What is more, the waivers in question reveal that they are in no wise unequivocal, and therefore necessitates for its binding effect the concurrence of the Commissioner of Internal Revenue. In fact, in his reply dated April 18, 1995, the Solicitor General, representing the Commissioner of Internal Revenue, admitted that subject waivers executed by Carnation were "for end in consideration of the approval by the Commissioner of Internal Revenue of its request for reinvestigation and/or reconsideration of its internal revenue case involving tax assessments for the fiscal year ended September 30, 1981 which were all pending at the time". On this basis neither implied consent can be presumed nor can it be contended that the waiver required under Sec. 319 of the Tax Code is one which is unilateral nor can it be said that concurrence to such an agreements a mere formality because it is the very signatures of both the Commissioner of Internal Revenue and the taxpayer which give birth to such a valid agreement.

WHEREFORE, the decision of the Court of Appeals is hereby AFFIRMED. No pronouncement as to costs.

SO ORDERED.

G.R. No. 162852 December 16, 2004PHILIPPINE JOURNALISTS, INC., petitioner, vs.COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, respondent.

YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.:This is a petition for review filed by Philippine Journalists, Incorporated (PJI) assailing the Decision1 of the Court of Appeals dated August 5, 2003,2 which ordered petitioner to pay the assessed tax liability of P111,291,214.46 and the Resolution3 dated March 31, 2004 which denied the Motion for Reconsideration.

The case arose from the Annual Income Tax Return filed by petitioner for the calendar year ended December 31, 1994 which presented a net income of P30,877,387.00 and the tax due of P10,807,086.00. After deducting tax credits for the year, petitioner paid the amount of P10,247,384.00.

On August 10, 1995, Revenue District Office No. 33 of the Bureau of Internal Revenue (BIR) issued Letter of Authority No. 871204 for Revenue Officer Federico de Vera, Jr. and Group Supervisor Vivencio Gapasin to examine petitioners books of account and other accounting records for internal revenue taxes for the period January 1, 1994 to December 31, 1994.

From the examination, the petitioner was told that there were deficiency taxes, inclusive of surcharges, interest and compromise penalty in the following amounts:

Value Added TaxP 229,527.90

Income Tax125,002,892.95

Withholding Tax2,748,012.35

TotalP 127,980,433.20

In a letter dated August 29, 1997, Revenue District Officer Jaime Concepcion invited petitioner to send a representative to an informal conference on September 15, 1997 for an opportunity to object and present documentary evidence relative to the proposed assessment. On September 22, 1997, petitioners Comptroller, Lorenza Tolentino, executed a "Waiver of the Statute of Limitation Under the National Internal Revenue Code (NIRC)".5 The document "waive[d] the running of the prescriptive period provided by Sections 223 and 224 and other relevant provisions of the NIRC and consent[ed] to the assessment and collection of taxes which may be found due after the examination at any time after the lapse of the period of limitations fixed by said Sections 223 and 224 and other relevant provisions of the NIRC, until the completion of the investigation".6On July 2, 1998, Revenue Officer De Vera submitted his audit report recommending the issuance of an assessment and finding that petitioner had deficiency taxes in the total amount of P136,952,408.97. On October 5, 1998, the Assessment Division of the BIR issued Pre-Assessment Notices which informed petitioner of the results of the investigation. Thus, BIR Revenue Region No. 6, Assessment Division/Billing Section, issued Assessment/Demand No. 33-1-000757-947 on December 9, 1998 stating the following deficiency taxes, inclusive of interest and compromise penalty:

Income TaxP108,743,694.88

Value Added Tax184,299.20

Expanded Withholding Tax2,363,220.38

TotalP111,291,214.46

On March 16, 1999, a Preliminary Collection Letter was sent by Deputy Commissioner Romeo S. Panganiban to the petitioner to pay the assessment within ten (10) days from receipt of the letter. On November 10, 1999, a Final Notice Before Seizure8 was issued by the same deputy commissioner giving the petitioner ten (10) days from receipt to pay. Petitioner received a copy of the final notice on November 24, 1999. By letters dated November 26, 1999, petitioner asked to be clarified how the tax liability of P111,291,214.46 was reached and requested an extension of thirty (30) days from receipt of the clarification within which to reply.9The BIR received a follow-up letter from the petitioner asserting that its (PJI) records do not show receipt of Tax Assessment/Demand No. 33-1-000757-94.10 Petitioner also contested that the assessment had no factual and legal basis. On March 28, 2000, a Warrant of Distraint and/or Levy No. 33-06-04611 signed by Deputy Commissioner Romeo Panganiban for the BIR was received by the petitioner.

Petitioner filed a Petition for Review12 with the Court of Tax Appeals (CTA) which was amended on May 12, 2000. Petitioner complains: (a) that no assessment or demand was received from the BIR; (b) that the warrant of distraint and/or levy was without factual and legal bases as its issuance was premature; (c) that the assessment, having been made beyond the 3-year prescriptive period, is null and void; (d) that the issuance of the warrant without being given the opportunity to dispute the same violates its right to due process; and (e) that the grave prejudice that will be sustained if the warrant is enforced is enough basis for the issuance of the writ of preliminary injunction.

On May 14, 2002, the CTA rendered its decision,13 to wit:

As to whether or not the assessment notices were received by the petitioner, this Court rules in the affirmative.

To disprove petitioners allegation of non-receipt of the aforesaid assessment notices, respondent presented a certification issued by the Post Master of the Central Post Office, Manila to the effect that Registered Letter No. 76134 sent by the BIR, Region No. 6, Manila on December 15, 1998 addressed to Phil. Journalists, Inc. at Journal Bldg., Railroad St., Manila was duly delivered to and received by a certain Alfonso Sanchez, Jr. (Authorized Representative) on January 8, 1999. Respondent also showed proof that in claiming Registered Letter No. 76134, Mr. Sanchez presented three identification cards, one of which is his company ID with herein petitioner.

However, as to whether or not the Waiver of the Statute of Limitations is valid and binding on the petitioner is another question. Since the subject assessments were issued beyond the three-year prescriptive period, it becomes imperative on our part to rule first on the validity of the waiver allegedly executed on September 22, 1997, for if this court finds the same to be ineffective, then the assessments must necessarily fail.

After carefully examining the questioned Waiver of the Statute of Limitations, this Court considers the same to be without any binding effect on the petitioner for the following reasons:

The waiver is an unlimited waiver. It does not contain a definite expiration date. Under RMO No. 20-90, the phrase indicating the expiry date of the period agreed upon to assess/collect the tax after the regular three-year period of prescription should be filled up

Secondly, the waiver failed to state the date of acceptance by the Bureau which under the aforequoted RMO should likewise be indicated

Finally, petitioner was not furnished a copy of the waiver. It is to be noted that under RMO No. 20-90, the waiver must be executed in three (3) copies, the second copy of which is for the taxpayer. It is likewise required that the fact of receipt by the taxpayer of his/her file copy be indicated in the original copy. Again, respondent failed to comply.

It bears stressing that RMO No. 20-90 is directed to all concerned internal revenue officers. The said RMO even provides that the procedures found therein should be strictly followed, under pain of being administratively dealt with should non-compliance result to prescription of the right to assess/collect

Thus, finding the waiver executed by the petitioner on September 22, 1997 to be suffering from legal infirmities, rendering the same invalid and ineffective, the Court finds Assessment/Demand No. 33-1-000757-94 issued on December 5, 1998 to be time-barred. Consequently, the Warrant of Distraint and/or Levy issued pursuant thereto is considered null and void.

WHEREFORE, in view of all the foregoing, the instant Petition for Review is hereby GRANTED. Accordingly, the deficiency income, value-added and expanded withholding tax assessments issued by the respondent against the petitioner on December 9, 1998, in the total amount of P111,291,214.46 for the year 1994 are hereby declared CANCELLED, WITHDRAWN and WITH NO FORCE AND EFFECT. Likewise, Warrant of Distraint and/or Levy No. 33-06-046 is hereby declared NULL and VOID.SO ORDERED.14After the motion for reconsideration of the Commissioner of Internal Revenue was denied by the CTA in a Resolution dated August 2, 2002, an appeal was filed with the Court of Appeals on August 12, 2002.

In its decision dated August 5, 2003, the Court of Appeals disagreed with the ruling of the CTA, to wit:

The petition for review filed on 26 April 2000 with CTA was neither timely filed nor the proper remedy. Only decisions of the BIR, denying the request for reconsideration or reinvestigation may be appealed to the CTA. Mere assessment notices which have become final after the lapse of the thirty (30)-day reglementary period are not appealable. Thus, the CTA should not have entertained the petition at all.

[T]he CTA found the waiver executed by Phil. Journalists to be invalid for the following reasons: (1) it does not indicate a definite expiration date; (2) it does not state the date of acceptance by the BIR; and (3) Phil. Journalist, the taxpayer, was not furnished a copy of the waiver. These grounds are merely formal in nature. The date of acceptance by the BIR does not categorically appear in the document but it states at the bottom page that the BIR "accepted and agreed to:", followed by the signature of the BIRs authorized representative. Although the date of acceptance was not stated, the document was dated 22 September 1997. This date could reasonably be understood as the same date of acceptance by the BIR since a different date was not otherwise indicated. As to the allegation that Phil. Journalists was not furnished a copy of the waiver, this requirement appears ridiculous. Phil. Journalists, through its comptroller, Lorenza Tolentino, signed the waiver. Why would it need a copy of the document it knowingly executed when the reason why copies are furnished to a party is to notify it of the existence of a document, event or proceeding?

As regards the need for a definite expiration date, this is the biggest flaw of the decision. The period of prescription for the assessment of taxes may be extended provided that the extension be made in writing and that it be made prior to the expiration of the period of prescription. These are the requirements for a valid extension of the prescriptive period. To these requirements provided by law, the memorandum order adds that the length of the extension be specified by indicating its expiration date. This requirement could be reasonably construed from the rule on extension of the prescriptive period. But this requirement does not apply in the instant case because what we have here is not an extension of the prescriptive period but a waiver thereof. These are two (2) very different things. What Phil. Journalists executed was a renunciation of its right to invoke the defense of prescription. This is a valid waiver. When one waives the prescriptive period, it is no longer necessary to indicate the length of the extension of the prescriptive period since the person waiving may no longer use this defense.

WHEREFORE, the 02 August 2002 resolution and 14 May 2002 decision of the CTA are hereby SET ASIDE. Respondent Phil. Journalists is ordered [to] pay its assessed tax liability of P111,291,214.46.

SO ORDERED.15Petitioners Motion for Reconsideration was denied in a Resolution dated March 31, 2004. Hence, this appeal on the following assignment of errors:

I.The Honorable Court of Appeals committed grave error in ruling that it is outside the jurisdiction of the Court of Tax Appeals to entertain the Petition for Review filed by the herein Petitioner at the CTA despite the fact that such case inevitably rests upon the validity of the issuance by the BIR of warrants of distraint and levy contrary to the provisions of Section 7(1) of Republic Act No. 1125.

II.The Honorable Court of Appeals gravely erred when it ruled that failure to comply with the provisions of Revenue Memorandum Order (RMO) No. 20-90 is merely a formal defect that does not invalidate the waiver of the statute of limitations without stating the legal justification for such conclusion. Such ruling totally disregarded the mandatory requirements of Section 222(b) of the Tax Code and its implementing regulation, RMO No. 20-90 which are substantive in nature. The RMO provides that violation thereof subjects the erring officer to administrative sanction. This directive shows that the RMO is not merely cover forms.

III.The Honorable Court of Appeals gravely erred when it ruled that the assessment notices became final and unappealable. The assessment issued is void and legally non-existent because the BIR has no power to issue an assessment beyond the three-year prescriptive period where there is no valid and binding waiver of the statute of limitation.

IV.The Honorable Court of Appeals gravely erred when it held that the assessment in question has became final and executory due to the failure of the Petitioner to protest the same. Respondent had no power to issue an assessment beyond the three year period under the mandatory provisions of Section 203 of the NIRC. Such assessment should be held void and non-existent, otherwise, Section 203, an expression of a public policy, would be rendered useless and nugatory. Besides, such right to assess cannot be validly granted after three years since it would arise from a violation of the mandatory provisions of Section 203 and would go against the vested right of the Petitioner to claim prescription of assessment.

V.The Honorable Court of Appeals committed grave error when it HELD valid a defective waiver by considering the latter a waiver of the right to invoke the defense of prescription rather than an extension of the three year period of prescription (to make an assessment) as provided under Section 222 in relation to Section 203 of the Tax Code, an interpretation that is contrary to law, existing jurisprudence and outside of the purpose and intent for which they were enacted.16We find merit in the appeal.

The first assigned error relates to the jurisdiction of the CTA over the issues in this case. The Court of Appeals ruled that only decisions of the BIR denying a request for reconsideration or reinvestigation may be appealed to the CTA. Since the petitioner did not file a request for reinvestigation or reconsideration within thirty (30) days, the assessment notices became final and unappealable. The petitioner now argue that the case was brought to the CTA because the warrant of distraint or levy was illegally issued and that no assessment was issued because it was based on an invalid waiver of the statutes of limitations.

We agree with petitioner. Section 7(1) of Republic Act No. 1125, the Act Creating the Court of Tax Appeals, provides for the jurisdiction of that special court:

SEC. 7. Jurisdiction. The Court of Tax Appeals shall exercise exclusive appellate jurisdiction to review by appeal, as herein provided

(1) Decisions of the Commissioner of Internal Revenue in cases involving disputed assessments, refunds of internal revenue taxes, fees or other charges, penalties imposed in relation thereto, or other matters arising under the National Internal Revenue Code or other laws or part of law administered by the Bureau of Internal Revenue; (Emphasis supplied).

The appellate jurisdiction of the CTA is not limited to cases which involve decisions of the Commissioner of Internal Revenue on matters relating to assessments or refunds. The second part of the provision covers other cases that arise out of the NIRC or related laws administered by the Bureau of Internal Revenue. The wording of the provision is clear and simple. It gives the CTA the jurisdiction to determine if the warrant of distraint and levy issued by the BIR is valid and to rule if the Waiver of Statute of Limitations was validly effected.

This is not the first case where the CTA validly ruled on issues that did not relate directly to a disputed assessment or a claim for refund. In Pantoja v. David,17 we upheld the jurisdiction of the CTA to act on a petition to invalidate and annul the distraint orders of the Commissioner of Internal Revenue. Also, in Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Court of Appeals,18 the decision of the CTA declaring several waivers executed by the taxpayer as null and void, thus invalidating the assessments issued by the BIR, was upheld by this Court.

The second and fifth assigned errors both focus on Revenue Memorandum Circular No. 20-90 (RMO No. 20-90) on the requisites of a valid waiver of the statute of limitations. The Court of Appeals held that the requirements and procedures laid down in the RMO are only formal in nature and did not invalidate the waiver that was signed even if the requirements were not strictly observed.

The NIRC, under Sections 203 and 222,19 provides for a statute of limitations on the assessment and collection of internal revenue taxes in order to safeguard the interest of the taxpayer against unreasonable investigation.20 Unreasonable investigation contemplates cases where the period for assessment extends indefinitely because this deprives the taxpayer of the assurance that it will no longer be subjected to further investigation for taxes after the expiration of a reasonable period of time. As was held in Republic of the Phils. v. Ablaza:21The law prescribing a limitation of actions for the collection of the income tax is beneficial both to the Government and to its citizens; to the Government because tax officers would be obliged to act promptly in the making of assessment, and to citizens because after the lapse of the period of prescription citizens would have a feeling of security against unscrupulous tax agents who will always find an excuse to inspect the books of taxpayers, not to determine the latters real liability, but to take advantage of every opportunity to molest peaceful, law-abiding citizens. Without such a legal defense taxpayers would furthermore be under obligation to always keep their books and keep them open for inspection subject to harassment by unscrupulous tax agents. The law on prescription being a remedial measure should be interpreted in a way conducive to bringing about the beneficent purpose of affording protection to the taxpayer within the contemplation of the Commission which recommend the approval of the law. (Emphasis supplied)

RMO No. 20-90 implements these provisions of the NIRC relating to the period of prescription for the assessment and collection of taxes. A cursory reading of the Order supports petitioners argument that the RMO must be strictly followed, thus:

In the execution of said waiver, the following procedures should be followed:

1. The waiver must be in the form identified hereof. This form may be reproduced by the Office concerned but there should be no deviation from such form. The phrase "but not after __________ 19___" should be filled up2.

Soon after the waiver is signed by the taxpayer, the Commissioner of Internal Revenue or the revenue official authorized by him, as hereinafter provided, shall sign the waiver indicating that the Bureau has accepted and agreed to the waiver. The date of such acceptance by the Bureau should be indicated

3. The following revenue officials are authorized to sign the waiver.

A. In the National Office

3. CommissionerFor tax cases involving more than P1M

B. In the Regional Offices

1. The Revenue District Officer with respect to tax cases still pending investigation and the period to assess is about to prescribe regardless of amount.

5. The foregoing procedures shall be strictly followed. Any revenue official found not to have complied with this Order resulting in prescription of the right to assess/collect shall be administratively dealt with. (Emphasis supplied)22A waiver of the statute of limitations under the NIRC, to a certain extent, is a derogation of the taxpayers right to security against prolonged and unscrupulous investigations and must therefore be carefully and strictly construed.23 The waiver of the statute of limitations is not a waiver of the right to invoke the defense of prescription as erroneously held by the Court of Appeals. It is an agreement between the taxpayer and the BIR that the period to issue an assessment and collect the taxes due is extended to a date certain. The waiver does not mean that the taxpayer relinquishes the right to invoke prescription unequivocally particularly where the language of the document is equivocal. For the purpose of safeguarding taxpayers from any unreasonable examination, investigation or assessment, our tax law provides a statute of limitations in the collection of taxes. Thus, the law on prescription, being a remedial measure, should be liberally construed in order to afford such protection. As a corollary, the exceptions to the law on prescription should perforce be strictly construed.24 RMO No. 20-90 explains the rationale of a waiver:

... The phrase "but not after _________ 19___" should be filled up. This indicates the expiry date of the period agreed upon to assess/collect the tax after the regular three-year period of prescription. The period agreed upon shall constitute the time within which to effect the assessment/collection of the tax in addition to the ordinary prescriptive period. (Emphasis supplied)

As found by the CTA, the Waiver of Statute of Limitations, signed by petitioners comptroller on September 22, 1997 is not valid and binding because it does not conform with the provisions of RMO No. 20-90. It did not specify a definite agreed date between the BIR and petitioner, within which the former may assess and collect revenue taxes. Thus, petitioners waiver became unlimited in time, violating Section 222(b) of the NIRC.

The waiver is also defective from the government side because it was signed only by a revenue district officer, not the Commissioner, as mandated by the NIRC and RMO No. 20-90. The waiver is not a unilateral act by the taxpayer or the BIR, but is a bilateral agreement between two parties to extend the period to a date certain. The conformity of the BIR must be made by either the Commissioner or the Revenue District Officer. This case involves taxes amounting to more than One Million Pesos (P1,000,000.00) and executed almost seven months before the expiration of the three-year prescription period. For this, RMO No. 20-90 requires the Commissioner of Internal Revenue to sign for the BIR.

The case of Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Court of Appeals,25 dealt with waivers that were not signed by the Commissioner but were argued to have been given implied consent by the BIR. We invalidated the subject waivers and ruled:

Petitioners submission is inaccurate

The Court of Appeals itself also passed upon the validity of the waivers executed by Carnation, observing thus:

We cannot go along with the petitioners theory. Section 319 of the Tax Code earlier quoted is clear and explicit that the waiver of the five-year26 prescriptive period must be in writing and signed by both the BIR Commissioner and the taxpayer.

Here, the three waivers signed by Carnation do not bear the written consent of the BIR Commissioner as required by law.

We agree with the CTA in holding "these waivers to be invalid and without any binding effect on petitioner (Carnation) for the reason that there was no consent by the respondent (Commissioner of Internal Revenue)."

For sure, no such written agreement concerning the said three waivers exists between the petitioner and private respondent Carnation.

What is more, the waivers in question reveal that they are in no wise unequivocal, and therefore necessitates for its binding effect the concurrence of the Commissioner of Internal Revenue. On this basis neither implied consent can be presumed nor can it be contended that the waiver required under Sec. 319 of the Tax Code is one which is unilateral nor can it be said that concurrence to such an agreement is a mere formality because it is the very signatures of both the Commissioner of Internal Revenue and the taxpayer which give birth to such a valid agreement.27 (Emphasis supplied)

The other defect noted in this case is the date of acceptance which makes it difficult to fix with certainty if the waiver was actually agreed before the expiration of the three-year prescriptive period. The Court of Appeals held that the date of the execution of the waiver on September 22, 1997 could reasonably be understood as the same date of acceptance by the BIR. Petitioner points out however that Revenue District Officer Sarmiento could not have accepted the waiver yet because she was not the Revenue District Officer of RDO No. 33 on such date. Ms. Sarmientos transfer and assignment to RDO No. 33 was only signed by the BIR Commissioner on January 16, 1998 as shown by the Revenue Travel Assignment Order No. 14-98.28 The Court of Tax Appeals noted in its decision that it is unlikely as well that Ms. Sarmiento made the acceptance on January 16, 1998 because "Revenue Officials normally have to conduct first an inventory of their pending papers and property responsibilities."29Finally, the records show that petitioner was not furnished a copy of the waiver. Under RMO No. 20-90, the waiver must be executed in three copies with the second copy for the taxpayer. The Court of Appeals did not think this was important because the petitioner need not have a copy of the document it knowingly executed. It stated that the reason copies are furnished is for a party to be notified of the existence of a document, event or proceeding.

The flaw in the appellate courts reasoning stems from its assumption that the waiver is a unilateral act of the taxpayer when it is in fact and in law an agreement between the taxpayer and the BIR. When the petitioners comptroller signed the waiver on September 22, 1997, it was not yet complete and final because the BIR had not assented. There is compliance with the provision of RMO No. 20-90 only after the taxpayer received a copy of the waiver accepted by the BIR. The requirement to furnish the taxpayer with a copy of the waiver is not only to give notice of the existence of the document but of the acceptance by the BIR and the perfection of the agreement.

The waiver document is incomplete and defective and thus the three-year prescriptive period was not tolled or extended and continued to run until April 17, 1998. Consequently, the Assessment/Demand No. 33-1-000757-94 issued on December 9, 1998 was invalid because it was issued beyond the three (3) year period. In the same manner, Warrant of Distraint and/or Levy No. 33-06-046 which petitioner received on March 28, 2000 is also null and void for having been issued pursuant to an invalid assessment.

WHEREFORE, premises considered, the instant petition for review is GRANTED. The Decision of the Court of Appeals dated August 5, 2003 and its Resolution dated March 31, 2004 are REVERSED and SET ASIDE. The Decision of the Court of Tax Appeals in CTA Case No. 6108 dated May 14, 2002, declaring Warrant of Distraint and/or Levy No. 33-06-046 null and void, is REINSTATED.

SO ORDERED.G.R. No. 155541 January 27, 2004ESTATE OF THE LATE JULIANA DIEZ VDA. DE GABRIEL, petitioner, vs.COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, respondent.

D E C I S I O N

YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.:This petition for review on certiorari assails the decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No. 09107, dated September 30, 2002,1 which reversed the November 19, 1995 Order of Regional Trial Court of Manila, Branch XXXVIII, in Sp. Proc. No. R-82-6994, entitled "Testate Estate of Juliana Diez Vda. De Gabriel". The petition was filed by the Estate of the Late Juliana Diez Vda. De Gabriel, represented by Prudential Bank as its duly appointed and qualified Administrator.

As correctly summarized by the Court of Appeals, the relevant facts are as follows:

During the lifetime of the decedent, Juliana Vda. De Gabriel, her business affairs were managed by the Philippine Trust Company (Philtrust). The decedent died on April 3, 1979. Two days after her death, Philtrust, through its Trust Officer, Atty. Antonio M. Nuyles, filed her Income Tax Return for 1978. The return did not indicate that the decedent had died.

On May 22, 1979, Philtrust also filed a verified petition for appointment as Special Administrator with the Regional Trial Court of Manila, Branch XXXVIII, docketed as Sp. Proc. No. R-82-6994. The court a quo appointed one of the heirs as Special Administrator. Philtrusts motion for reconsideration was denied by the probate court.

On January 26, 1981, the court a quo issued an Order relieving Mr. Diez of his appointment, and appointed Antonio Lantin to take over as Special Administrator. Subsequently, on July 30, 1981, Mr. Lantin was also relieved of his appointment, and Atty. Vicente Onosa was appointed in his stead.

In the meantime, the Bureau of Internal Revenue conducted an administrative investigation on the decedents tax liability and found a deficiency income tax for the year 1977 in the amount of P318,233.93. Thus, on November 18, 1982, the BIR sent by registered mail a demand letter and Assessment Notice No. NARD-78-82-00501 addressed to the decedent "c/o Philippine Trust Company, Sta. Cruz, Manila" which was the address stated in her 1978 Income Tax Return. No response was made by Philtrust. The BIR was not informed that the decedent had actually passed away.

In an Order dated September 5, 1983, the court a quo appointed Antonio Ambrosio as the Commissioner and Auditor Tax Consultant of the Estate of the decedent.

On June 18, 1984, respondent Commissioner of Internal Revenue issued warrants of distraint and levy to enforce collection of the decedents deficiency income tax liability, which were served upon her heir, Francisco Gabriel. On November 22, 1984, respondent filed a "Motion for Allowance of Claim and for an Order of Payment of Taxes" with the court a quo. On January 7, 1985, Mr. Ambrosio filed a letter of protest with the Litigation Division of the BIR, which was not acted upon because the assessment notice had allegedly become final, executory and incontestable.

On May 16, 1985, petitioner, the Estate of the decedent, through Mr. Ambrosio, filed a formal opposition to the BIRs Motion for Allowance of Claim based on the ground that there was no proper service of the assessment and that the filing of the aforesaid claim had already prescribed. The BIR filed its Reply, contending that service to Philippine Trust Company was sufficient service, and that the filing of the claim against the Estate on November 22, 1984 was within the five-year prescriptive period for assessment and collection of taxes under Section 318 of the 1977 National Internal Revenue Code (NIRC).

On November 19, 1985, the court a quo issued an Order denying respondents claim against the Estate,2 after finding that there was no notice of its tax assessment on the proper party.3On July 2, 1986, respondent filed an appeal with the Court of Appeals, docketed as CA-G.R. CV No. 09107,4 assailing the Order of the probate court dated November 19, 1985. It was claimed that Philtrust, in filing the decedents 1978 income tax return on April 5, 1979, two days after the taxpayers death, had "constituted itself as the administrator of the estate of the deceased at least insofar as said return is concerned."5 Citing Basilan Estate Inc. v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue,6 respondent argued that the legal requirement of notice with respect to tax assessments7 requires merely that the Commissioner of Internal Revenue release, mail and send the notice of the assessment to the taxpayer at the address stated in the return filed, but not that the taxpayer actually receive said assessment within the five-year prescriptive period.8 Claiming that Philtrust had been remiss in not notifying respondent of the decedents death, respondent therefore argued that the deficiency tax assessment had already become final, executory and incontestable, and that petitioner Estate was liable therefor.

On September 30, 2002, the Court of Appeals rendered a decision in favor of the respondent. Although acknowledging that the bond of agency between Philtrust and the decedent was severed upon the latters death, it was ruled that the administrator of the Estate had failed in its legal duty to inform respondent of the decedents death, pursuant to Section 104 of the National Internal Revenue Code of 1977. Consequently, the BIRs service to Philtrust of the demand letter and Notice of Assessment was binding upon the Estate, and, upon the lapse of the statutory thirty-day period to question this claim, the assessment became final, executory and incontestable. The dispositive portion of said decision reads:

WHEREFORE, finding merit in the appeal, the appealed decision is REVERSED AND SET ASIDE. Another one is entered ordering the Administrator of the Estate to pay the Commissioner of Internal Revenue the following:

a. The amount of P318,223.93, representing the deficiency income tax liability for the year 1978, plus 20% interest per annum from November 2, 1982 up to November 2, 1985 and in addition thereto 10% surcharge on the basic tax of P169,155.34 pursuant to Section 51(e)(2) and (3) of the Tax Code as amended by PD 69 and 1705; and

b. The costs of the suit.

SO ORDERED.9Hence, the instant petition, raising the following issues:

1. Whether or not the Court of Appeals erred in holding that the service of deficiency tax assessment against Juliana Diez Vda. de Gabriel through the Philippine Trust Company was a valid service in order to bind the Estate;

2. Whether or not the Court of Appeals erred in holding that the deficiency tax assessment and final demand was already final, executory and incontestable.

Petitioner Estate denies that Philtrust had any legal personality to represent the decedent after her death. As such, petitioner argues that there was no proper notice of the assessment which, therefore, never became final, executory and incontestable.10 Petitioner further contends that respondents failure to file its claim against the Estate within the proper period prescribed by the Rules of Court is a fatal error, which forever bars its claim against the Estate.11Respondent, on the other hand, claims that because Philtrust filed the decedents income tax return subsequent to her death, Philtrust was the de facto administrator of her Estate.12 Consequently, when the Assessment Notice and demand letter dated November 18, 1982 were sent to Philtrust, there was proper service on the Estate.13 Respondent further asserts that Philtrust had the legal obligation to inform petitioner of the decedents death, which requirement is found in Section 104 of the NIRC of 1977.14 Since Philtrust did not, respondent contends that petitioner Estate should not be allowed to profit from this omission.15 Respondent further argues that Philtrusts failure to protest the aforementioned assessment within the 30-day period provided in Section 319-A of the NIRC of 1977 meant that the assessment had already become final, executory and incontestable.16The resolution of this case hinges on the legal relationship between Philtrust and the decedent, and, by extension, between Philtrust and petitioner Estate. Subsumed under this primary issue is the sub-issue of whether or not service on Philtrust of the demand letter and Assessment Notice No. NARD-78-82-00501 was valid service on petitioner, and the issue of whether Philtrusts inaction thereon could bind petitioner. If both sub-issues are answered in the affirmative, respondents contention as to the finality of Assessment Notice No. NARD-78-82-00501 must be answered in the affirmative. This is because Section 319-A of the NIRC of 1977 provides a clear 30-day period within which to protest an assessment. Failure to file such a protest within said period means that the assessment ipso jure becomes final and unappealable, as a consequence of which legal proceedings may then be initiated for collection thereof.

We find in favor of the petitioner.

The first point to be considered is that the relationship between the decedent and Philtrust was one of agency, which is a personal relationship between agent and principal. Under Article 1919 (3) of the Civil Code, death of the agent or principal automatically terminates the agency. In this instance, the death of the decedent on April 3, 1979 automatically severed the legal relationship between her and Philtrust, and such could not be revived by the mere fact that Philtrust continued to act as her agent when, on April 5, 1979, it filed her Income Tax Return for the year 1978.

Since the relationship between Philtrust and the decedent was automatically severed at the moment of the Taxpayers death, none of Philtrusts acts or omissions could bind the estate of the Taxpayer. Service on Philtrust of the demand letter and Assessment Notice No. NARD-78-82-00501 was improperly done.

It must be noted that Philtrust was never appointed as the administrator of the Estate of the decedent, and, indeed, that the court a quo twice rejected Philtrusts motion to be thus appointed. As of November 18, 1982, the date of the demand letter and Assessment Notice, the legal relationship between the decedent and Philtrust had already been non-existent for three years.

Respondent claims that Section 104 of the National Internal Revenue Code of 1977 imposed the legal obligation on Philtrust to inform respondent of the decedents death. The said Section reads:

SEC. 104. Notice of death to be filed. In all cases of transfers subject to tax or where, though exempt from tax, the gross value of the estate exceeds three thousand pesos, the executor, administrator, or any of the legal heirs, as the case may be, within two months after the decedents death, or within a like period after qualifying as such executor or administrator, shall give written notice thereof to the Commissioner of Internal Revenue.

The foregoing provision falls in Title III, Chapter I of the National Internal Revenue Code of 1977, or the chapter on Estate Tax, and pertains to "all cases of transfers subject to tax" or where the "gross value of the estate exceeds three thousand pesos". It has absolutely no applicability to a case for deficiency income tax, such as the case at bar. It further lacks applicability since Philtrust was never the executor, administrator of the decedents estate, and, as such, never had the legal obligation, based on the above provision, to inform respondent of her death.

Although the administrator of the estate may have been remiss in his legal obligation to inform respondent of the decedents death, the consequences thereof, as provided in Section 119 of the National Internal Revenue Code of 1977, merely refer to the imposition of certain penal sanctions on the administrator. These do not include the indefinite tolling of the prescriptive period for making deficiency tax assessments, or the waiver of the notice requirement for such assessments.

Thus, as of November 18, 1982, the date of the demand letter and Assessment Notice No. NARD-78-82-00501, there was absolutely no legal obligation on the part of Philtrust to either (1) respond to the demand letter and assessment notice, (2) inform respondent of the decedents death, or (3) inform petitioner that it had received said demand letter and assessment notice. This lack of legal obligation was implicitly recognized by the Court of Appeals, which, in fact, rendered its assailed decision on grounds of "equity".17Since there was never any valid notice of this assessment, it could not have become final, executory and incontestable, and, for failure to make the assessment within the five-year period provided in Section 318 of the National Internal Revenue Code of 1977, respondents claim against the petitioner Estate is barred. Said Section 18 reads:

SEC. 318. Period of limitation upon assessment and collection. Except as provided in the succeeding section, internal revenue taxes shall be assessed within five years after the return was filed, and no proceeding in court without assessment for the collection of such taxes shall be begun after the expiration of such period. For the purpose of this section, a return filed before the last day prescribed by law for the filing thereof shall be considered as filed on such last day: Provided, That this limitation shall not apply to cases already investigated prior to the approval of this Code.

Respondent argues that an assessment is deemed made for the purpose of giving effect to such assessment when the notice is released, mailed or sent to the taxpayer to effectuate the assessment, and there is no legal requirement that the taxpayer actually receive said notice within the five-year period.18 It must be noted, however, that the foregoing rule requires that the notice be sent to the taxpayer, and not merely to a disinterested party. Although there is no specific requirement that the taxpayer should receive the notice within the said period, due process requires at the very least that such notice actually be received. In Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Pascor Realty and Development Corporation,19 we had occasion to say:

An assessment contains not only a computation of tax liabilities, but also a demand for payment within a prescribed period. It also signals the time when penalties and interests begin to accrue against the taxpayer. To enable the taxpayer to determine his remedies thereon, due process requires that it must be served on and received by the taxpayer.

In Republic v. De le Rama,20 we clarified that, when an estate is under administration, notice must be sent to the administrator of the estate, since it is the said administrator, as representative of the estate, who has the legal obligation to pay and discharge all debts of the estate and to perform all orders of the court. In that case, legal notice of the assessment was sent to two heirs, neither one of whom had any authority to represent the estate. We said:

The notice was not sent to the taxpayer for the purpose of giving effect to the assessment, and said notice could not produce any effect. In the case of Bautista and Corrales Tan v. Collector of Internal Revenue this Court had occasion to state that "the assessment is deemed made when the notice to this effect is released, mailed or sent to the taxpayer for the purpose of giving effect to said assessment." It appearing that the person liable for the payment of the tax did not receive the assessment, the assessment could not become final and executory. (Citations omitted, emphasis supplied.)

In this case, the assessment was served not even on an heir of the Estate, but on a completely disinterested third party. This improper service was clearly not binding on the petitioner.

By arguing that (1) the demand letter and assessment notice were served on Philtrust, (2) Philtrust was remiss in its obligation to respond to the demand letter and assessment notice, (3) Philtrust was remiss in its obligation to inform respondent of the decedents death, and (4) the assessment notice is therefore binding on the Estate, respondent is arguing in circles. The most crucial point to be remembered is that Philtrust had absolutely no legal relationship to the deceased, or to her Estate. There was therefore no assessment served on the Estate as to the alleged underpayment of tax. Absent this assessment, no proceedings could be initiated in court for the collection of said tax,21 and respondents claim for collection, filed with the probate court only on November 22, 1984, was barred for having been made beyond the five-year prescriptive period set by law.

WHEREFORE, the petition is GRANTED. The Decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No. 09107, dated September 30, 2002, is REVERSED and SET ASIDE. The Order of the Regional Trial Court of Manila, Branch XXXVIII, in Sp. Proc. No. R-82-6994, dated November 19, 1985, which denied the claim of the Bureau of Internal Revenue against the Estate of Juliana Diez Vda. De Gabriel for the deficiency income tax of the decedent for the year 1977 in the amount of P318,223.93, is AFFIRMED.

No pronouncement as to costs.

SO ORDERED.G.R. No. 174942 March 7, 2008BANK OF THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS (Formerly: Far East Bank and Trust Company), petitioner, vs.COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, respondent.

D E C I S I O N

TINGA, J.:The Bank of the Philippine Islands (BPI) seeks a review of the Decision1dated 15 August 2006 and the Resolution2dated 5 October 2006, both of the Court of Tax Appeals (CTA or tax court), which ruled that BPI is liable for the deficiency documentary stamp tax (DST) on its cabled instructions to its foreign correspondent bank and that prescription had not yet set in against the government.

The following undisputed facts are culled from the CTA decision:

Petitioner, the surviving bank after its merger with Far East Bank and Trust Company, is a corporation duly created and existing under the laws of the Republic of the Philippines with principal office at Ayala Avenue corner Paseo de Roxas Ave., Makati City.

Respondent thru then Revenue Service Chief Cesar M. Valdez, issued to the petitioner a pre-assessment notice (PAN) dated November 26, 1986.

Petitioner, in a letter dated November 29, 1986, requested for the details of the amounts alleged as 1982-1986 deficiency taxes mentioned in the November 26, 1986 PAN.

On April 7, 1989, respondent issued to the petitioner, assessment/demand notices FAS-1-82 to 86/89-000 and FAS 5-82 to 86/89-000 for deficiency withholding tax at source (Swap Transactions) and DST involving the amounts of P190,752,860.82 and P24,587,174.63, respectively, for the years 1982 to 1986.

On April 20, 1989, petitioner filed a protest on the demand/assessment notices. On May 8, 1989, petitioner filed a supplemental protest.

On March 12, 1993, petitioner requested for an opportunity to present or submit additional documentation on the Swap Transactions with the then Central Bank (page 240, BIR Records). Attached to the letter dated June 17, 1994, in connection with the reinvestigation of the abovementioned assessment, petitioner submitted to the BIR, Swap Contracts with the Central Bank.

Petitioner executed several Waivers of the Statutes of Limitations, the last of which was effective until December 31, 1994.

On August 9, 2002, respondent issued a final decision on petitioners protest ordering the withdrawal and cancellation of the deficiency withholding tax assessment in the amount of P190,752,860.82 and considered the same as closed and terminated. On the other hand, the deficiency DST assessment in the amount of P24,587,174.63 was reiterated and the petitioner was ordered to pay the said amount within thirty (30) days from receipt of such order. Petitioner received a copy of the said decision on January 15, 2003. Thereafter, on January 24, 2003, petitioner filed a Petition for Review before the Court.

On August 31, 2004, the Court rendered a Decision denying the petitioners Petition for Review, the dispositive portion of which is quoted hereunder:

IN VIEW OF ALL THE FOREGOING, the petition is hereby DENIED for lack of merit. Accordingly, petitioner is ORDERED to PAY the respondent the amount of P24,587,174.63 representing deficiency documentary stamp tax for the period 1982-1986, plus 20% interest starting February 14, 2003 until the amount is fully paid pursuant to Section 249 of the Tax Code.

SO ORDERED.

On September 21, 2004, petitioner filed a Motion for Reconsideration of the abovementioned Decision which was denied for lack of merit in a Resolution dated February 14, 2005.

On March 9, 2005, petitioner filed with the Court En Banc a Motion for Extension of Time to File Petition for Review praying for an extension of fifteen (15) days from March 10, 2005 or until March 25, 2005. Petitioners motion was granted in a Resolution dated March 16, 2005.

On March 28, 2005, (March 25 was Good Friday), petitioner filed the instant Petition for Review, advancing the following assignment of errors.

I. THIS HONORABLE COURT OVERLOOKED THE SIGNIFICANCE OF THE WAIVER DULY AND VALIDLY AGREED UPON BY THE PARTIES AND EFFECTIVE UNTIL DECEMBER 31, 1994;

II. THIS TAX COURT ERRED IN HOLDING THAT THE COLLECTION OF ALLEGED DEFICIENCY TAX HAS NOT PRESCRIBED.

III. THIS HONORABLE COURT ERRED IN HOLDING THAT RESPONDENT DID NOT VIOLATE PROCEDURAL DUE PROCESS IN THE ISSUANCE OF ASSESSMENT NOTICE RELATIVE TO DOCUMENTARY STAMP DEFICIENCY.

IV. THIS HONORABLE COURT ERRED IN HOLDING THAT THE 4 MARCH 1987 MEMORANDUM OF THE LEGAL SERVICE CHIEF DULY APPROVED BY THE BIR COMMISISONER VESTS NO RIGHTS TO PETITIONER.

V. THIS HONORABLE COURT ERRED IN HOLDING THAT PETITIONER IS LIABLE FOR DOCUMENTARY STAMP TAX ON SWAP LOANS TRANSACTIONS FROM 1982 TO 1986.3The CTA synthesized the foregoing issues into whether the collection of the deficiency DST is barred by prescription and whether BPI is liable for DST on its SWAP loan transactions.

On the first issue, the tax court, applying the case of Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Wyeth Suaco Laboratories, Inc.,4(Wyeth Suaco case), ruled that BPIs protest and supplemental protest should be considered requests for reinvestigation which tolled the prescriptive period provided by law to collect a tax deficiency by distraint, levy, or court proceeding. It further held, as regards the second issue, that BPIs cabled instructions to its foreign correspondent bank to remit a specific sum in dollars to the Federal Reserve Bank, the same to be credited to the account of the Central Bank, are in the nature of a telegraphic transfer subject to DST under Section 195 of the Tax Code.

In its Petition for Review5 dated 24 November 2006, BPI argues that the governments right to collect the DST had already prescribed because the Commissioner of Internal Revenue (CIR) failed to issue any reply granting BPIs request for reinvestigation manifested in the protest letters dated 20 April and 8 May 1989. It was only through the 9 August 2002 Decision ordering BPI to pay deficiency DST, or after the lapse of more than thirteen (13) years, that the CIR acted on the request for reinvestigation, warranting the conclusion that prescription had already set in. It further claims that the CIR was not precluded from collecting the deficiency within three (3) years from the time the notice of assessment was issued on 7 April 1989, or even until the expiration on 31 December 1994 of the last waiver of the statute of limitations signed by BPI.

Moreover, BPI avers that the cabled instructions to its correspondent bank are not subject to DST because the National Internal Revenue Code of 1977 (Tax Code of 1977) does not contain a specific provision that cabled instructions on SWAP transactions are subject to DST.

The Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) filed a Comment6 dated 1 June 2007, on behalf of the CIR, asserting that the prescriptive period was tolled by the protest letters filed by BPI which were granted and acted upon by the CIR. Such action was allegedly communicated to BPI as, in fact, the latter submitted additional documents pertaining to its SWAP transactions in support of its request for reinvestigation. Thus, it was only upon BPIs receipt on 13 January 2003 of the 9 August 2002 Decision that the period to collect commenced to run again.

The OSG cites the case of Collector of Internal Revenue v. Suyoc Consolidated Mining Company, et al.7(Suyoc case) in support of its argument that BPI is already estopped from raising the defense of prescription in view of its repeated requests for reinvestigation which allegedly induced the CIR to delay the collection of the assessed tax.

In its Reply8dated 30 August 2007, BPI argues against the application of the Suyoc case on two points: first, it never induced the CIR to postpone tax collection; second, its request for reinvestigation was not categorically acted upon by the CIR within the three-year collection period after assessment. BPI maintains that it did not receive any communication from the CIR in reply to its protest letters.

We grant the petition.

Section 3189 of the Tax Code of 1977 provides:

Sec. 318. Period of limitation upon assessment and collection.Except as provided in the succeeding section, internal revenue taxes shall be assessed within five years after the return was filed, and no proceeding in court without assessment for the collection of such taxes shall be begun after the expiration of such period. For the purposes of this section, a return filed before the last day prescribed by law for the filing thereof shall be considered as filed on such last day: Provided, That this limitation shall not apply to cases already investigated prior to the approval of this Code.

The statute of limitations on assessment and collection of national internal revenue taxes was shortened from five (5) years to three (3) years by Batas Pambansa Blg. 700.10 Thus, the CIR has three (3) years from the date of actual filing of the tax return to assess a national internal revenue tax or to commence court proceedings for the collection thereof without an assessment.

When it validly issues an assessment within the three (3)-year period, it has another three (3) years within which to collect the tax due by distraint, levy, or court proceeding. The assessment of the tax is deemed made and the three (3)-year period for collection of the assessed tax begins to run on the date the assessment notice had been released, mailed or sent to the taxpayer.11As applied to the present case, the CIR had three (3) years from the time he issued assessment notices to BPI on 7 April 1989 or until 6 April 1992 within which to collect the deficiency DST. However, it was only on 9 August 2002 that the CIR ordered BPI to pay the deficiency.

In order to determine whether the prescriptive period for collecting the tax deficiency was effectively tolled by BPIs filing of the protest letters dated 20 April and 8 May 1989 as claimed by the CIR, we need to examine Section 32012 of the Tax Code of 1977, which states:

Sec. 320. Suspension of running of statute.The running of the statute of limitations provided in Sections 318 or 319 on the making of assessment and the beginning of distraint or levy or a proceeding in court for collection, in respect of any deficiency, shall be suspended for the period during which the Commissioner is prohibited from making the assessment or beginning distraint or levy or a proceeding in court and for sixty days thereafter; when the taxpayer requests for a re-investigation which is granted by the Commissioner; when the taxpayer cannot be located in the address given by him in the return filed upon which a tax is being assessed or collected: Provided, That if the taxpayer informs the Commissioner of any change in address, the running of the statute of limitations will not be suspended; when the warrant of distraint and levy is duly served upon the taxpayer, his authorized representative, or a member of his household with sufficient discretion, and no property could be located; and when the taxpayer is out of the Philippines. (Emphasis supplied)

The above section is plainly worded. In order to suspend the running of the prescriptive periods for assessment and collection, the request for reinvestigation must be granted by the CIR.

In BPI v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue,13the Court emphasized the rule that the CIR must first grant the request for reinvestigation as a requirement for the suspension of the statute of limitations. The Court said:

In the case of Republic of the Philippines v. Gancayco, taxpayer Gancayco requested for a thorough reinvestigation of the assessment against him and placed at the disposal of the Collector of Internal Revenue all the evidences he had for such purpose; yet, the Collector ignored the request, and the records and documents were not at all examined. Considering the given facts, this Court pronounced that

x x x The act of requesting a reinvestigation alone does not suspend the period. The request should first be granted, in order to effect suspension. (Collector v. Suyoc Consolidated, supra; also Republic v. Ablaza, supra). Moreover, the Collector gave appellee until April 1, 1949, within which to submit his evidence, which the latter did one day before. There were no impediments on the part of the Collector to file the collection case from April 1, 1949

In Republic of the Philippines v. Acebedo, this Court similarly found that

x x x T]he defendant, after receiving the assessment notice of September 24, 1949, asked for a reinvestigation thereof on October 11, 1949 (Exh. "A"). There is no evidence that this request was considered or acted upon. In fact, on October 23, 1950 the then Collector of Internal Revenue issued a warrant of distraint and levy for the full amount of the assessment (Exh. "D"), but there was follow-up of this warrant. Consequently, the request for reinvestigation did not suspend the running of the period for filing an action for collection. [Emphasis in the original]14The Court went on to declare that the burden of proof that the request for reinvestigation had been actually granted shall be on the CIR. Such grant may be expressed in its communications with the taxpayer or implied from the action of the CIR or his authorized representative in response to the request for reinvestigation.

There is nothing in the records of this case which indicates, expressly or impliedly, that the CIR had granted the request for reinvestigation filed by BPI. What is reflected in the records is the piercing silence and inaction of the CIR on the request for reinvestigation, as he considered BPIs letters of protest to be.

In fact, it was only in his comment to the present petition that the CIR, through the OSG, argued for the first time that he had granted the request for reinvestigation. His consistent stance invoking the Wyeth Suaco case, as reflected in the records, is that the prescriptive period was tolled by BPIs request for reinvestigation, without any assertion that the same had been granted or at least acted upon.15In the Wyeth Suaco case, private respondent Wyeth Suaco Laboratories, Inc. sent letters seeking the reinvestigation or reconsideration of the deficiency tax assessments issued by the BIR. The records of the case showed that as a result of these protest letters, the BIR Manufacturing Audit Division conducted a review and reinvestigation of the assessments. The records further showed that the company, thru its finance manager, communicated its inability to settle the tax deficiency assessment and admitted that it knew of the ongoing review and consideration of its protest.

As differentiated from the Wyeth Suaco case, however, there is no evidence in this case that the CIR actually conducted a reinvestigation upon the request of BPI or that the latter was made aware of the action taken on its request. Hence, there is no basis for the tax courts ruling that the filing of the request for reinvestigation tolled the running of the prescriptive period for collecting the tax deficiency.

Neither did the waiver of the statute of limitations signed by BPI supposedly effective until 31 December 1994 suspend the prescriptive period. The CIR himself contends that the waiver is void as it shows no date of acceptance in violation of RMO No. 20-90.16 At any rate, the records of this case do not disclose any effort on the part of the Bureau of Internal Revenue to collect the deficiency tax after the expiration of the waiver until eight (8) years thereafter when it finally issued a decision on the protest.

We also find the Suyoc case inapplicable. In that case, several requests for reinvestigation and reconsideration were filed by Suyoc Consolidated Mining Company purporting to question the correctness of tax assessments against it. As a result, the Collector of Internal Revenue refrained from collecting the tax by distraint, levy or court proceeding in order to give the company every opportunity to prove its claim. The Collector also conducted several reinvestigations which eventually led to a reduced assessment. The company, however, filed a petition with the CTA claiming that the right of the government to collect the tax had already prescribed.

When the case reached this Court, we ruled that Suyoc could not set up the defense of prescription since, by its own action, the government was induced to delay the collection of taxes to make the company feel that the demand was not unreasonable or that no harassment or injustice was meant by the government.

In this case, BPIs letters of protest and submission of additional documents pertaining to its SWAP transactions, which were never even acted upon, much less granted, cannot be said to have persuaded the CIR to postpone the collection of the deficiency DST.

The inordinate delay of the CIR in acting upon and resolving the request for reinvestigation filed by BPI and in collecting the DST allegedly due from the latter had resulted in the prescription of the governments right to collect the deficiency. As this Court declared in Republic of the Philippines v. Ablaza:17The law prescribing a limitation of actions for the collection of the income tax is beneficial both to the Government and to its citizens; to the Government because tax officers would be obliged to act promptly in the making of assessment, and to citizens because after the lapse of the period of prescription citizens would have a feeling of security against unscrupulous tax agents who will always find an excuse to inspect the books of taxpayers, not to determine the latters real liability, but to take advantage of every opportunity to molest peaceful, law-abiding citizens. Without such a legal defense taxpayers would furthermore be under obligation to always keep their books and keep them open for inspection subject to harassment by unscrupulous tax agents. The law on prescription being a remedial measure should be interpreted in a way conducive to bringing about the beneficent purpose of affording protection to the taxpayer within the contemplation of the Commission which recommend the approval of the law.18Given the prescription of the governments claim, we no longer deem it necessary to pass upon the validity of the assessment.

WHEREFORE, the petition is GRANTED. The Decisionof the Court of Tax Appeals dated 15 August 2006 and its Resolution dated 5 October 2006, are hereby REVERSED and SET ASIDE. No pronouncement as to costs.

SO ORDERED.

G.R. No. L-11527 November 25, 1958THE COLLECTOR OF INTERNAL REVENUE, petitioner, vs.SUYOC CONSOLIDATED MINING COMPANY, ET AL., respondents.

Office of the Solicitor General Ambrosio Padilla and Solicitor Sumilang V. Bernardo for petitioner.Ohnick, Velilla and Balongkita for respondents.BAUTISTA ANGELO, J.:Suyoc Consolidated Mining Company, a mining corporation operating before the war, was unable to file in 1942 its income tax return for the year 1941 due to the last war. After liberation, Congress enacted Commonwealth Act No. 722 which extended the filing of tax returns for 1941 up to December 31, 1945. Its records having been lost or destroyed, the company requested the Collector of Internal Revenue to grant it an extension of time to file its return, which was granted until February 15, 1946, and the company was authorized to file its return for 1941 on the basis of the best evidence obtainable.

The company filed three income tax returns for the calendar year ending December 31, 1941. On February 12, 1946, it filed a tentative return as it had not yet completely reconstructed its records. On November 28, 1946, it filed a second final return on the basis of the records it has been able to reconstruct at that time. On February 6, 1947, it filed its third amended final return on the basis of the available records which to that date it had been able to reconstruct.

On the basis of the second final return filed by the company on November 28, 1946, the Collector assessed against it the sum of P28,289.96 as income tax for 1941, plus P1,414.50 as 5 per cent surcharge and P3,894.80 as 1 per cent monthly interest from March 1, 1946 to February 28, 1947, or a total of P33,099.26. The assessment was made on February 11, 1947. On February 21, 1947, the company asked for an extension of at least one year from February 28, 1947 within which to pay the amount assessed, reserving its right to question the correctness of the assessment. The Collector granted an extension of only three months from March 20, 1947.

The company failed to pay the tax within the period granted to it and so the Collector sent to it a letter on November 28, 1950 demanding payment of the tax due as assessed, plus surcharge and interest up to December 31, 1950. On April 6, 1951, the company asked for a reconsideration and reinvestigation of the assessment, which was granted, the case being assigned to another examiner, but the Collector made another assessment against the company in the sum of P33,829.66. This new assessment was made on March 7, 1952. On April 18, 1952, the Collector revised this last assessment and required the company to pay the sum of P28,289.96 as income tax, P1,414.50 as surcharge, P20,934.57 as interest up to April 30, 1952 and P40 as compromise.

After several other negotiations conducted at the request of respondent, including an appeal to the Conference Staff created to act on such matters in the Bureau of Internal Revenue, the assessment was finally reduced by the Collector to P24,438.96, without surcharge and interest, and of this new assessment the company was notified on July 28, 1955. Within the reglementary period, the company filed with the Court of Tax Appeals a petition for review of this assessment made on July 26, 1955 on the main ground that the right of the Government to collect the tax has already prescribed. After the case was heard, the court rendered its decision upholding this defense and, accordingly, it set aside the ruling of the Collector of Internal Revenue. The Collector interposed the present petition for review.

Under the law, an internal revenue tax shall be assessed within five years after the return is filed by the taxpayer and no proceeding in court for its collection shall be begun after the expiration of such period (Section 331, National Internal Revenue Code). The law also provides that where an assessment of internal revenue tax is made within the above period, such tax may be collected by distraint or levy or by a proceeding in court but only if the same is begun (1) within five years after assessment or (2) within the period that may be agreed upon in writing between the Collector and the taxpayer before the expiration of the 5-year period [Section 332 (c), Idem.].

It appears that the first assessment made against respondent based on its second final return filed on November 28, 1946 was made on February 11, 1947. Upon receipt of this assessment respondent requested for at least one year within which to pay the amount assessed although it reserved its right to question the correctness of the assessment before actual payment. Petitioner granted an extension of only three months. When it failed to pay the tax within the period extended, petitioner sent respondent a letter on November 28, 1950 demanding payment of the tax as assessed, and upon receipt of the letter respondent asked for a reinvestigation and reconsideration of the assessment. When this request was denied, respondent again requested for a reconsideration on April 25, 1952, which was denied on May 6, 1953, which denial was appealed to the Conference Staff. The appeal was heard by the Conference Staff from September 2, 1953 to July 16, 1955, and as a result of these various negotiations, the assessment was finally reduced on July 26, 1955. This is the ruling which is now being questioned after a protracted negotiation on the ground that the collection of the tax has already prescribed.

It is obvious from the foregoing that petitioner refrained from collecting the tax by distraint or levy or by proceeding in court within the 5-year period from the filing of the second amended final return due to the several requests of respondent for extension to which petitioner yielded to give it every opportunity to prove its claim regarding the correctness of the assessment. Because of such requests, several reinvestigations were made and a hearing was even held by the Conference Staff organized in the collection office to consider claims of such nature which, as the record shows, lasted for several months. After inducing petitioner to delay collection as he in fact did, it is most unfair for respondent to now take advantage of such desistance to elude his deficiency income, tax liability to the prejudice of the Government invoking the technical ground of prescription.

While we may agree with the Court of Tax Appeals that a mere request for reexamination or reinvestigation may not have the effect of suspending the running of the period of limitation for in such case there is need of a written agreement to extend the period between the Collector and the taxpayer, there are cases however where a taxpayer may be prevented from setting up the defense of prescription even if he has not previously waived it in writing as when by his repeated requests or positive acts the Government has been, for good reasons, persuaded to postpone collection to make him feel that the demand was not unreasonable or that no harassment or injustice is meant by the Government. And when such situation comes to pass there are authorities that hold, based on weighty reasons, that such an attitude or behavior should not be countenanced if only to protect the interest of the Government.

This case has no precedent in this jurisdiction for it is the first time that such has risen, but there are several precedents that may be invoked in American jurisprudence. As Mr. Justice Cardozo has said: "The applicable principle is fundamental and unquestioned. 'He who prevents a thing from being done may not avail himself of the nonperformance which he has himself occasioned, for the law says to him in effect "this is your own act, and therefore you are not damnified." ' "(R. H. Stearns Co. vs. U.S., 78 L. ed., 647). Or, as was aptly said, "The tax could have been collected, but the government withheld action at the specific request of the plaintiff. The plaintiff is now estopped and should not be permitted to raise the defense of the Statute of Limitations." [Newport Co. vs. U.S., (DC-WIS), 34 F. Supp. 588].

The following authorities cited in the brief of the Solicitor General are in point:

The petitioner makes the point that by the Revenue Act of May 29, 1928 (chap. 852, 45 Stat. at L. 791, 875, sec. 609, U.S.C. title 26, sec. 2609), a credit against a liability in respect of any taxable year shall be "void" if it has been made against a liability barred by limitation. The aim of that provision, as we view it, was to invalidate such a credit if made by the Commissioner of his own motion without the taxpayer's approval or with approval failing short of inducement or request. Cf. Stange vs. United States, 282 U. S. 270, 75 L. ed. 335, 51 S. Ct. 145, supra; Revenue Act of 1928, sec. 506 (b) (c), chap. 852, 45 Stat. at L. 791, 870, 871, U.S.C. title 26, see. 1062a. If nothing more than this appeared, there was to be no exercise in invitum of governmental power. But the aim of the statute suggests a restraint upon its meaning. To know whether liability has been barred by limitation it will not do to refer to the flight of time alone. The limitation may have been postponed by force of a simple waiver, which must then be made in adherence to the statutory forms, or so we now assume. It may have been postponed by deliberate persuasion to withhold official action. We think it an unreasonable construction that would view the prohibition of the statute as over-riding the doctrine of estoppel (Randon vs. Tobey, 11 How. 493, 519, 13 L. ed. 784, 795) and invalidating a credit made at the taxpayer's request. Here at the time of the request, the liability was still alive, unaffected as yet by any statutory bar. The request in its fair meaning reached forward into the future and prayed for the postponement of collection till the audits for later years had been completed in the usual course. This having been done, the suspended collection might be effected by credit or by distraint or by other methods prescribed by law. Congress surely did not mean that a credit was to be void if made by the Government in response to such prayer.

The applicable principle is fundamental and unquestioned. "He who prevents a thing from being done may not avail himself of the nonperformance which he has himself occasioned, for the law says to him in effect "this is your own act, and therefore you are not damnified," ' " Dolan vs. Rogers, 149 N. Y. 489, 491, 44 N.E. 167, and Imperator Realty Co. vs. Tull, 228 N. Y. 447, 457, 127 N.E. 263, quoting West vs. Blakeway, 2 Mann. & G. 729, 751, 133 Eng. Reprint, 940, 949. Sometimes the resulting disability has been characterized as an estoppel, sometimes as a waiver. The label counts for little. Enough for present purposes that the disability has its roots in a principle more nearly ultimate than either waiver or estoppel, the principle that no one shall be permitted to found any claim upon his own inequity or take advantage of his own wrong. Imperator Realty Co. vs. Tull, 228 N.Y. 447, 127 N.E. 263, supra. A suit may not be built on an omission induced by him who sues. Swain vs. Seamens, 9 Wall. 254, 274, 19 L. ed. 554, 560; United States vs. Peck, 102 U.S. 64, 26 L. ed. 46; Thomson vs. Poor, 147 N.Y. 402, 42 N.E. 13; New Zealand Shipping Co. vs. Societe des Ateliers (1919) A. C. 1, 6-H. L.; 2 Williston, Contr. sec. 689. (R. H. Stearns Co. vs. U.S., supra; Emphasis supplied.)

. . . It is admitted that these assessments were timely made in August 1923. Upon the making of the assessment the Commissioner sought to make collection, which likewise was at a time when the statute had not ran on collection, but the authorized representative of the Lattimores strenuously objected to the collection and urged the Commissioner to withhold collection, pending adjustment of the controversy between them and the Commissioner. The Commissioner yielded to their request and postponed collection until August 19, 1926, which was after the statute had run on collection. In the meantime, further claims for refund and protests were filed, conferences were held and consideration was given to the settlement of the controversy, and the matter was not finally disposed of until 1926, when the statute had run on collection. The procedure carried out was that requested by plaintiffs, and they cannot now be heard to say that the collection was not timely. R. H. Stearns Company vs. United States, 291 U.S. 54, 54 S. Ct. 325, 78 L. Ed. 647. (Lattimore vs. U.S., 12 F. Supp. 895, 91.)

Wherefore, the decision appealed from is reversed.

The decision of the Collector of Internal Revenue rendered on July 26, 1955 is hereby affirmed. No costs.

Paras, C. J., Bengzon, Labrador, Concepcion, Reyes, J. B. L. and Endencia, JJ., concur.

G. R. No. 157064 August 7, 2006BARCELON, ROXAS SECURITIES, INC. (now known as UBP Securities, Inc.) Petitioner,vs.COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent.

D E C I S I O N

CHICO-NAZARIO, J.:This is a Petition for Review on Certiorari, under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, seeking to set aside the Decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 60209 dated 11 July 2002, 1 ordering the petitioner to pay the Government the amount of P826,698.31 as deficiency income tax for the year 1987 plus 25% surcharge and 20% interest per annum. The Court of Appeals, in its assailed Decision, reversed the Decision of the Court of Tax Appeals (CTA) dated 17 May 2000 2 in C.T.A. Case No. 5662.

Petitioner Barcelon, Roxas Securities Inc. (now known as UBP Securities, Inc.) is a corporation engaged in the trading of securities. On 14 April 1988, petitioner filed its Annual Income Tax Return for taxable year 1987. After an audit investigation conducted by the Bureau of Internal Revenue (BIR), respondent Commissioner of Internal Revenue (CIR) issued an assessment for deficiency income tax in the amount of P826,698.31 arising from the disallowance of the item on salaries, bonuses and allowances in the amount of P1,219,093,93 as part of the deductible business expense since petitioner failed to subject the salaries, bonuses and allowances to withholding taxes. This assessment was covered by Formal Assessment Notice No. FAN-1-87-91-000649 dated 1 February 1991, which, respondent alleges, was sent to petitioner through registered mail on 6 February 1991. However, petitioner denies receiving the formal assessment notice. 3

On 17 March 1992, petitioner was served with a Warrant of Distraint and/or Levy to enforce collection of the deficiency income tax for the year 1987. Petitioner filed a formal protest, dated 25 March 1992, against the Warrant of Distraint and/or Levy, requesting for its cancellation. On 3 July 1998, petitioner received a letter dated 30 April 1998 from the respondent denying the protest with finality. 4On 31 July 1998, petitioner filed a petition for review with the CTA. After due notice and hearing, the CTA rendered a decision in favor of petitioner on 17 May 2000. The CTA ruled on the primary issue of prescription and found it unnecessary to decide the issues on the validity and propriety of the assessment. It maintained that while a mailed letter is deemed received by the addressee in the course of mail, this is merely a disputable presumption. It reasoned that the direct denial of the petitioner shifts the burden of proof to the respondent that the mailed letter was actually received by the petitioner. The CTA found the BIR records submitted by the respondent immaterial, self-serving, and therefore insufficient to prove that the assessment notice was mailed and duly received by the petitioner. 5 The dispositive portion of this decision reads:

WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, the 1988 deficiency tax assessment against petitioner is hereby CANCELLED. Respondent is hereby ORDERED TO DESIST from collecting said deficiency tax. No pronouncement as to costs. 6On 6 June 2000, respondent moved for reconsideration of the aforesaid decision but was denied by the CTA in a Resolution dated 25 July 2000. Thereafter, respondent appealed to the Court of Appeals on 31 August 2001. In reversing the CTA decision, the Court of Appeals found the evidence presented by the respondent to be sufficient proof that the tax assessment notice was mailed to the petitioner, therefore the legal presumption that it was received should apply. 7 Thus, the Court of Appeals ruled that:

WHEREFORE, the petition is hereby GRANTED. The decision dated May 17, 2000 as well as the Resolution dated July 25, 2000 are hereby REVERSED and SET ASIDE, and a new on entered ordering the respondent to pay the amount of P826,698.31 as deficiency income tax for the year 1987 plus 25% surcharge and 20% interest per annum from February 6, 1991 until fully paid pursuant to Sections 248 and 249 of the Tax Code. 8Petitioner moved for reconsideration of the said decision but the same was denied by the Court of Appeals in its assailed Resolution dated 30 January 2003. 9

Hence, this Petition for Review on Certiorari raising the following issues:

I

WHETHER OR NOT LEGAL BASES EXIST FOR THE COURT OF APPEALS FINDING THAT THE COURT OF TAX APPEALS COMMITTED "GROSS ERROR IN THE APPRECIATION OF FACTS."

II

WHETHER OR NOT THE COURT OF APPEALS WAS CORRECT IN REVERSING THE SUBJECT DECISION OF THE COURT OF TAX APPEALS.

III

WHETHER OR NOT THE RIGHT OF THE BUREAU OF INTERNAL REVENUE TO ASSESS PETITIONER FOR ALLEGED DEFICIENCY INCOME TAX FOR 1987 HAS PRESCRIBED.

IV

WHETHER OR NOT THE RIGHT OF THE BUREAU OF INTERNAL REVENUE TO COLLECT THE SUBJECT ALLEGED DEFICIENCY INCOME TAX FOR 1987 HAS PRESCRIBED.

V

WHETHER OR NOT PETITIONER IS LIABLE FOR THE ALLEGED DEFICIENCY INCOME TAX ASSESSMENT FOR 1987.

VI

WHETHER OR NOT THE SUBJECT ASSESSMENT IS VIOLATIVE OF THE RIGHT OF PETITIONER TO DUE PROCESS. 10This Court finds the instant Petition meritorious.

The core issue in this case is whether or not respondents right to assess petitioners alleged deficiency income tax is barred by prescription, the resolution of which depends on reviewing the findings of fact of the Court of Appeals and the CTA.

While the general rule is that factual findings of the Court of Appeals are binding on this Court, there are, however, recognized exceptions 11 thereto, such as when the findings are contrary to those of the trial court or, in this case, the CTA. 12In its Decision, the CTA resolved the issues raised by the parties thus:

Jurisprudence is replete with cases holding that if the taxpayer denies ever having received an assessment from the BIR, it is incumbent upon the latter to prove by competent evidence that such notice was indeed received by the addressee. The onus probandi was shifted to respondent to prove by contrary evidence that the Petitioner received the assessment in the due course of mail. The Supreme Court has consistently held that while a mailed letter is deemed received by the addressee in the course of mail, this is merely a disputable presumption subject to controversion and a direct denial thereof shifts the burden to the party favored by the presumption to prove that the mailed letter was indeed received by the addressee (Republic vs. Court of Appeals, 149 SCRA 351). Thus as held by the Supreme Court in Gonzalo P. Nava vs. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, 13 SCRA 104, January 30, 1965:

"The facts to be proved to raise this presumption are (a) that the letter was properly addressed with postage prepaid, and (b) that it was mailed. Once these facts are proved, the presumption is that the letter was received by the addressee as soon as it could have been transmitted to him in the ordinary course of the mail. But if one of the said facts fails to appear, the presumption does not lie. (VI, Moran, Comments on the Rules of Court, 1963 ed, 56-57 citing Enriquez vs. Sunlife Assurance of Canada, 41 Phil 269)."

In the instant case, Respondent utterly failed to discharge this duty. No substantial evidence was ever presented to prove that the assessment notice No. FAN-1-87-91-000649 or other supposed notices subsequent thereto were in fact issued or sent to the taxpayer. As a matter of fact, it only submitted the BIR record book which allegedly contains the list of taxpayers names, the reference number, the year, the nature of tax, the city/municipality and the amount (see Exh. 5-a for the Respondent). Purportedly, Respondent intended to show to this Court that all assessments made are entered into a record book in chronological order outlining the details of the assessment and the taxpayer liable thereon. However, as can be gleaned from the face of the exhibit, all entries thereon appears to be immaterial and impertinent in proving that the assessment notice was mailed and duly received by Petitioner. Nothing indicates therein all essential facts that could sustain the burden of proof being shifted to the Respondent. What is essential to prove the fact of mailing is the registry receipt issued by the Bureau of Posts or the Registry return card which would have been signed by the Petitioner or its authorized representative. And if said documents cannot be located, Respondent at the very least, should have submitted to the Court a certification issued by the Bureau of Posts and any other pertinent document which is executed with the intervention of the Bureau of Posts. This Court does not put much credence to the self serving documentations made by the BIR personnel especially if they are unsupported by substantial evidence establishing the fact of mailing. Thus:

"While we have held that an assessment is made when sent within the prescribed period, even if received by the taxpayer after its expiration (Coll. of Int. Rev. vs. Bautista, L-12250 and L-12259, May 27, 1959), this ruling makes it the more imperative that the release, mailing or sending of the notice be clearly and satisfactorily proved. Mere notations made without the taxpayers intervention, notice or control, without adequate supporting evidence cannot suffice; otherwise, the taxpayer would be at the mercy of the revenue offices, without adequate protection or defense." (Nava vs. CIR, 13 SCRA 104, January 30, 1965).

x x x x

The failure of the respondent to prove receipt of the assessment by the Petitioner leads to the conclusion that no assessment was issued. Consequently, the governments right to issue an assessment for the said period has already prescribed. (Industrial Textile Manufacturing Co. of the Phils., Inc. vs. CIR CTA Case 4885, August 22, 1996). 13Jurisprudence has consistently shown that this Court accords the findings of fact by the CTA with the highest respect. In Sea-Land Service Inc. v. Court of Appeals 14 this Court recognizes that the Court of Tax Appeals, which by the very nature of its function is dedicated exclusively to the consideration of tax problems, has necessarily developed an expertise on the subject, and its conclusions will not be overturned unless there has been an abuse or improvident exercise of authority. Such findings can only be disturbed on appeal if they are not supported by substantial evidence or there is a showing of gross error or abuse on the part of the Tax Court. 15 In the absence of any clear and convincing proof to the contrary, this Court must presume that the CTA rendered a decision which is valid in every respect.

Under Section 203 16 of the National Internal Revenue Code (NIRC), respondent had three (3) years from the last day for the filing of the return to send an assessment notice to petitioner. In the case of Collector of Internal Revenue v. Bautista, 17 this Court held that an assessment is made within the prescriptive period if notice to this effect is released, mailed or sent by the CIR to the taxpayer within said period. Receipt thereof by the taxpayer within the prescriptive period is not necessary. At this point, it should be clarified that the rule does not dispense with the requirement that the taxpayer should actually receive, even beyond the prescriptive period, the assessment notice which was timely released, mailed and sent.

In the present case, records show that petitioner filed its Annual Income Tax Return for taxable year 1987 on 14 April 1988. 18 The last day for filing by petitioner of its return was on 15 April 1988, 19 thus, giving respondent until 15 April 1991 within which to send an assessment notice. While respondent avers that it sent the assessment notice dated 1 February 1991 on 6 February 1991, within the three (3)-year period prescribed by law, petitioner denies having received an assessment notice from respondent. Petitioner alleges that it came to know of the deficiency tax assessment only on 17 March 1992 when it was served with the Warrant of Distraint and Levy. 20

In Protectors Services, Inc. v. Court of Appeals, 21 this Court ruled that when a mail matter is sent by registered mail, there exists a presumption, set forth under Section 3(v), Rule 131 of the Rules of Court, 22 that it was received in the regular course of mail. The facts to be proved in ord