer shall then accomplish a sworn TAR and APF and present them, with the CTD, to the concerned RDO/LTD/LTCED for endorsement. The RDO/LTD/LTCED shall endorse the APF upon receipt of the CTD and sworn TAR, which shall then be presented for payment by the taxpayer with the applicable AABs or RCOs. The sworn TAR, endorsed APF, CTD, and proof of payment shall be submitted to the concerned RDO /LTD/ LTC ED for receiving. 211 Here, petitioners avoided the first step in availing of the TAA. They failed to secure their respective CTDs and the duly endorsed APFs before paying the tax amnesty amount. ~ 208 Policies, Guidelines and Procedures in the Processing of Applications for Tax Amnesty on Delinquencies Pursuant to Republic Act (RA) No. 11213 Otherwise Known as the "Tax Amnesty Act," May 8, 2019. 209 Annex "C" ofRR4-2019; Annex "A" ofRMO 23-2019. 210 Part II, Items I and 2, RMO No. 23-2019. 211 Part II, Items 3 to 6, RMO No. 23-2019.

Reitoh Cold Storage Inc., et al. vs. Bureau of Internal Revenue

Hence, contrary to petitioners' claim, they failed to comply with the TAA requirements and to qualify for the tax amnesty. Given the exacting provisions of the TAA, the application for tax amnesty is not a readily demandable entitlement. Respondent acted pursuant to law and existing regulations when it denied petitioners' requests for CTDs, duly endorsed APFs, NIATCAs, and applications for tax amnesty. Absent proof that the rules and regulations are issued beyond respondent's authority or there is a conflict between the TAA and its IRR, respondent's duty has been deemed fulfilled.212 In the absence of a clear legal right on the part of petitioners and the corresponding ministerial duties required by law on respondent that they neglected to perform, a writ of mandamus, being an extraordinary remedy that requires a showing of extraordinary facts,213 cannot be issued. Fifth: Petitioners have other plain, speedy, and adequate remedies in the ordinary course of law.

Settled is the rule that the special civil action for certiorari, prohibition, or mandamus under Rule 65 of the Revised Rules of Court is available to an aggrieved party only when "there is no plain, speedy, and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law." Otherwise, the petition will not prosper even if the alleged ground is grave abuse of discretion.214 The thrust of the requisite on exhaustion of administrative remedies is that the courts must allow administrative agencies to carry out their functions and discharge their responsibilities within the specialized areas of their respective competence.215 To this end, administrative agencies are afforded a chance to correct any previous error committed in their forum. Furthermore, reasons of law, comity, and convenience prevent the courts from entertaining cases proper for determination by administrative agencies.216 \f/ 212 See People v. Jolliffe, G.R. No. L-9553, May 13, 1959. 213 Bordomeo, et al. v. Court of Appeals, eta/., G.R. No. 161596, february 20, 2013; See Lamb v. W.H. Phipps, G.R. No. L-7806, July 12. 1912; Garcia v. Sweeney, G.R. No. 1693, February 5, 1904.

Reitoh Cold Storage Inc., et al. vs. Bureau of Internal Revenue

In this case, petitioners should have exhausted all other available remedies. A motion or request for reconsideration is a plain, speedy, and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law. An appeal to the Revenue Regional Director or the CIR is also an available remedy. Records show that the assailed letters were signed and sent to petitioners by the Revenue Officer,217 RDOs, Assistant Regional Director,21s and Regional Directors. Recourse to the Regional Director and the CIR, who have the authority to review the actions of their subordinates, is similarly available in this case.

Another remedy, as suggested in the letter dated December 27, 2019219 to petitioner We Lead Group Holdings, Inc., signed by Regional Director Albino M. Galanza of RR7A- Quezon City, is compromise settlement or abatement of penalties under RR No. 30-2002.

In the case of Lopez v. the City of Manila,22o the Supreme Court ruled that where a remedy is available within the administrative machinery, this should be resorted to before resort can be made to courts, not only to allow the administrative agency to decide the matter by itself correctly but also to prevent unnecessary and premature recourse to courts. Failure to exhaust administrative remedies provided by law, by weight of established jurisprudence, is fatal to one's cause of action.

Lest we forget, the law intends to allow the administrative agency to rectify the errors it may have lapsed into before resorting to the courts of justice can be had. The procedural shortcut taken by petitioners finds no justification either in law or jurisprudence, and it is fatal to their Petition.

Accordingly, since petitioners have other plain, speedy, and adequate remedies in the ordinary course of law, the instant Petition for Mandamus is an incorrect remedy.

Reitoh Cold Storage Inc., et al. vs. Bureau of Internal Revenue

Petitioners likewise failed to satisfq the essential requisites of a Petition for Certiorari.

Section 1, Rule 65 of the Revised Rules of Court, provides that:

Section 1. Petition for certiorari. - When any tribunal, board or officer exercising judicial or quasi-judicial functions has acted without or in excess of its or his jurisdiction, or with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction, and there is no appeal or any plain, speedy, and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law, a person aggrieved thereby may file a verified petition in the proper court, alleging the facts with certainty and praying that judgment be rendered annulling or modifying the proceedings of such tribunal, board or officer, and granting such incidental reliefs as law and justice may require. The petition shall be accompanied by a certified true copy of the judgment, order or resolution subject thereof, copies of all pleadings and documents relevant and pertinent thereto, and a sworn certification of non-forum shopping as provided in the third paragraph of section 3, Rule 46. (Ia) (Emphasis supplied) In essence, for a petition for certiorari to prosper, the following essential requisites221 must concur:

1. The writ is directed against a tribunal, a board, or any officer exercising judicial or quasi-judicial functions;

2. Such tribunal, board, or officer has acted without or in excess of jurisdiction, or with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction; and

3. There is no appeal or any plain, speedy, and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law. First: The issuance of the letters denying petitioners' requests for CTDs, APFs, or NIATCAs (denial letters) is not a judicial or quasi- judicial act ofthe respondent.

~ 221 Alfredo Tagle v. F-~Juiloble PC! Bank, G.R. No. 172299, April22, 2008, citing Landbank of the Philippines v. Court of Appeals, 456 Phil. 755; Sanchez v. Court ofAppeals, 345 Phil. 155.

Reitoh Cold Storage Inc., et al. vs. Bureau of Internal Revenue

As part of the Executive Department of the government, the BIR is vested with powers to assess and collect taxes. To some extent, it also exercises quasi-judicial and subordinate legislative functions.

Respondent's quasi-judicial function is clear under Section 4 of the NIRC of 1997, as amended, to wit: Sec. 4. Power of the Commissioner to Interpret Tax Laws and to Decide Tax Cases. - The power to interpret the provisions of this Code and other tax laws shall be under the exclusive and original jurisdiction of the Commissioner, subject to review by the Secretary of Finance.

The power to decide disputed assessments, refunds of internal revenue taxes, fees or other charges, penalties imposed in relation thereto, or other matters arising under this Code or other laws or portions thereof administered by the Bureau of Internal Revenue is vested in the Commissioner, subject to the exclusive appellate jurisdiction of the Court of Tax Appeals. (Emphasis supplied) Quasi-judicial or administrative adjudicatory power vests upon the administrative agency the authority to adjudicate the rights of persons before it. It involves the power to hear and determine questions of fact and, after such determination, to decide in accordance with the standards laid down by law issues that arise in the enforcement and administration thereof. In the performance of quasi-judicial and, of course, judicial acts, there must be a law that gives rise to some specific rights of persons or property from which the adverse claims are rooted, and the controversy ensuing therefrom is brought before a tribunal, board, or officer clothed with power and authority to determine the law and adjudicate the right of the contending parties.222 In the instant case, petitioners assert that the denial of their requests for the issuance of NIATCA after they filed their TARs and APFs and paid the amnesty taxes is a decision ofthe CIR arising under the NIRC and its related laws.223 The Court disagrees.

222 The Department ofTrade and Industry, eta/., v. Danilo B. Enriquez, G.R. No. 225301, June 02,2020.

Reitoh Cold Storage Inc., eta!. vs. Bureau of Internal Revenue

As indicated above, the denial letters did not come from the CIR, and they are not decisions of the CIR arising under the NIRC and its related laws. Thus, contrary to petitioners' claim, the denial of their requests for CTDs, APFs, andfor NIATCAs is neither a decision nor a quasi-judicial act of the CIR. Second: Respondent did not act with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction when the subject denial letters were issued.

A Petition for Certiorari under Rule 65 is intended for the correction of errors of jurisdiction only or grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction.224 To successfully bring to court a Petition for Certiorari, petitioners must be able to allege in the pleading that respondent committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction in the issuance of the questioned decision, resolution, or order. What constitutes "grave abuse of discretion" was discussed by the Supreme Court in the case of Tan v. Spouses Antazo,22s to wit:

... it is well-settled that a petition for certiorari against a court which has jurisdiction over a case will prosper only if grave abuse of discretion is manifested. The burden is on the part of the petitioner to prove not merely reversible error, but grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction on the part of the public respondent issuing the impugned order. Mere abuse of discretion is not enough; it must be grave. The term grave abuse of discretion is defined as a capricious and whimsical exercise of judgment so patent and gross as to amount to an evasion of a positive duty or a virtual refusal to perform a duty enjoined by law, as where the power is exercised in an arbitrary and despotic manner because of passion or hostility. (Emphasis and underscoring supplied) "Grave abuse of discretion" implies such capncwus and whimsical exercise of judgment as to be equivalent to lack or excess of jurisdiction; simply put, power is exercised in an arbitrary or despotic manner by reason of passion, prejudice, or personal hostility; and such exercise is so patent or so gross as to amount to an evasion of a positive duty or a virtual refusal

Reitoh Cold Storage Inc., eta!. vs. Bureau of Internal Revenue either to perform the duty enjoined or to act at all m contemplation of law.226 The Revenue Officer, RDOs, Assistant Regional Director, and Regional Directors merely responded to petitioners' various requests when they signed and issued the subject denial letters. A careful review of the letters shows that they are not the "judgment, order or resolution" that may be assailed and raised before this Court under Rule 65.

They are regular communication or correspondence issued by BIR officials in reply to a taxpayer's request, as they must act promptly on letters and requests received from taxpayers.227 Moreover, petitioners did not allege the specific acts or omissions constituting grave abuse of discretion on the part of respondent BIR and the concerned officials in the issuance of the assailed letters. Petitioners merely state:228

10. The judicial power to determine whether or not there is grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction on the part of Respondent reposed in the CTA is enshrined in the Constitution ...

11. Thus, "(a) petition for certiorari is proper where the impugned dispositions, as in this case, are tainted with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction.

Nonetheless, even if there is such an allegation in the Petition, the Court concludes that no grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction can be attributed to respondent in holding that petitioners are not covered by the TAA and in issuing the denial letters.

As to the third requisite, We already ruled that petitioners have other plain, speedy, and adequate remedies in the ordinary course of law. Hence, We need to refrain from belaboring the same requisite again.

Clearly, a Petition for Certiorari is not a proper remedy. ~ 226 Cuison v. Court of Appeals, 351 Phil. 1089, 1102 (1998); Lalican v. Han. Vergara, 342 Phil. 485,495 (1997); Pure Foods Corp. v. National Labor Relations Commission, G.R. No. 78591, March 21, 1989, 171 SCRA 415, 426; Palma

v. Q & S Inc., 123 Phil. 958, 960 (1966). 227 Section 5, Republic Act No. 6713, February 20, 1989, ''Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards for Public Officials and Employees."

Reitoh Cold Storage Inc., et al. vs. Bureau of Internal Revenue

The Petition is marred with procedural or formal infirmities.

At this juncture, it is also well to add that the Court noted procedural or formal infirmities in filing the

Petition

for Mandamus or Certiorari under Rule 65. The assailed denial letters attached to the Petition are all photocopies.

The assailed denial letters attached to the Petition pertaining to eleven (11) petitioners are neither duplicate originals nor certified true copies, in violation of Section 1, Rule 65,229 in relation to Section 3, Rule 46.230 The Petition lacks the proper

Verification and Certification of

Forum Shopping.

Petitioners

failed to attach the original or certified true coptes of their respective

Secretary's

Certificate,

Board

Resolution, and/ or Special Power of Attorney.

While the Petition contains a sworn Verification and Certification of Non-Forum Shopping executed by Ms. Maureen Braza and Ms. Gina Mandigma, the alleged authorized representatives of petitioners, the proof of their authority to sign the Verification and Certification, t.e., Special Power of 229 SEC. 1. Petition for Certiorari.- ... The petition shall be accompanied by a certified true copy of the judgment, order or resolution subject thereof, copies of all pleadings and documents relevant and pertinent thereto, and a sworn certification of non-forum shopping as provided in the third paragraph of Section 3, Rule 46. 230 Section 3, Rule 46 provides:

SEC. 3. Contents and filing of petition; effect of noncompliance with requirements.- ... [The petition] shall be ... accompanied by a clearly legible duplicate original or certified true copy of the judgment, order, resolution, or ruling subject thereof, such material portions of the record as are referred to therein, and other documents relevant or pertinent thereto . ... The failure of the petitioner to comply with any of the foregoing requirements shall be sufficient ground for the dismissal of the petition. (Emphasis supplied)

Reitoh Cold Storage Inc., et a!. vs. Bureau of Internal Revenue

Attorney,23t Board Resolution,232 artd Secretary's Certificate,233 are mere photocopies.

This casts doubt as to the validity of the representatives' authority to file this petition on behalf of petitioners. In Shipside Incorporated v. Court of Appeals, et al.,234 the Supreme Court stated specific rules regarding verification artd certification against forum shopping, to wit: ... , the lack of certification against forum shopping is generally not curable by the submission thereof after the filing of the petition. Section 5, Rule 45 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure provides that the failure of the petitioner to submit the required documents that should accompany the petition, including the certification against forum shopping, shall be sufficient ground for the dismissal thereof. The same rule applies to certifications against forum shopping signed by a person on behalf of a corporation which are unaccompanied by proof that said signatory is authorized to file a petition on behalf of the corporation. (Emphasis supplied) From the foregoing, when the certification against forum shopping is not accompartied by proof that the signatory thereof is authorized to file the petition on behalf of the corporation, the same is sufficient ground for the dismissal of the action. Petitioners failed to

]Otn

as respondents the officers who signed and issued the assailed denial letters.

Section 5, Rule 65 of the Revised Rules of Court reads: SEC. 5. Respondents and costs in certain cases.- When the petition filed relates to the acts or omissions of a judge, court, quasi-judicial agency, tribunal, corporation, board, officer or person, the petitioner shall join, as private respondent or respondents with such public respondent or respondents, the person or persons interested in sustaining the proceedings in the court; and it shall be the duty of such private respondents to appear and defend, both in his or their own behalf and in behalf of the public respondent or respondents affected by the proceedings, 231 Supra, note 4.

232 Supra, note 6.

233 Supra, notes 7-26.

Reitoh Cold Storage Inc., eta!. vs. Bureau of Internal Revenue and the costs awarded in such proceedings in favor of the petitioner shall be against the private respondents only, and not against the judge, court, quasi-judicial agency, tribunal, corporation, board, officer or person impleaded as public respondent or respondents. (Emphasis supplied) From the foregoing, when the petition relates to the acts or omissions of a quasi-judicial agency, petitioners shall join, as private respondent or respondents with such public respondent or respondents, the person or persons interested in sustaining the proceedings in the court.

Petitioners merely impleaded the agency, the BIR, and not the responsible officials who issued and signed the assailed denial letters and whose alleged acts or omissions have caused petitioners to file this Petition.

In sum, there is an abundance of procedural and substantive reasons which are fatal to petitioners' case. The Supreme Court, in many instances, has exercised leniency in applying the rules to dismiss the petition based on mere technicalities. However, petitioners' numerous violations of the rules only show their conscious disregard for the procedure. Nonetheless, even if the Court ignores petitioners' non- compliance with the above essential and formal requisites of the Petition for Mandamus or Certiorari under Rule 65 of the Revised Rules of Procedure, the Petition still fails for having been filed out-of-time and for being moot and academic.

WHEREFORE, finding the instant Petition to be without merit, aside from being time-barred and moot, the same is DISMISSED.

Associate Justice

!CONCUR:

r

Reitoh Cold Storage Inc., et al. vs. Bureau of Internal Revenue

ATTESTATION

I attest that the conclusions in the above Decision were reached in consultation before the case was assigned to the writer of the opinion of the Court's Division. ~ f}IS:sq,.une Justice 2nct ...., ... ,,.v .. Acting Chairperson

CERTIFICATION

Pursuant to Section 13 of Article VIII of the Constitution, and the Second Division Acting Chairperson's Attestation, it is hereby certified that the conclusions in the above Decision were reached in consultation before the case was assigned to the writer of the opinion of the Court's Division.

Presiding Justice