10/12/2016 G.R.No.

179343

FIRSTDIVISION

FISHWEALTH CANNING G.R.No.179343
CORPORATION,
Petitioner, Present:

PUNO,C.J.,Chairperson,
CARPIOMORALES,
LEONARDODECASTRO,
versus BERSAMIN,and
VILLARAMA,JR.,JJ.


Promulgated:
COMMISSIONEROF January21,2010
INTERNALREVENUE,
Respondent.
xx



DECISION


CARPIOMORALES,J.:
[1]
TheCommissionerofInternalRevenue(respondent),byLetterofAuthoritydatedMay16,2000,
orderedtheexaminationoftheinternalrevenuetaxesforthetaxableyear1999ofFishwealthCanningCorp.
(petitioner). The investigation disclosed that petitioner was liable in the amount of P2,395,826.88
representing income tax, value added tax (VAT), withholding tax deficiencies and other miscellaneous
[2]
deficiencies.PetitionereventuallysettledtheseobligationsonAugust30,2000.

On August 25, 2000, respondent reinvestigated petitioners books of accounts and other records of internal
revenuetaxescoveringthesameperiodforthepurposeofwhichitissuedasubpoenaducestecumrequiring
petitionertosubmititsrecordsandbooksofaccounts.Petitionerrequestedthecancellationofthesubpoena
onthegroundthatthesamesetofdocumentshadpreviouslybeenexamined.

As petitioner did not heed the subpoena, respondent thereafter filed a criminal complaint against
petitionerforviolationofSections5(c)and266ofthe1997InternalRevenueCode,whichcomplaintwas
[3]
dismissedforinsufficiencyofevidence.

Respondent sent, on August 6, 2003, petitioner a Final Assessment Notice of income tax and VAT
[4]
deficienciestotalingP67,597,336.75forthetaxableyear1999, whichassessmentpetitionercontestedby
[5]
letterofSeptember23,2003.

RespondentthereafterissuedaFinalDecisiononDisputedAssessmentdatedAugust2,2005,which
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/january2010/179343.htm 1/4
10/12/2016 G.R.No.179343

petitionerreceivedonAugust4,2005,denyingitsletterofprotest,apprisingitofitsincometaxand VAT
liabilities in the amounts of P15,396,905.24 and P63,688,434.40 [sic], respectively, for the taxable year
[6]
1999, and requesting the immediate payment thereof, inclusive of penalties incident to delinquency.
Respondentaddedthatifpetitionerdisagreed,itmayappealtotheCourtofTaxAppeals(CTA)withinthirty
(30) days from date of receipt hereof, otherwise our said deficiency income and valueadded taxes
[7]
assessmentsshallbecomefinal,executory,anddemandable.

InsteadofappealingtotheCTA,petitionerfiled,onSeptember1,2005, a Letter of Reconsideration
[8]
datedAugust31,2005.

By a Preliminary Collection Letter dated September 6, 2005, respondent demanded payment of
[9] [10]
petitionerstaxliabilities, drawingpetitionertofileonOctober20,2005aPetitionforReview before
theCTA.

[11]
InhisAnswer, respondentargued,amongotherthings,thatthepetitionwasfiledoutoftimewhich
[12]
argumenttheFirstDivisionoftheCTAupheldandaccordinglydismissedthepetition.

[13] [14]
PetitionerfiledaMotionforReconsideration which was denied. The Resolution denying its
[15]
motionforreconsiderationwasreceivedbypetitioneronOctober31,2006.

[16]
OnNovember21,2006,petitionerfiledapetitionforreviewbeforetheCTAEnBanc which,by
[17]
Decision ofJuly5,2007, held that the petition before the First Division, as well as that before it, was
filedoutoftime.

[18]
Hence, the present petition, petitioner arguing that the CTA En Banc erred in holding that the
petitionitfiledbeforetheCTAFirstDivisionaswellasthatfiledbeforeit(CTAEnBanc)wasfiledoutof
time.

Thepetitionisbereftofmerit.

Section228ofthe1997TaxCodeprovidesthatanassessment

xxxmaybeprotestedadministrativelybyfilingarequestforreconsiderationorreinvestigationwithinthirty
(30)daysfromreceiptoftheassessmentinsuchformandmannerasmaybeprescribedbyimplementing
rulesandregulations.Within sixty (60) days from filing of the protest, all relevant supporting documents
shallhavebeensubmittedotherwise,theassessmentshallbecomefinal.

Iftheprotestisdeniedinwholeorinpart,orisnotacteduponwithinonehundredeighty(180)days
fromsubmissionofdocuments,thetaxpayeradverselyaffectedbythedecisionorinactionmayappealtothe
CourtofTaxAppealswithinthirty(30)daysfromreceiptofthesaiddecision,orfromthelapseoftheone
hundred eighty (180)day period otherwise, the decision shall become final, executory and demandable.
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/january2010/179343.htm 2/4
10/12/2016 G.R.No.179343

(underscoringsupplied)


In the case at bar, petitioners administrative protest was denied by Final Decision on Disputed
Assessment dated August 2, 2005 issued by respondent and which petitioner received on August 4, 2005.
Under the abovequoted Section 228 of the 1997 Tax Code, petitioner had 30 days to appeal respondents
denialofitsprotesttotheCTA.

Since petitioner received the denial of its administrative protest on August 4, 2005, it had until
September3,2005tofileapetitionforreviewbeforetheCTADivision.Itfiledone,however,onOctober
20,2005,hence,itwasfiledoutoftime.Foramotionforreconsiderationofthedenialoftheadministrative
protestdoesnottollthe30dayperiodtoappealtotheCTA.

On petitioners final contention that it has a meritorious case in view of the dismissal of the above
[19]
mentionedcriminalcasefiledagainstitforviolationofthe1997InternalRevenueCode, thesamefails.
Forthecriminalcomplaintwasinstitutednottodemandpayment,buttopenalizethetaxpayerforviolation
[20]
oftheTaxCode.
WHEREFORE,thepetitionisDISMISSED.

Costsagainstpetitioner.

SOORDERED.

CONCHITACARPIOMORALES
AssociateJustice

WECONCUR:





REYNATOS.PUNO
ChiefJustice
Chairperson





TERESITAJ.LEONARDODECASTRO LUCASP.BERSAMIN
AssociateJustice AssociateJustice

MARTINS.VILLARAMA,JR.
AssociateJustice
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/january2010/179343.htm 3/4
10/12/2016 G.R.No.179343

CERTIFICATION

PursuanttoSection13,ArticleVIIIoftheConstitution,Icertifythattheconclusionsintheabovedecision
had been reached in consultation before the case was assigned to the writer of the opinion of the Courts
Division.


REYNATOS.PUNO
ChiefJustice

[1]
CTAEnBancrollo,p.60.
[2]
Id.at6168.
[3]
Id.at7778.
[4]
CIRrecords,pp.148155.
[5]
Id.at140142.
[6]
Rollo,p.15CTAEnBancrollo,pp.4246.
[7]
Id.at46.
[8]
Id.at7981CTA1stDivisionrollo,pp.5,87.
[9]
Id.at47.
[10]
CTA1stDivisionrollo,pp.112.
[11]
Id.at7992.
[12]
Id.at229233.
[13]
Id.at234239.
[14]
Id.at253254.
[15]
Id.at252.
[16]
CTAEnBancrollo,pp.323.
[17]
PennedbyCTAAssociateJusticeJuanitoC.Castaeda,Jr.withtheconcurrenceofPresidingJusticeErnestoD.AcostaandAssociateJustices
LovellR.Bautista,ErlindaP.Uy,CaesarA.Casanova,andOlgaPalancaEnriquez.Id.at400416.
[18]
Rollo,pp.939.
[19]
Id.at2934.
[20]
VideCommissionerofInternalRevenuev.PascorRealtyandDevelopmentCorporation,368Phil.714,727(1994).

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/january2010/179343.htm 4/4