TodayisSaturday,July23,2016

RepublicofthePhilippines
SUPREMECOURT
THIRDDIVISION
G.R.No.151857.April28,2005
CALAMBASTEELCENTER,INC.(formerlyJSSTEELCORPORATION),Petitioners,
vs.
COMMISSIONEROFINTERNALREVENUE,Respondents.
DECISION
PANGANIBAN,J.:
Ataxrefundmaybeclaimedevenbeyond the taxable year following that in which the tax credit arises. Hence,
excessincometaxespaidin1995thathavenotbeenappliedtoorusedin1996maystillbethesubjectofatax
refundin1997,providedthattheclaimforsuchrefundisfiledwiththeinternalrevenuecommissionerwithintwo
yearsafterpaymentofsaidtaxes.Asacaveat,theCourtstressesthattherecognitionoftheentitlementtoatax
refunddoesnotnecessarilymeantheautomaticpaymentofthesumclaimedinthefinaladjustmentreturnofthe
taxpayer.Theamountoftheclaimmuststillbeproveninthenormalcourse.
TheCase
BeforeusisaPetitionforReview1underRule45oftheRulesofCourt,assailingtheJanuary10,2002Decision2
oftheCourtofAppeals(CA)inCAGRSPNo.58838.TheassailedDecisiondisposedasfollows:
"INVIEWOFALLTHEFOREGOING,theinstantpetitionisDISMISSEDandtheassailedDecisionand
ResolutionareAFFIRMED.CostsagainstPetitioner."3
TheFacts
QuotingtheCourtofTaxAppeals(CTA),theCAnarratedtheantecedentsasfollows:
"Petitioner is a domestic corporation engaged in the manufacture of steel blanks for use by manufacturers of
automotive,electrical,electronicsinindustrialandhouseholdappliances.
"Petitioner filed an Amended Corporate Annual Income Tax Return on June 4, 1996 declaring a net taxable
incomeofP9,461,597.00,taxcreditsofP6,471,246.00andtaxdueintheamountofP3,311,559.00.
"Petitioner also reported quarterly payments for the second and third quarters of 1995 in the amounts of
P2,328,747.26andP1,082,108.00,respectively.
"Itisthepropositionofthe[p]etitionerthatfortheyear1995,severalofitsclientswithheldtaxesfromtheirincome
payments to [p]etitioner and remitted the same to the Bureau of Internal Revenue (BIR) in the sum of
P3,159,687.00. Petitioner further alleged that due to its income/loss positions for the three quarters of 1996, it
wasunabletousetheexcesstaxpaidforandinitsbehalfbythewithholdingagents.
"Thus, an administrative claim was filed by the [p]etitioner on April 10, 1997 for the refund of P3,159,687.00
representing excess or unused creditable withholding taxes for the year 1995. The instant petition was
subsequentlyfiledonApril18,1997.
"Respondent,inhisAnswer,averred,amongothers,that:
1)Petitionerhasnocauseofaction
2)PetitionerfailedtocomplywiththeproceduralrequirementssetoutinSection5ofRevenueRegulationsNo.
[(RR)]1294
3)Itisincumbentupon[p]etitionertoprovebycompetentandsufficientevidencethatthetaxrefundortaxcredit

being sought is allowed under the National Internal Revenue Code and its implementing rules and regulations
and
4)Claimsfortaxrefundortaxcreditareconstruedstrictlyagainstthetaxpayerastheypartakethenatureoftax
exemption.
"To buttress its claim, [p]etitioner presented documentary and testimonial evidence. Respondent, on the other
hand,presentedthe[r]evenue[o]fficerwhoconductedtheexaminationof[p]etitionersclaimandfoundpetitioner
liablefordeficiencyvalueaddedtax.Petitioneralsopresentedrebuttalevidence.
"The sole issue submitted for [o]ur determination is whether or not [p]etitioner is entitled to the refund of
P3,159,687.00representingexcessoroverpaidincometaxforthetaxableyear1995."4
RulingoftheCourtofAppeals
In denying petitioners refund, the CA reasoned out that no evidence other than that presented before the CTA
wasadducedtoprovethatexcesstaxpaymentshadbeenmadein1995.Fromtheinceptionofthecasetothe
formalofferofitsevidence,petitionerdidnotpresentits1996incometaxreturntodiscloseitstotalincometax
liability,thusmakingitdifficulttodeterminewhethersuchexcesstaxpaymentswereutilizedin1996.
Hence,thisPetition.5
TheIssue
Petitionerraisesthissoleissueforourconsideration:
"Whether the Court of Appeals gravely erred when, while purportedly requiring petitioner to submit its 1996
annualincometaxreturntosupportitsclaimforrefund,nonethelessignoredtheexistenceofthetaxreturnextant
ontherecordtheauthenticityofwhichhasnotbeendeniedoritsadmissibilityopposedbytheCommissionerof
InternalRevenue."6
TheCourtsRuling
ThePetitionispartlymeritorious.
SoleIssue:
EntitlementtoTaxRefund
Section69oftheNationalInternalRevenueCode(NIRC)7provides:
"Sec.69.Finaladjustmentreturn.EverycorporationliabletotaxunderSection24shallfileafinaladjustment
returncoveringthetotaltaxableincomefortheprecedingcalendarorfiscalyear.Ifthesumofthequarterlytax
paymentsmadeduringthesaidtaxableyearisnotequaltothetotaltaxdueontheentiretaxablenetincomeof
thatyearthecorporationshalleither:
(a)Paytheexcesstaxstilldueor
(b)Berefundedtheexcessamountpaid,asthecasemaybe.
"In case the corporation is entitled to a refund of the excess estimated quarterly income taxes paid, the
refundableamountshownonitsfinaladjustmentreturnmaybecreditedagainsttheestimatedquarterlyincome
taxliabilitiesforthetaxablequartersofthesucceedingtaxableyear."
TaxRefund
AllowedbyNIRC
A perusal of this provision shows that a taxable corporation is entitled to a tax refund when the sum of the
quarterly income taxes it paid during a taxable year exceeds its total income tax due also for that year.
Consequently,therefundableamountthatisshownonitsfinaladjustmentreturn may be credited, at its option,
againstitsquarterlyincometaxliabilitiesforthenexttaxableyear.
Petitioner is a corporation liable to pay income taxes under Section 24 of the NIRC. Hence, it is a taxable
corporation.In1995,itreportedthatithadexcessincometaxesthathadbeenpaidforandonitsbehalfbyits
withholdingagents and that, applying the abovequoted Section 69, this excess should be credited against its
incometaxliabilitiesfor1996.However,itclaimedin1997thatitshouldgetarefund,becauseitwasstillunable
to use the excess income taxes paid in 1995 against its tax liabilities in 1996. Is this possible? Stating the

argumentotherwise,mayexcessincometaxes paid in 1995 that could not be applied to taxes due in 1996 be
refundedin1997?
Theanswerisintheaffirmative.Herearethereasons:
ClaimofTaxRefundBeyondthe
SucceedingTaxableYear
First,ataxrefundmaybeclaimedevenbeyondthetaxableyearfollowingthatinwhichthetaxcreditarises.
Noprovisioninourtaxlawlimitstheentitlementtosucharefund,otherthantherequirementthatthefilingofthe
administrative claim for it be made by the taxpayer within a twoyear prescriptive period. Section 204(3) of the
NIRCstatesthatnorefundoftaxes"shallbeallowedunlessthetaxpayerfilesinwritingwiththeCommissioner
[the]claimforxxxrefundwithintwoyearsafterthepaymentofthetax."
Applyingtheaforequotedlegalprovisions,iftheexcessincometaxespaidinagiventaxableyearhavenotbeen
entirely used by a taxable corporation against its quarterly income tax liabilities for the next taxable year, the
unusedamountoftheexcessmaystillberefunded,providedthattheclaimforsucharefundismadewithintwo
years after payment of the tax. Petitioner filed its claim in 1997 well within the twoyear prescriptive period.
Thus,itsunusedtaxcreditsin1995maystillberefunded.
Even the phrase "succeeding taxableyear" in the second paragraph of the said Section 69 is a limitation that
applies only to a tax credit, not a tax refund. Petitioner herein does not claim a tax credit, but a tax refund.
Therefore,thestatutorylimitationdoesnotapply.
IncomePaymentsMerely
DeclaredPartofGrossIncome
Second,tobeabletoclaimataxrefund, a taxpayer only needs to declare the income payments it received as
partofitsgrossincomeandtoestablishthefactofwithholding.
Section5ofRR12948states:
xxxxxxxxx
"(a)ClaimsforTaxCreditorRefundofincometaxdeductedandwithheldonincomepaymentsshallbegivendue
courseonlywhenitisshownonthereturnthattheincomepaymentreceivedhasbeendeclaredaspartofthe
grossincomeandthefactofwithholdingisestablishedbyacopyoftheWithholdingTaxStatementdulyissuedby
thepayortothepayeeshowingtheamountpaidandtheamountoftaxwithheldtherefrom.
"(b)ExcessCredits.Ataxpayer'sexcessexpandedwithholdingtaxcreditsforthetaxablequarter/taxableyear
shall automatically be allowed as a credit for purposes of filing his income tax return for the taxable
quarter/taxableyearimmediatelysucceedingthetaxablequarter/taxableyearinwhichtheaforesaidexcesscredit
arose,provided,however,hesubmitswithhisincometaxreturnacopyofhisincometaxreturnfortheaforesaid
previoustaxableperiodshowingtheamountofhisaforementionedexcesswithholdingtaxcredits.
"Ifthetaxpayer,inlieuoftheaforesaidautomaticapplicationofhisexcesscredit,wantsacashrefundoratax
credit certificate for use in payment of his other national internal tax liabilities, he shall make a written request
therefor.Uponfilingofhisrequest,thetaxpayer'sincometaxreturnshowingtheexcessexpandedwithholdingtax
credits shall be examined. The excess expanded withholding tax, if any, shall be determined and
refunded/credited to the taxpayerapplicant. The refund/credit shall be made within a period of sixty (60) days
from date of the taxpayer's request provided, however, that the taxpayerapplicant submitted for audit all his
pertinent accounting records and that the aforesaid records established the veracity of his claim for a
refund/creditofhisexcessexpandedwithholdingtaxcredits."
That petitioner filed its amended 1995 income tax return in 1996 is uncontested. In addition, the resulting
investigationbytheBIRonAugust15,1997,revealsthattheincomeaccountswere"correctlydeclaredbasedon
the existing supporting documents."9 Therefore, there is no need for petitioner to show again the income
paymentsitreceivedin1995aspartofitsgrossincomein1996.
That petitioner filed its 1996 final adjustment return in 1997 is the crux of the controversy. However, as will be
demonstratedshortly,thelackofsuchareturnwillnotdefeatitsentitlementtoarefund.
TaxRefundProvisions:
QuestionofLaw

Third,itisacardinalrulethat"onlylegalissuesmayberaised"10inpetitionsforreviewunderRule45.11
Theproperinterpretationoftheprovisionsontaxrefundisaquestionoflawthat"doesnotcallforanexamination
oftheprobativevalueoftheevidencepresentedbythepartieslitigants."12Havingbeenunabletousetheexcess
incometaxespaidin1995againstitsothertaxliabilitiesin1996,petitionerclearlydeservesarefund.Itcannotby
anysweepingdenialbedeprivedofwhatrightfullybelongstoit.
Thetruthorfalsityofthecontentsoforentriesinthe1996finaladjustmentreturn,whichhasnotbeenformally
offeredinevidenceandexaminedbyrespondent,involves,however,aquestionoffact.ThisCourtisnotatrierof
facts. Neither is it a collection agency for the government. Although we rule that petitioner is entitled to a tax
refund, the amount of that refund is a matter for the CTA to determine judiciously based on the records that
includeitsowncopyofpetitioners1996finaladjustmentreturn.
LiberalConstruction
ofRules
Fourth, ordinary rules of procedure frown upon the submission of final adjustment returns after trial has been
conducted. However, both the CTA law and jurisprudence mandate that the proceedings before the tax court
"shallnotbegovernedstrictlybytechnicalrulesofevidence."13Asarule,itsfindingsoffact14(aswellasthatof
theCA)arefinal,bindingandconclusive15 on the parties and upon this Court however, as an exception, such
findingsmaybereviewedordisturbedonappeal16whentheyarenotsupportedbyevidence.17
OurRulesofCourtapply"byanalogyorinasuppletory18characterandwheneverpracticableandconvenient"19
and "shall be liberally construed in order to promote their objective of securing a just, speedy and inexpensive
dispositionofeveryactionandproceeding."20Afterall,"[t]heparamountconsiderationremainstheascertainment
oftruth."21
Inthepresentcase,the1996finaladjustmentreturnwasattachedasAnnexAtotheReplytoCommentfiledby
petitionerwiththeCA.22Thereturnshowsanegativeamountforitstaxableincomethatyear.Therefore,itcould
nothaveappliedorusedtheexcesstaxcreditsof1995againstitstaxliabilitiesin1996.
JudicialNotice
ofAttachedReturn
Fifth, the CA and CTA could have taken judicial notice of the 1996 final adjustment return which had been
attachedinCTACaseNo.5799."Judicialnoticetakestheplaceofproofandisofequalforce."23
Asageneralrule,courtsarenotauthorizedtotakejudicialnoticeofthecontentsofrecordsinothercasestriedor
pendinginthesamecourt,evenwhenthosecaseswereheardorareactuallypendingbeforethesamejudge.
However,thisruleadmitsofexceptions,aswhenreferencetosuchrecordsissufficientlymadewithoutobjection
fromtheopposingparties:
"...[I]ntheabsenceofobjection,andasamatterofconveniencetoallparties,acourtmayproperlytreatallor
anypartoftheoriginalrecordofacasefiledinitsarchivesasreadintotherecordofacasependingbeforeit,
when,withtheknowledgeoftheopposingparty,referenceismadetoitforthatpurpose,bynameandnumberor
insomeothermannerbywhichitissufficientlydesignatedorwhentheoriginalrecordoftheformercaseorany
partofit,isactuallywithdrawnfromthearchivesbythecourt'sdirection,attherequestorwiththeconsentofthe
parties,andadmittedasapartoftherecordofthecasethenpending."24
PriortorenderingitsDecisiononJanuary12,2000,theCTAwasalreadywellawareoftheexistenceofanother
casependingbeforeit,involvingthesamesubjectmatter,partiesandcausesofaction.25Becauseoftheclose
connection of that case with the matter in controversy, the CTA could have easily taken judicial notice26 of the
contesteddocumentattachedinthatothercase.
Furthermore,therewasnoobjectionraisedtotheinclusionofthesaid1996finaladjustmentreturninpetitioners
ReplytoCommentbeforetheCA.Despiteclearreferencetothatreturn,areferencemadewiththeknowledgeof
respondent,thelatterstillfailedtocontrovertpetitionersclaim.Theappellatecourtshouldhavecastasidestrict
technicalities27anddecidedthecaseonthebasisofsuchuncontestedreturn.Verily,ithadtheauthorityto"take
judicialnoticeofitsrecordsandofthefacts[that]therecordestablishes."28
Section2ofRule129providesthatcourts"maytakejudicialnoticeofmattersxxxoughttobeknowntojudges
because of their judicial functions."29 If the lower courts really believed that petitioner was not entitled to a tax

refund, they could have easily required respondent to ascertain its veracity and accuracy30 and to prove that
petitionerdidnotsufferanynetlossin1996.
Contrarytothecontentionofpetitioner,BPIFamilySavingsBankv.CA31(onwhichitrestsitsentirearguments)
isnotonallfourswiththefactsofthiscase.
Whilethepetitionerinthatcasealsofiledawrittenclaimforataxrefund,andlikewisefailedtopresentits1990
corporate annual income tax return, it nonetheless offered in evidence its topranking officials testimony and
certificationpertainingtoonlytwotaxableyears(1989and1990).ThesaidreturnwasattachedonlytoitsMotion
forReconsiderationbeforetheCTA.
Petitioner in this case offered documentary and testimonial evidence that extended beyondtwo taxable years,
because the excess credits in the first (1995) taxable year had not been used up during the second (1996)
taxableyear,andbecausetheclaimfortherefundofthosecreditshadbeenfiledduringthethird(1997)taxable
year.ItsfinaladjustmentreturnwasinsteadattachedtoitsReplytoCommentfiledbeforetheCA.
Moreover, in BPIFamily Savings Bank, petitioner was able to show "the undisputed fact: that petitioner had
suffered a net loss in 1990 x x x."32 In the instant case, there is no such "undisputed fact" as yet. The mere
admissionintotherecordsofpetitioners1996finaladjustmentreturnisnotasufficientproofofthetruthofthe
contentsoforentriesinthatreturn.
Inaddition,theBIRinBPIFamilySavingsBankdidnotcontroverttheveracityofthereturnorfileanoppositionto
the Motion and the return. Despite the fact that the return was ignored by both the CA and the CTA, the latter
evendeclaredinanothercase(CTACaseNo.4897)thatpetitionerhadsufferedanetlossfortaxableyear1990.
WhenattachedtothePetitionforReviewfiledbeforethisCourt,thatDecisionwasnotatallclaimedbytheBIRto
befraudulentornonexistent.TheBureaumerelycontendedthatthisCourtshouldnottakejudicialnoticeofthe
saidDecision.
In this case, however, the BIR has not been given the chance to challenge the veracity of petitioners final
adjustmentreturn.NeitherhastheCTAdecidedanyothercasecategoricallydeclaringanetlossforpetitionerin
taxableyear1996.AfterthisreturnwasattachedtopetitionersReplytoCommentbeforetheCA,theappellate
court should have required the filing of other responsive pleadings from respondent, as was necessary and
properforittoruleuponthereturn.
AdmissibilityVersusWeight
Indeed, "[a]dmissibility x x x is one thing, weight is another."33 "To admit evidence and not to believe it are not
incompatible with each other x x x."34 Mere allegations by petitioner of the figures in its 1996 final adjustment
returnarenotasufficientproofoftheamountofitsrefundentitlement.Theydonotevenconstituteevidence35
adversetorespondent,againstwhomtheyarebeingpresented.36
While it seems that the "[nonproduction] of a document which courts almost invariably expect will be produced
unavoidablythrowsasuspicionoverthecause,"37thisisnotreallytheconclusiontobearrivedathere.When
petitioner purportedly filed its administrative claim for a taxrefund on April 10, 1997, the deadline for filing the
1996finaladjustmentreturnwasnotyetover.Hence,itcouldnothaveattachedthisreturntoitsclaim.
ForreasonsunknowneventothisCourt,petitionerfailedtooffersuchreturnasevidenceduringthetrialphaseof
thiscase.Foritsnegligence,petitioner"cannotbeallowedtoseekrefugeinaliberalapplicationofthe[r]ules"38
bygivingitablanketapprovalofthetotalrefunditclaims."Whileincertaininstances,weallowarelaxationinthe
application of the rules, we never intend to forge a weapon for erring litigants to violate the rules with impunity.
The liberal interpretation and application of rules apply only in proper cases of demonstrable merit and under
justifiablecausesandcircumstances."39
It would not be proper to allow petitioner to simply prevail and compel a refund in the amount it claims, without
affordingthegovernmentareasonableopportunitytocontesttheformersallegations.40Negligenceconsistingof
theunexplainedfailuretooffertheexhibitshouldnotberewardedwithundeservedleniency.Petitionerstillbears
the burden of proving the amount of its claim for tax refund. After all, "[t]ax refunds are in the nature of tax
exemptions"41andaretobeconstruedstrictissimijurisagainstthetaxpayer.
Finally,evenintheabsenceofafinaladjustmentreturnoranyclaimforataxrefund,respondentisauthorizedby
lawtoexamineanybook,paper,recordorotherdatathatmayberelevantormaterialtosuchinquiry.42Failureto
make an assessment of petitioners proper tax liability or to contest the return could be errors or omissions of
administrativeofficersthatshouldneverbeallowedtojeopardizethegovernmentsfinancialposition.
Verily,"theofficersoftheBureauofInternalRevenueshouldreceivethesupportofthecourtswhentheseofficers

attempttoperforminaconscientiousandlawfulmannerthedutiesimposeduponthembylaw."43Onlyafteritis
shown that "if something is received when there is no right to demand it, and it was duly delivered through
mistake,theobligationtoreturnitarises."44
In brief, we hold that petitioner is entitled to a refund however, the amount must still be proved in proper
proceedingsbeforetheCTA.
WHEREFORE,thePetitionisherebyPARTLYGRANTED,andtheassailedDecisionSETASIDE.Thecaseis
REMANDEDtotheCourtofTaxAppealsfortheproperandimmediatedeterminationoftheamounttobe
refundedtopetitioneronthebasisofthelatters1996finaladjustmentreturn.Nopronouncementastocosts.
SOORDERED.
SandovalGutierrez,Corona,CarpioMorales,andGarcia,JJ.,concur.

Footnotes
1Rollo,pp.1028.
2Id.,pp.106114.EleventhDivision.PennedbyJusticeConradoM.VasquezJr.(Divisionchair),withthe

concurrenceofJusticesAndresB.ReyesJr.andAmelitaG.Tolentino(members).
3AssailedCADecision,p.8rollo,p.113.
4Id.,pp.13&106108.
5ThiscasewasdeemedsubmittedfordecisiononMay5,2003,uponthisCourtsreceiptofRespondents

Memorandum, signed by Solicitor General Alfredo L. Benipayo, Assistant Solicitor General Fernanda
LampasPeraltaandAssociateSolicitorMarkAnthonyA.Atienza.PetitionersMemorandum,signedbyAtty.
PacianoF.FallarJr.,wasreceivedbythisCourtonFebruary5,2003.
6PetitionersMemorandum,pp.910rollo,pp.198199.Originalinuppercase.
7TheNIRCreferstotheNationalInternalRevenueCodeof1986,thelawprevailingwhenpetitionerfiled

its administrative claim for refund of income taxes paid in 1995. See 42, Presidential Decree No. (PD)
1994.
Today,76ofRepublicActNo.(RA)8424furtheramends69oftheNIRC.
8 Additional amendments to RR 685, otherwise known as "Expanded Withholding Tax Regulations," are

foundinRR1294datedJune27,1994.
9Rollo,p.46.
10Mirandav.CA,177SCRA303,306,September7,1989,perGrioAquino,J.
11CollectorofCustomsforthePortofManilav.CA,158SCRA293,297,February29,1988.
12Crisolov.CA,68SCRA435,440,December29,1975,perEsguerra,J.
138ofRA1125asamended,andABLeasingandFinanceCorp.v.CommissionerofInternalRevenue,

405SCRA380,388,July8,2003,perCarpioMorales,J.(quotingPurakanPlantationCo.v.Domingo,15
SCRA151,157,October29,1965).
14SeeAznarv.CTA,58SCRA519,532,August23,1974.
15Astraquillov.Javier,121Phil.138,145,January30,1965.
16Republicv.IAC,196SCRA335,340,April26,1991.
17Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Embroidery and Garments Industries (Phil.), Inc., 364 Phil. 541,

546,March22,1999.

18SeePrezv.CTA,101Phil.630,634,May29,1957,perFlix,J.
194ofRule1oftheRulesofCourt.
206ofRule1oftheRulesofCourt.
21BPIFamilySavingsBankv.CA,386Phil.719,726,April12,2000,perPanganiban,J.
22Rollo,p.98.
23MarceloSteelCorp.v.CA, 60 SCRA 167, 171, October 8, 1974, per Barredo, J. (quoting Moran, CJ.,

Comments on the Rules of Court, Vol. 5, p. 39, citing Alzua v. Johnson, 21 Phil. 308, January 31, 1912
Jonesv.UnitedStates,137U.S.202,214216,11S.Ct.80,8485,November24,1890Gravesv.Kelly,62.
Ind.App.164,112NE899,901,June2,1916CharlesBoldtCo.v.TurnerBros.Co.,199Fed.139,144,
117C.C.A.621,April12,1912andDavisv.SouthernRy.Co.,170NC,582,87SE745,749750,Am.Ann.
Cas.1918A,861,January12,1916).
24 Occidental Land Transportation Co., Inc. v. CA, 220 SCRA 167, 175, March 19, 1993, per Nocon, J.

(citingTabuenav.CA,274Phil.51,57,May6,1991,perCruz,J.,andU.S.v.Claveria,29Phil.527,532,
February13,1915,perCarson,J.).
25SeeTiburciov.PeoplesHomesite&HousingCorp.,106Phil.477,483484,October31,1959.
26SeeParas,RulesofCourtAnnotated,Vol.4(2nded.,1991),p.52(citedinRepublicv.CA,August18,

1997,343Phil.428,436437,perVitug,J.).
27"xxx[A]strictandrigidapplicationoftechnicalitiesthattendtofrustrateratherthanpromotesubstantial

justicemustbeavoided."Jarov.CA,427Phil.532,548,February19,2002,perCarpio,J.
28DeLosAngelesv.Hon.Cabahug,106Phil.839,844,December29,1959,perGutirrezDavid,J.
292ofRule129oftheRulesofCourt.
30Theexamination,verificationandauditoftaxpayersincometaxreturnsafterbeingfiledlawfullybelong

torespondent,whohasthenecessaryfacilitiesandpersonneltoconductsuchtasks.TheCTAshallsimply
limit itself to whatever papers or documents are presented before it as evidence, in accordance with the
rulesofprocedure.SeeBritishTradersInsuranceCo.,Ltd.v.CommissionerofInternalRevenue,121Phil.
696,704,April30,1965.
31386Phil.719,April12,2000.
32BPIFamilySavingsBank,Inc.v.CA,supra,p.728,perPanganiban,J.Italicssupplied.
33OrmocSugarCo.,Inc.v.OscoWorkersFraternityLaborUnion(OWFLU),110Phil.627,631,January

23,1961,perLabrador,J.
34Ledesmav.Realubin,118Phil.625,629,July31,1963,perReyes,J.B.L.,J.
35SeeLagascav.DeVera,79Phil.376,381,October29,1947.
36SeeSambranov.RedLineTransportationCo.,Inc.,68Phil.652,655,September30,1939.
37Republicv.Sandiganbayan,325Phil.762,810,March29,1996,perFrancisco,J.
38 Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. A. Soriano Corp., 334 Phil. 965, 972, January 31, 1997, per

Francisco,J.
39Norrisv.Hon.ParentelaJr.,446Phil.462,472,February27,2003,perQuisumbing,J.
40Anexaminationofthefinaladjustmentreturnmustbeconducted,andarefundmadewithinsixtydays

fromdateofclaim,ifallpertinentrecordshavebeensubmittedtoestablishtheveracityofsuchclaim.5(b)
ofRR1294.
41Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Solidbank Corp., 416 SCRA 436, 461, November 25, 2003, per

Panganiban,J. (citing Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. SC Johnson & Son, Inc., 368 Phil. 388, 411,
June 25, 1999 Magsaysay Lines, Inc. v. CA, 329 Phil. 310, 324, August 12, 1996 and Commissioner of
InternalRevenuev.TokyoShippingCo.,Ltd.,314Phil.220,228,May26,1995).
427(1)oftheNIRC.SeeCitibank,N.A.v.CA,345Phil.695,713,October10,1997.
43JoseSyJongChuyv.Reyes,59Phil.244,259,December22,1933,perMalcolm,J.
44GonzaloPuyat&Sons,Inc.v.CityofManila,117Phil.985,989,April30,1963,perParedes,J.(citing

Art.2154oftheCivilCode).
TheLawphilProjectArellanoLawFoundation