28 PHILIPPINE JOURNALISTS, INC. vs.

COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL
REVENUE
G.R. No. 162852
December 16, 2004

AUTHOR: Tan

TOPIC: Judicial Appeal of Collection Proceedings

PONENTE: YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.
CASE LAW/ DOCTRINE:
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. It includes other cases that arise out of the NIRC or related laws administered by the Bureau of Internal Revenue
The CTA has 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.
FACTS:
The case arose from the Annual Income Tax Return filed by petitioner for the calendar year ended December 31, 1994.
A LOA was issued authorizing Revenue Officer de Vera and Group Supervisor 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. After examination, petitioner was told that there were deficiency
taxes, inclusive of surcharges, interest and compromise penalty.
Revenue District Officer Concepcion invited petitioner to send a representative to an informal conference 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)". 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".
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 deficiency
taxes, inclusive of interest and compromise penalty amounting to P111,291,214.46.
A Preliminary Collection Letter and later, a Final Notice Before Seizure, was sent by Deputy Commissioner Romeo S. Panganiban to the petitioner to pay the
assessment.
Evenually, a Warrant of Distraint and/or Levy was received by the petitioner.
Petitioner filed a Petition for Review with the Court of Tax Appeals (CTA). Petitioner complains, among others, that the assessment, having been made
beyond the 3-year prescriptive period, is null and void.
CTA:
o Petition for reviewgranted; Assessmentscancelled; Warrant of Distraint and/or Levydeclared null and void
o The waiver executed by Phil. Journalists is 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.
CA:
o Reversed the decision of the CTA. Phil. Journalists was ordered to pay its assessed tax liability.
o 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.

ISSUE(S): Whether the CTA has jurisdiction.

HELD: YES!
RATIO:
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.

The petitioner is correct. 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;

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.
DISSENTING/CONCURRING OPINION(S):