SECOND DIVISION

[G.R. No. 204117. July 1, 2015.]

CHINA BANKING CORPORATION, petitioner, vs. CITY

TREASURER OF MANILA, respondent.

DECISION

MENDOZA, J : p

Before this Court is a petition for review on certiorari 1 under Rule 45 of

the Rules of Court filed by petitioner China Banking Corporation (CBC),
assailing the April 17, 2012 Decision 2 and the October 18, 2012 Resolution 3
of the Court of Tax Appeals En Banc (CTA En Banc), in CTA EB Case No. 738,
which affirmed the October 1, 2010 Decision 4 and the February 22, 2011
Resolution 5 of the Third Division of the Court of Tax Appeals (CTA Division)
in CTA AC No. 66. Through the assailed rulings, the claim by petitioner CBC
for the refund of P154,398.50 collected by respondent City Treasurer of
Manila (City Treasurer) under Section 21 6 of Ordinance Nos. 7988 7 and
8110 8 was dismissed.
The facts, as chronicled by the CTA Division, are undisputed:
On January 2007, on the basis of the reported income of
respondent CBC's Sto. Cristo Branch, Binondo, Manila, amounting to
P34,310,777.34 for the year ending December 31, 2006, respondent
CBC was assessed the amount of P267,128.70 by petitioner City
Treasurer of Manila, consisting of local business tax, business
permits, and other fees for taxable year 2007, broken down as
follows:
Particulars Amount of Discount Amount
Taxes and Due
Fees

Tax on Coml P102,932.33 P10,293.33 P92,639.10

Bank
Tax on
54.00 5.40 48.60
Rentals
of Equipt
Business 3,215.00 - 3,215.00
Permit Fee
(0801)
Business 1,200.00 - 1,200.00
Permit Fee
(079926)
Business 3,000.00 - 3,000.00
Permit Fee
(0802)
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com
 Sanitary 400.00 - 400.00
Inspection
Fee
Garbage
3,500.00 - 3,500.00
Svcs
Charges
Occupational 2,880.00 - 2,880.00
Tax
OCC/PC/HC 5,640.00 - 5,640.00
Plumbing
7.50 - 7.50
Insp
Fee
Electrical
50.00 - 50.00
Insp
Fee
Building Insp 50.00 - 50.00
Fee
Signboard
40.00 - 40.00
Insp
Fee
SEC 21 171,553.89 17,155.39 154,398.50
Business 60.00 - 60.00
Registration
Stick
––––––––––– –––––––––– –––––––––—
TOTAL P294,582.72 P27,454.02 P267,128.70
=============================

On January 15, 2007, respondent CBC paid the amount of

P267,128.70 and protested, thru a Letter dated January 12, 2007, the
imposition of business tax under Section 21 of the Manila Revenue
Code in the amount of P154,398.50, on the ground that it is not liable
of said additional business tax and the same constitutes double
taxation. CAIHTE

On February 8, 2007, petitioner acknowledged receipt of

respondent CBC's payment under protest of the assessed amount and
further informed respondent that she will await for respondent's
formal protest.
On March 27, 2007, respondent CBC wrote a letter-reply to
[respondent's] petitioner's Letter dated February 8, 2007, reiterating
that respondent already protested the additional assessment under
Section 21 of the Manila Revenue Code in its Letter dated January 12,
2007. In the same Letter, respondent averred that pursuant to
Section 195 of the Local Government Code ("LGC"), petitioner had
until March 16, 2007 within which to decide the protest, and
considering that respondent received the Letter dated February 8,
2007, four days after the deadline to decide and petitioner did not
even resolve the protest, respondent formally demanded the refund
of the amount of P154,398.50, representing the business tax
collected under Section 21 of the Manila Revenue Code.

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com

 On April 17, 2007, respondent CBC filed a Petition for Review
with the RTC of Manila, Branch 173, entitled "China Banking
Corporation vs. Hon. Liberty M. Toledo in her capacity as City
Treasurer of Manila," docketed as Civil Case No. 07-117075, raising
the sole issue of whether or not respondent is subject to the local
business tax imposed under Section 21 of the Manila Revenue Code.
Decision of the
Regional Trial Court
On August 28, 2008, the Regional Trial Court, Branch 173, Manila
(RTC), rendered its decision 9 granting the petition filed by CBC and ordered
the City Treasurer to refund the amount of P154,398.50, representing the
assessment paid by it under Section 21 of Manila Ordinance No. 7988, 10 as
amended by Tax Ordinance No. 8110. 11
The RTC found that the City Treasurer had no basis to collect the
amount of P154,398.50 because the Department of Justice (DOJ) was of the
opinion that Ordinance Nos. 7988 and 8110 were unconstitutional. It also
considered the decision in the case of Coca-Cola Bottlers Philippines, Inc. v.
City of Manila, 12 (Coca-Cola) and the Memorandum of Rafaelito M.
Garayblas, 13 Secretary of the then Mayor of Manila, noting the
unconstitutionality of Ordinance Nos. 7988 and 8110 and directing the City
Treasurer to cease and desist from assessing and collecting the imposed
taxes under Section 21 of the said ordinances.
On March 29, 2010, the RTC resolved to deny the motion for
reconsideration filed by the City Treasurer. 14
Decision of the
CTA Division
On October 1, 2010, the CTA Division 15 reversed the decision of the
RTC, effectively dismissing CBC's protest against the disputed assessment.
Although the CTA Division dismissed the City Treasurer's contention that
CBC's petition for review should have been filed with the Metropolitan Trial
Court (MeTC), nevertheless it found that the RTC did not have jurisdiction
over the said petition for because it was filed out of time. The CTA Division
noted that the petition for review was filed one (1) day beyond the
reglementary period allowed by Section 195 of the Local Government Code
16 (LGC) to taxpayers who wished to appeal a denial of a protest due to the

inaction of the City Treasurer. Consequently, the CTA Division ruled that the
City Treasurer's assessment against CBC had attained finality.
CBC sought reconsideration of the decision, but its motion was denied
by the CTA Division. 17
Aggrieved, CBC elevated the matter to the CTA En Banc.
Decision of the
CTA En Banc
On appeal, the CTA En Banc affirmed the ruling of the CTA Division in
toto, reiterating that the petition for review was filed out of time. It explained
that from January 15, 2007, the date when CBC filed its protest, it had sixty
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com
 (60) days or until March 16, 2007 to await the decision of the City Treasurer.
Considering that no action was taken by the City Treasurer, CBC had until
April 16, 2007 or 30 days from March 16, 2007, (April 15, 2007 being a
Sunday), within which to appeal the inaction of the City Treasurer with the
RTC, pursuant to Section 195 of the LGC. Upon examination, however, the
CTA En Banc found that when CBC filed its petition for review before the
RTC, it was already one day late. Thus, it lost its right to appeal and the
assessment, dated January 11, 2007, became conclusive and unappealable.
The CTA En Banc then concluded that CBC was precluded from interposing
the defense of legality or validity of the assessment. DETACa

CBC filed its motion for reconsideration of the said decision but the CTA
En Banc denied the same.
On January 30, 2013, the Court denied the petition. 18 Upon motion for
reconsideration by CBC, the Court reinstated the petition. 19 Eventually, it
was given due course and the parties were directed to file their respective
memoranda. 20
Hence, this petition.
ISSUE
THE HONORABLE COURT OF TAX APPEALS GRAVELY ERRED IN
DISREGARDING THE LAW AND INTEREST OF SUBSTANTIAL
JUSTICE BY REVERSING THE RULING OF THE TRIAL COURT
SOLELY BECAUSE OF ITS ASSUMED PRONOUNCEMENT THAT
THE ORIGINAL PETITION WAS FILED ONE (1) DAY BEYOND THE
REGLEMENTARY PERIOD? 21
CBC asserts that it filed the proper written protest but for lack of any
action from the City Treasurer, it was prompted to file its petition for review
with the RTC. 22 The petitioner insists on the invalidity of the City Treasurer's
assessment. It pointed out that the basis of the assessment, Ordinance Nos.
7988 and 8110, had been declared unconstitutional by the Court in Coca-
Cola, and that the Office of the Mayor of Manila even directed the City
Treasurer to cease and desist from assessing and imposing Section 21 of the
said ordinances. 23
For CBC, its one (1) day delay in filing its appeal with the RTC should
have been excused by the CTA because the delay was "not much of a heavy
harm and was due to [the] honest mistake and excusable negligence" 24 of
its former counsel.
In its Memorandum, 25 CBC insisted on the invalidity of the City
Treasurer's assessment, this time, claiming that its petition for review
filed with the RTC was timely filed. It explained that the 60-day period
within which the City Treasurer should have acted on the protest, and the
consequent 30-day period within which it had to appeal the inaction of the
City Treasurer should have been reckoned not from January 15, 2007, when
it filed its letter questioning the imposition and paid the assessed amount,
but from March 27, 2007, the day it filed the letter reiterating its objection to
the City Treasurer imposition of P154,398.50 and demanding the return of
the said amount. With the reckoning point being March 27, 2007, CBC
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com
 argued that the petition for review was filed well within the reglementary
period because it had until June 25, 2007 to file the said appeal.
CBC then reiterated its contention that even if it was guilty of delay,
the same should have been excused because the basis of the City
Treasurer's assessment, Ordinance Nos. 7988 and 8110, had been declared
unconstitutional by the Court in its decision in Coca-Cola.
For her part, the City Treasurer filed her Memorandum for the
Respondent 26 where she contended that CBC never filed a formal letter of
protest to state the grounds for its objection while admitting that it had paid
the assessed amount under protest. She claimed that CBC simply filed a
petition for review with the RTC without filing a formal letter of protest.
Without a formal letter of protest, the City Treasurer argued that its claim for
refund should be dismissed because Section 195 of the Local Government
Code stated that "No case or proceeding shall be maintained in any court for
recovery of any tax, fee or charged erroneously or illegally collected until a
written claim for refund has been filed with the local treasurer."
The City Treasurer also questioned the jurisdiction of the RTC in
entertaining the petition for review filed before it as well as the timeliness of
the filing of the petitioner's appeal.
The Court's Ruling
Protest validly filed
The petition lacks merit.
Under the current state of law, there can be no doubt that the law does
not prescribe any formal requirement to constitute a valid protest. To
constitute a valid protest, it is sufficient if what has been filed contains the
spontaneous declaration made to acquire or keep some right or to prevent
an impending damage. 27 Accordingly, a protest is valid so long as it states
the taxpayer's objection to the assessment and the reasons therefor.
In this case, the Court finds that the City Treasurer's contention that
CBC was not able to properly protest the assessment to be without merit.
The Court is of the view that CBC was able to properly file its protest against
the assessment of the City Treasurer when it filed its letter on January 15,
2007, questioning the imposition while paying the assessed amount. In the
said letter, the petitioner was unequivocal in its objection, stating that it
took exception to the assessment made by the City Treasurer under Section
21 of the city's revenue code, arguing that it was not liable to pay the
additional tax imposed under the subject ordinance and that the imposition
"constitute[d] double taxation" and, for said reason, invalid. Despite its
objection, it remitted the total amount of P267,128.70 under protest "to
avoid penalties/surcharges and any threat of closure." 28 aDSIHc

The Court, however, is of the view that the period within which the City
Treasurer must act on the protest, and the consequent period to appeal a
"denial due to inaction," should be reckoned from January 15, 2007, the date
CBC filed its protest, and not March 27, 2007. Consequently, the Court finds
that the CTA En Banc did not err in ruling that CBC had lost its right to
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com
 challenge the City Treasurer's "denial due to inaction." On this matter,
Section 195 of the LGC is clear:
SECTION 195. Protest of Assessment. — When the local
treasurer or his duly authorized representative finds that correct
taxes, fees, or charges have not been paid, he shall issue a notice of
assessment stating the nature of the tax, fee or charge, the amount
of deficiency, the surcharges, interests and penalties. Within sixty
(60) days from the receipt of the notice of assessment, the taxpayer
may file a written protest with the local treasurer contesting the
assessment; otherwise, the assessment shall become final and
executory. The local treasurer shall decide the protest within sixty
(60) days from the time of its filing. If the local treasurer finds the
protest to be wholly or partly meritorious, he shall issue a notice
canceling wholly or partially the assessment. However, if the local
treasurer finds the assessment to be wholly or partly correct, he shall
deny the protest wholly or partly with notice to the taxpayer. The
taxpayer shall have thirty (30) days from the receipt of the
denial of the protest or from the lapse of the sixty (60)-day
period prescribed herein within which to appeal with the
court of competent jurisdiction otherwise the assessment
becomes conclusive and unappealable.
[Emphasis Supplied]
Time and again, it has been held that the perfection of an appeal in the
manner and within the period laid down by law is not only mandatory but
also jurisdictional. The failure to perfect an appeal as required by the rules
has the effect of defeating the right to appeal of a party and precluding the
appellate court from acquiring jurisdiction over the case. At the risk of being
repetitious, the Court declares that the right to appeal is not a natural right
nor a part of due process. It is merely a statutory privilege, and may be
exercised only in the manner and in accordance with the provisions of the
law. 29
CBC's Inconsistent
Position on Late Filing
It bears pointing that when CBC first sought aid from this Court, it
recognized the belated filing of its appeal with the RTC when it sought the
Court's leniency in the application of the rules on appeal. In its petition for
review before this Court, CBC posited that under the circumstances obtaining
in this case, the rules on appeal should not have been applied so rigorously,
especially since the delay of one (1) day was due solely to "the honest
mistake and excusable negligence" of its former counsel. 30
As stated above, however, CBC, in its Memorandum, now asserts that
its appeal was filed on time. The Court cannot help but frown upon CBC's
vain attempt to confuse the Court, by varying its position and raising the
argument for the first time in its memorandum that its appeal was timely
filed.
RTC has no jurisdiction
At any rate, even if the Court considers CBC's appeal from the "denial
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com
 due to inaction" by the City Treasurer to have been timely filed, the same
must be dismissed because it was not filed with a court of competent
jurisdiction. In its decision, it appears that the CTA Division relied heavily on
the case of Yamane v. BA Lepanto Condominium Corporation 31 (Yamane) in
sustaining CBC's assertion that the RTC had jurisdiction to entertain its
appeal. A reading of the Court's decision in Yamane discloses that it cannot
be cited as authority.
I n Yamane, respondent BA Lepanto Condominium Corporation (BLCC)
sought to recover P1,601,013.77 (within the jurisdictional amount of the
RTC), representing the amount it paid to petitioner Luz R. Yamane (petitioner
Yamane), the City Treasurer of Makati for city business taxes, fees and
charges it owed for the years 1995 to 1997. With the rejection by petitioner
Yamane and the RTC of its claim, BLCC appealed to the CA via a petition for
review under Rule 42. As petitioner Yamane questioned the mode of appeal
taken by BLCC, one of the issues raised before this Court was the nature of
the jurisdiction of the RTC over appeals from decisions of the city treasurer
involving assessments imposed by the latter. Explaining the nature of the
jurisdiction of the RTC, the Court, in Yamane explained:
First, we dispose of the procedural issue, which essentially boils
down to whether the RTC, in deciding an appeal taken from a denial
of a protest by a local treasurer under Section 195 of the Local
Government Code, exercises "original jurisdiction" or "appellate
jurisdiction." The question assumes a measure of importance to this
petition, for the adoption of the position of the City Treasurer that the
mode of review of the decision taken by the RTC is governed by Rule
41 of the Rules of Civil Procedure means that the decision of the RTC
would have long become final and executory by reason of the failure
of the Corporation to file a notice of appeal.ETHIDa

There are discernible conflicting views on the issue. The first, as

expressed by the Court of Appeals, holds that the RTC, in reviewing
denials of protests by local treasurers, exercises appellate
jurisdiction. This position is anchored on the language of Section 195
of the Local Government Code which states that the remedy of the
taxpayer whose protest is denied by the local treasurer is "to appeal
with the court of competent jurisdiction." Apparently though, the
Local Government Code does not elaborate on how such "appeal"
should be undertaken.
The other view, as maintained by the City Treasurer, is that the
jurisdiction exercised by the RTC is original in character. This is the
first time that the position has been presented to the court for
adjudication. Still, this argument does find jurisprudential mooring in
our ruling in Garcia v. De Jesus , where the Court proffered the
following distinction between original jurisdiction and appellate
jurisdiction: "Original jurisdiction is the power of the Court to take
judicial cognizance of a case instituted for judicial action for the first
time under conditions provided by law. Appellate jurisdiction is the
authority of a Court higher in rank to re-examine the final order or
judgment of a lower Court which tried the case now elevated for
judicial review."

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com

 The quoted definitions were taken from the commentaries of
the esteemed Justice Florenz Regalado. With the definitions as
beacon, the review taken by the RTC over the denial of the protest by
the local treasurer would fall within that court's original jurisdiction. In
short, the review is the initial judicial cognizance of the matter.
Moreover, labelling the said review as an exercise of appellate
jurisdiction is inappropriate, since the denial of the protest is not the
judgment or order of a lower court, but of a local government official.
The stringent concept of original jurisdiction may seemingly be
neutered by Rule 43 of the 1997 Ru les of Civil Procedure, Section 1 of
which lists a slew of administrative agencies and quasi-judicial
tribunals or their officers whose decisions may be reviewed by the
Court of Appeals in the exercise of its appellate jurisdiction. However,
the basic law of jurisdiction, Batas Pambansa Blg. 129 (B.P. 1 29),
ineluctably confers appellate jurisdiction on the Court of Appeals over
final rulings of quasi-judicial agencies, instrumentalities, boards or
commission, by explicitly using the phrase "appellate jurisdiction."
The power to create or characterize jurisdiction of courts belongs to
the legislature. While the traditional notion of appellate jurisdiction
connotes judicial review over lower court decision, it has to yield to
statutory redefinitions that clearly expand its breadth to encompass
even review of decisions of officers in the executive branches of
government.
Yet significantly, the Local Govern ment Code, or any other
statute for that matter, does not expressly confer appellate
jurisdiction on the part of regional trial courts from the denial of a tax
protest by a local treasurer. On the other hand, Section 22 of B.P.
129 expressly delineates the appellate jurisdiction of the
Regional Trial Courts, confining as it does said appellate
jurisdiction to cases decided by Metropolitan, Municipal, and
Municipal Circuit Trial Courts. Unlike in the case of the Court
of Appeals, B.P. 1 29 does not confer appellate jurisdiction on
Regional Trial Courts over rulings made by non-judicial
entities. 32
[Emphasis Supplied]
Thus, although the Court in Yamane recognized that the RTC exercised
its original jurisdiction over cases decided by a local treasurer, it was quick
to point out that with the advent of Republic Act No. (R.A.) No. 9282, the
jurisdiction of the RTC over such cases is no longer simply original and
exclusive. The Court explained:
From these premises, it is evident that the stance of the City
Treasurer is correct as a matter of law, and that the proper remedy of
the Corporation from the RTC judgment is an ordinary appeal under
Rule 41 to the Court of Appeals. However, we make this
pronouncement subject to two important qualifications. First, in this
particular case there are nonetheless significant reasons for the Court
to overlook the procedural error and ultimately uphold the
adjudication of the jurisdiction exercised by the Court of Appeals in
this case. Second, the doctrinal weight of the pronouncement
is confined to cases and controversies that emerged prior to
the enactment of Republic Act No. 9282, the law which
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com
 expanded the jurisdiction of the Court of Tax Appeals (CTA). cSEDTC

Republic Act No. 8282 definitively proves in its Section 7 (a) (3)
t h a t the CTA exercises exclusive appellate jurisdiction to
review on appeal decisions, orders or resolutions of the
Regional Trial Courts in local tax cases original decided or
resolved by them in the exercise of their original or appellate
jurisdiction. Moreover, the provision also states that the review is
triggered "by filing a petition for review under a procedure analogous
to that provided for under Rule 42 of the 1997 Ru les of Civil
Procedure."
Republic Act No. 9282, however, would not apply to this case
simply because it arose prior to the effectivity of that law. To declare
otherwise would be to institute a jurisdictional rule derived not from
express statutory grant, but from implication. The jurisdiction of a
court to take cognizance of a case should be clearly conferred and
should not be deemed to exist on mere implications, and this settled
rule would be needlessly emasculated should we declare that the
Corporation's position is correct in law. 33
[Emphases and Underscoring Supplied]
Clearly, with the passage of R.A. No. 9282, the authority to exercise
either original or appellate jurisdiction over local tax cases depended on the
amount of the claim. In cases where the RTC exercises appellate jurisdiction,
it necessarily follows that there must be a court capable of exercising
original jurisdiction — otherwise there would be no appeal over which the
RTC would exercise appellate jurisdiction. The Court cannot consider the City
Treasurer as the entity that exercises original jurisdiction not only because it
is not a "court" within the context of Batas Pambansa (B.P.) Blg. 129, but
also because, as explained above, "B.P. 129 expressly delineates the
appellate jurisdiction of the Regional Trial Courts, confining as it does said
appellate jurisdiction to cases decided by Metropolitan, Municipal, and
Municipal Circuit Trial Courts." Verily, unlike in the case of the CA, B.P. 129
does not confer appellate jurisdiction on the RTC over rulings made by non-
judicial entities. The RTC exercises appellate jurisdiction only from cases
decided by the Metropolitan, Municipal, and Municipal Circuit Trial Courts in
the proper cases. The nature of the jurisdiction exercised by these courts is
original, considering it will be the first time that a court will take judicial
cognizance of a case instituted for judicial action.
Indeed, in cases where the amount sought to be refunded is below the
jurisdictional amount of the RTC, the Metropolitan, Municipal, and Municipal
Circuit Trial Courts are clothed with ample authority to rule on such claims.
As Section 33 (1), 34 B.P. 129, as amended provides:
Sec. 33. Jurisdiction of Metropolitan Trial Courts, Municipal Trial
Courts and Municipal Circuit Trial Courts in Civil Cases. —
Metropolitan Trial Courts, Municipal Trial Courts, and Municipal Circuit
Trial Courts shall exercise:
(1) Exclusive original jurisdiction over civil actions and probate
proceedings, testate and intestate, including the grant of provisional
remedies in proper cases, where the value of the personal property,
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com
 estate, or amount of the demand does not exceed One hundred
thousand pesos (P100,000.00) or, in Metro Manila where such
personal property, estate, or amount of the demand does not exceed
Two hundred thousand pesos (P200,000.00) . . .
The fact that the Metropolitan, Municipal, and Municipal Circuit Trial
Courts exercise jurisdiction is one that even petitioner CBC recognizes. As
aptly pointed by the City Treasurer, in several claims below the jurisdictional
amount of the RTC, the petitioners had sought relief by filing their claim for
refund with the first level courts:
Amount Claimed
Civil Case No. Court
by
Petitioner

183817-CV 35 MeTC Manila, Branch 30 P342,350.77

175168-CV 36 MeTC Manila, Branch 25 3,000.00
175169-CV 37 MeTC Manila, Branch 25 10,844.92
175171-CV 38 MeTC Manila, Branch 28 18,947.67
175172-CV 39 MeTC Manila, Branch 28 72,693.55
175175-CV 40 MeTC Manila, Branch 1 41,536.48
175178-CV 41 MeTC Manila, Branch 23 26,782.06

In all, the Court finds that the claim of petitioner CBC for refund should
be dismissed not only for being filed out of time but also for not being filed
before a court of competent jurisdiction. AaCTcI

Lest it be misunderstood, this Court is not reversing its

pronouncements in Coca-Cola Bottlers Philippines, Inc. v. City of Manila, 42
The City of Manila v. Coca-Cola Bottlers, Inc. 43 and City of Manila v. Coca-
Cola Bottlers, Inc. 44 that Ordinance Nos. 7988 and 8110 are invalid. This
Court is simply pointing out the rule that claims for refunds are the
exception, rather than the rule, and that each claim for refund, in order to be
granted, must be proceeded in accordance with the manner set forth by law.
After all, in every claim for refund of taxes paid, the burden is on the
taxpayer to show that he has strictly complied with the conditions for the
grant of the tax refund or credit. 45
WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED.
SO ORDERED.
Carpio, Bersamin, * Del Castillo and Leonen, JJ., concur.
Footnotes
* Designated Acting Member in lieu of Associate Justice Arturo D. Brion,
per Special Order No. 2079, dated June 29, 2015.
1. Rollo , pp. 9-30.

2. Penned by Presiding Justice Ernesto D. Acosta with Associate Justices Juanito C.

Castañeda, Jr., Lovell R. Bautista, Erlinda P. Uy, Caesar A. Casanova, Olga
Palanca-Enriquez, Esperanza R. Fabon-Victorino, Cielito N. Mindaro-Grulla
and Amelia R. Cotangco-Manalastas, concurring; id . at 38-47.
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com
 3. Id. at 33-36.
4. Penned by Associate Justice Olga Palanca-Enriquez, with Associate Justices
Lovell R. Bautista and Amelia R. Cotangco-Manalastas, concurring; id . at
60-76.
5. Id. at 49-58.

6. Section 21. — Tax on Business Subject to the Excise, Value-Added or

Percentage Taxes Under the NIRC — On any of the following businesses
and articles of commerce subject to the excise, value-added or
percentage taxes under the National Internal Revenue Code hereinafter to
as NIRC, as amended, a tax of fifty (50%) of one percent (1%) per annum
on the gross sales or receipts of the preceding calendar year is hereby
imposed:
A) On persons who sell goods and services in the course of trade or business;
and those who import goods whether for business or otherwise as
provided in Sections 100 to 103 of the NIRC as administered and
determined by the Bureau of Internal Revenue pursuant to the pertinent
provisions of said code.
B) On the gross receipts of keepers of garages, cars for rent or hire driven by the
lessee, transportation contractors, persons who transport passengers or
freight for hire, and common carriers land, air or water, except owners of
bancas and owners of animal-drawn two-wheel vehicle.
C) On the amount paid on every overseas dispatch, message or conversation
transmitted from the Philippines by telephone, telegraph, telewriter
exchange, wireless and other communication equipment services, except
amounts paid by the government, its political subdivisions or
instrumentalities; diplomatic services; public international organizations or
any of their agencies base in the Philippines; and news services.
The tax shall be payable by the person paying for the services rendered and
shall be paid to the person rendering the services who is required to
collect and pay the tax within twenty (20) days after the end of each
quarter.
D) Excisable good subject to VAT

(1) Distilled spirits

(2) Wines
(3) Tobacco products (other than cigarettes, cigar and chewing tobacco)

(4) Tobacco especially prepared for chewing

(5) Fireworks

(6) Cinematographic film

(7) Saccharine
(8) Coal and coke

(9) Fermented liquor, brewer's wholesale price, excluding the ad valorem tax

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com

 (10) Automobiles, manufacturers or importers selling price

(11) Non-essential goods based on wholesale price, net of excise tax and vat
(a) Jewelry, whether real or imitation, pearls, precious and semi-precious stones
and imitation thereof; goods made of, or ornamented, mounted or fitted
with precious metals or imitation thereof or ivory (not including surgical
and dental instruments, silver-plated wares, frames or mountings for
spectacles or eyeglasses, and dental gold or gold alloys and other
precious metals used in filling, mounting or fitting of teeth).
(b) Perfumes and toilet waters.

(c) Yacht and other vessels intended for pleasure or sports

(12) Mineral products, based on actual market value of the annual gross output
the time of removal.

E) Excisable goods not subject to vat

(1) Naphtha when used as raw materials for production of petrochemical

products

(2) Asphalt.

7. Otherwise known as the "Revised Revenue Code of the City of Manila."

8. Entitled, "An Ordinance Amending Certain Sections of Ordinance No. 7988."

9. Rollo , pp. 79-81.

10. Supra note 7.

11. Supra note 8.

12. 526 Phil. 249 (2006).

13. RTC rollo, p. 40.

14. Rollo , pp. 77-78.

15. Id. at 60-76.

16. SEC. 195. Protest of Assessment. — When the local treasurer or his duly
authorized representative finds that collect taxes, fees, or charges have
not been paid, he shall issue a notice of assessment stating the nature of
the tax, fee, or charge, the amount of deficiency, the surcharges, interests
and penalties. Within sixty (60) days from the receipt of the notice of
assessment, the taxpayer may file a written protest with the local
treasurer contesting the assessment; otherwise, the assessment shall
become final and executory. The local treasurer shall decide the protest
within sixty (60) days from the time of its filing. If the local treasurer finds
the protest to be wholly or partly meritorious, he shall issue a notice
cancelling wholly or partly the assessment. However, if the local treasurer
finds the assessment to be wholly or partly correct, he shall deny the
protest wholly or partly with notice to the taxpayer. The taxpayer shall
have thirty (30) days from the receipt of the denial of the protest or from
the lapse of the sixty-day period prescribed herein within which to appeal
with the court of competent jurisdiction otherwise the assessment
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com
 becomes conclusive and unappealable.
17. Rollo , pp. 49-58.

18. Resolution, dated January 30, 2013; id . at 82.

19. Resolution, dated March 10, 2014; id . at 101.

20. Id. at 235-236.

21. Id. at 18.

22. Id. at 14.

23. Id. at 15.

24. Id. at 19-20.

25. Id. at 240-257.

26. Id. at 264-278.

27. Wee Poco & Co., Inc. v. Posadas, 64 Phil. 640, 644 (1937).

28. RTC rollo, p. 24.

29. Commissioner on Internal Revenue v. Fort Bonifacio Development
Corporation, G.R. No. 167606, August 11, 2010, 628 SCRA 96, 103.
30. Rollo , pp. 19-20.

31. 510 Phil. 750 (2005).

32. Id. at 761-764.

33. Id. at 764-765.

34. Sec. 33. Jurisdiction of Metropolitan Trial Courts, Municipal Trial Courts and
Municipal Circuit Trial Courts in Civil Cases. — Metropolitan Trial Courts,
Municipal Trial Courts, and Municipal Circuit Trial Courts shall exercise:

(1) Exclusive original jurisdiction over civil actions and probate proceedings,
testate and intestate, including the grant of provisional remedies in proper
cases, where the value of the personal property, estate, or amount of the
demand does not exceed One hundred thousand pesos (P200,000.00) or,
in Metro Manila where such personal property, estate, or amount of the
demand does not exceed Two hundred thousand pesos (P400,000.00) . . .

35. Rollo , pp. 160-181.

36. Id. at 183-188.

37. Id. at 190-195.

38. Id. at 196-201.

39. Id. at 203-208.

40. Id. at 210-215.

41. Id. at 217-222.
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com
 42. Supra note 12.

43. 612 Phil. 609 (2009).

44. Resolution, G.R. No. 167283, February 10, 2010.

45. Mindanao Geothermal Partnership v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, G.R.

Nos. 193301 & 194637, March 11, 2013, 693 SCRA 49, 76-78, citing
Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. San Roque Power Corporation,
Taganito Mining Corporation v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, and
Philex Mining Corporation v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, G.R. Nos.
187485, 196113, and 197156, 12 February 2013, 690 SCRA 336.

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com