FIRST DIVISION

[G.R. No. 258947. March 29, 2022.]

COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, petitioner, vs.

COURT OF TAX APPEALS SECOND DIVISION and QL
DEVELOPMENT, INC., respondents.

DECISION

CAGUIOA, J : p

This is a Petition for Certiorari and Prohibition under Rule 65 (with

Urgent Prayer for Issuance of Temporary Restraining Order and/or Writ of
Preliminary Injunction) 1 (Petition) filed by petitioner Commissioner of
Internal Revenue (CIR) directly with the Court against respondents Court of
Tax Appeals (CTA) Second Division (CTA Division) and QL Development, Inc.
(QLDI), praying for the following reliefs:
WHEREFORE, premises considered, it is most respectfully
prayed of this Honorable Court that the instant petition be given DUE
COURSE and after consideration thereof:
1. A TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER and/or WRIT OF
PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION be ISSUED against the
Second Division of the Court of Tax Appeals, enjoining the
latter from proceeding with CTA Case No. 10291 and from
implementing the prohibition against petitioner from
collection of deficiency taxes against private respondent,
pending resolution of the instant petition;
2. A WRIT OF CERTIORARI be ISSUED declaring the
Resolutions dated 07 June 2021 and 11 December 2021, as
well as the Writ of Prohibition enjoining petitioner from
collecting deficiency taxes against private respondent for
TY 2010 as NULL and VOID for being issued with grave
abuse of discretion and/or lack of jurisdiction, setting aside
the same;
3. A WRIT OF PROHIBITION be ISSUED to the Second
Division of the Court of Tax Appeals, enjoining the latter
from proceeding with CTA Case No. 10291, and from
implementing the Writ of Prohibition against petitioner, and
ordering the said court to dismiss the said case for lack of
jurisdiction.
Other relief just and equitable under the premises are likewise
prayed for. 2
The CIR essentially challenges the June 7, 2021 3 and December 11,
2021 4 Resolutions in CTA Case No. 10291, which cancelled QLDI's deficiency
tax assessment for taxable year 2010 on the ground of prescription and
enjoined the CIR from collecting the assessed deficiency taxes against QLDI.
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2022 cdasiaonline.com
 The Facts
On November 12, 2012, QLDI received a Letter of Authority (LOA) SN:
eLA2010000021857/LOA-065-2012-00000060 5 dated October 30, 2012,
covering taxable year 2010 for deficiency taxes. On November 28, 2014, the
CIR served the Preliminary Assessment Notice (PAN) together with the
Details of Discrepancies 6 to QLDI. 7 Thereafter, QLDI filed its reply to the
PAN on December 15, 2014. 8
On December 12, 2014, the CIR sent out the Formal Assessment Notice
(FAN) or Formal Letter of Demand 9 (FLD) with Details of Discrepancies to
QLDI. 10 Despite receipt of the FAN/FLD, QLDI failed to file a protest within
the 30-day period provided by law. Subsequently, as there was no disputed
assessment to speak of, as no protest was filed, the CIR issued a Final
Decision on Disputed Assessment 11 (FDDA), which QLDI received on March
3, 2015. CAIHTE

QLDI filed with the CIR a request for reconsideration dated March 30,
2015, which was denied by the CIR in the Decision dated February 4, 2020.
12 Consequently, the CIR ordered QLDI to pay the deficiency taxes and the
compromise penalty for taxable year 2010.
Proceedings before the CTA Division
On June 30, 2020, QLDI filed a Petition for Review 13 before the CTA
Division, challenging the CIR's February 4, 2020 Decision. Particularly, QLDI
questioned the validity of the assessment against it, and the prescription of
the CIR's right to collect taxes.
On March 5, 2021, QLDI filed a Motion for Early Resolution of the Issue
of Prescription of Collection of Taxes with Motion to Defer Pre-Trial. 14 QLDI
alleged in its Motion that the CIR's right to collect taxes had already
prescribed as early as December 12, 2019, or five years from the date of
mailing/release/sending of the FAN/FLD on December 12, 2014.
On February 1, 2021, the CTA Division issued an Order stating that
"Considering the manifestation of [the CIR's] counsel that he will no longer
present evidence on the issue of prescription, but will instead present its
evidence in the main case, the issue of prescription is now submitted for
resolution." 15
In the assailed Resolution dated June 7, 2021, the CTA Division held
that the period within which the CIR may collect deficiency taxes had already
lapsed. Accordingly, the CTA Division cancelled the assessment for
deficiency taxes against QLDI for taxable year 2010.
The dispositive portion of the June 7, 2021 Resolution provided:
WHEREFORE, premises considered, petitioner's Motion for
Early Resolution of the Issue of Prescription of Collection of
Taxes — with — Motion to Defer Pre-Trial is GRANTED.
Accordingly, the assessment for deficiency taxes for taxable year
2010 issued against petitioner and contained in the FAN/FLD dated
December 11, 2014 and Questioned Decision dated February 4, 2020,
is CANCELLED.
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2022 cdasiaonline.com
 SO ORDERED. 16

The CTA Division ruled that when an assessment is timely issued, the
CIR has five years to collect the assessed tax, reckoned from the date the
assessment notice had been released, mailed, or sent by the Bureau of
Internal Revenue (BIR) to the taxpayer. Thus, in this case, the CIR had five
years from December 12, 2014, or until December 12, 2019, to collect the
deficiency taxes. However, the CIR issued the BIR letters for the collection of
taxes on various dates in 2020, which were all beyond December 12, 2019.
Accordingly, the CTA Division ruled that the government's demand for
payment of deficiency taxes was already barred by prescription.
The CIR filed a Motion for Reconsideration, which the CTA Division
denied in its assailed Resolution dated December 11, 2021. The CTA Division
enjoined the CIR from collecting from QLDI the deficiency taxes either by
distraint or levy. It likewise held that its jurisdiction over "other matters"
arising under the National Internal Revenue Code of 1997 17 (NIRC) includes
the issue as to whether the CIR's right to collect taxes has already
prescribed. The dispositive portion of the Resolution reads:
WHEREFORE, premises considered, petitioner's Compliance
[Re: Resolution dated March 3, 2021] and Compliance [Re:
Resolution dated 05 July 2021], are NOTED. Thus, finding the
surety bond and the attached documents to be in order, the surety
bond is hereby APPROVED.
On the basis of the posting of the Surety Bond, respondents are
hereby ENJOINED from collecting from petitioner the amount of tax
subject of the present Petition for Review either by distraint, levy, or
otherwise by any other means provided for by law, until further
orders from the Court.
On the other hand, respondents' Motion for Reconsideration
(Re: Resolution dated 7 June 2021) is DENIED for lack of merit.
SO ORDERED. 18

Hence, the present Petition.

The Issue
The core of the issue is whether the CIR's right to collect taxes had
already prescribed.
The Court's Ruling
After a careful study of the allegations and the records of this case, the
Court resolves to dismiss the Petition and uphold the Resolutions dated June
7, 2021 and December 11, 2021 issued by the CTA Division.
The CIR availed itself of the wrong
remedy in filing the instant Petition
before the Court.
At the outset, it bears noting that the CIR directly filed a petition for
certiorari and prohibition with the Court, alleging that the twin Resolutions
issued by the CTA Division are interlocutory orders that cannot be appealed
before the CTA En Banc. DETACa

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2022 cdasiaonline.com

 In CIR v. Court of Tax Appeals , 19 the Court held that the CTA En Banc
has jurisdiction over a final judgment or order but not over an interlocutory
order issued by the CTA Division. In reaching this conclusion, the Court
explained the concept of a final judgment or order and distinguished it from
an interlocutory order, as follows:
I n Denso (Phils.), Inc. v. Intermediate Appellate Court , we
expounded on the differences between a "final judgment" and an
"interlocutory order," to wit:
x x x A "final" judgment or order is one that finally
disposes of a case, leaving nothing more to be done by
the Court in respect thereto, e.g., an adjudication on the
merits which, on the basis of the evidence presented at
the trial, declares categorically what the rights and
obligations of the parties are and which party is in the
right; or a judgment or order that dismisses an action on
the ground, for instance, of res judicata or prescription.
Once rendered, the task of the Court is ended, as far as
deciding the controversy or determining the rights and
liabilities of the litigants is concerned. Nothing more
remains to be done by the Court except to await the
parties' next move x x x and ultimately, of course, to
cause the execution of the judgment once it becomes
"final" or, to use the established and more distinctive
term, "final and executory."
xxx xxx xxx
Conversely, an order that does not finally dispose of
the case, and does not end the Court's task of
adjudicating the parties' contentions and determining
their rights and liabilities as regards each other, but
obviously indicates that other things remain to be done
by the Court, is "interlocutory," e.g., an order denying a
motion to dismiss under Rule 16 of the Rules x x x. Unlike
a "final" judgment or order, which is appealable, as above
pointed out, an "interlocutory" order may not be
questioned on appeal except only as part of an appeal
that may eventually be taken from the final judgment
rendered in the case. 20
Given the distinctions between a final judgment or order and an
interlocutory order, there is no doubt that the CTA Resolutions dated June 7,
2021 and December 11, 2021, which cancelled the assessment against QLDI
on the basis of prescription and enjoined the CIR from collecting the
deficiency taxes for taxable year 2010, are final judgments or orders. The
CIR's proper remedy on the adverse Resolutions of the CTA Division was to
file an appeal by way of a petition for review with the CTA En Banc. Thus, the
CIR's filing of the instant Petition before this Court assailing the twin
Resolutions issued by the CTA Division is erroneous.
It is elementary in remedial law that the use of an erroneous remedy is
a cause for the outright dismissal of the petition for certiorari and it has been
repeatedly stressed that a petition for certiorari is not a substitute for a lost
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2022 cdasiaonline.com
 appeal. This is due to the nature of a Rule 65 petition which lies only where
there is "no appeal," and "no plain, speedy and adequate remedy in the
ordinary course of law." 21
Nonetheless, even if the Court were to disregard the impropriety of the
remedy resorted to by the CIR, the Petition would still be dismissed.
The CTA has jurisdiction over the
case.
On the merits of the case, the CIR attributes grave abuse of discretion
to the CTA Division when it assumed jurisdiction over QLDI's Petition for
Review. The CIR claims that QLDI's failure to file a valid protest to the
FAN/FLD rendered the assessment against it already final, executory, and
demandable. As such, the assessments are not subject to judicial scrutiny,
as it is already beyond the CTA Division's jurisdiction.
The CIR's argument must fail in light of Section 7 (a) (1) of Republic Act
No. (RA) 1125, 22 as amended by RA 9282, 23 which confers upon the CTA
the jurisdiction to decide not only cases on disputed assessments and
refunds of internal revenue taxes, but also "other matters" arising under the
NIRC:
SEC. 7. Jurisdiction. — The CTA shall exercise:
(a) 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 in
relation thereto, or other matters arising under the
National Internal Revenue [Code] or other laws
administered by the Bureau of Internal Revenue[.]
(Emphasis supplied)
Based on the foregoing provision, the exclusive appellate jurisdiction of
the CTA Division is not limited to cases involving decisions of the CIR or
matters relating to assessments or refunds. In CIR v. Hambrecht & Quist
Philippines, Inc., 24 the Court held that the issue of prescription of the CIR's
right to collect taxes is covered by the term "other matters" over which the
CTA has appellate jurisdiction:
x x x [T]he issue of prescription of the BIR's right to collect
taxes may be considered as covered by the term "other matters"
over which the CTA has appellate jurisdiction.
Furthermore, the phraseology of Section 7, number (1), denotes
an intent to view the CTA's jurisdiction over disputed assessments
and over "other matters" arising under the NIRC or other laws
administered by the BIR as separate and independent of each other.
This runs counter to petitioner's theory that the latter is qualified by
the status of the former, i.e., an "other matter" must not be a final
and unappealable tax assessment or, alternatively, must be a
disputed assessment. 25
To be sure, the fact that an assessment has become final for failure of
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2022 cdasiaonline.com
 the taxpayer to file a protest within the time allowed only means that the
validity or correctness of the assessment may no longer be questioned on
appeal. However, the validity of the assessment itself is a separate and
distinct issue from the issue of whether the right of the CIR to collect the
validly assessed tax has prescribed. This issue of prescription, being a
matter provided for by the NIRC, is well within the jurisdiction of the CTA to
decide. 26 aDSIHc

The CIR's right to collect taxes had

prescribed. The three-year, and not the
five-year, period applies to this case.
Regarding the period to collect taxes, the CTA Division held that when
an assessment is timely issued, the CIR has five years within which to collect
the assessed tax. Considering that the collection letters were issued beyond
five years, the CIR's right to collect from QLDI the assessed deficiency taxes
had already prescribed.
Section 203 of the NIRC, as amended, which provides for the
prescriptive period in the assessment and collection of internal revenue
taxes, reads:
SEC. 203. Period of Limitation upon Assessment and
Collection. — Except as provided in Section 222, internal revenue
taxes shall be assessed within three (3) years after the last day
prescribed by law for the filing of the return, and no proceeding in
court without assessment for the collection of such taxes shall be
begun after the expiration of such period: Provided, That in a case
where a return is filed beyond the period prescribed by law, the three
(3)-year period shall be counted from the day the return was filed. For
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.
I n CIR v. United Salvage and Towage (Phils.), Inc. , 27 the Court held
that in cases of assessments issued within the three-year ordinary period,
the CIR has another three years within which to collect taxes, thus:
The statute of limitations on assessment and collection of
national internal revenue taxes was shortened from five (5) years to
three (3) years by virtue of Batas Pambansa Blg. 700. Thus, petitioner
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.
However, 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. 28
Applying the foregoing ruling, the Court holds that the CTA Division
erred when it applied the five-year period to collect taxes. The five-year
period for collection of taxes only applies to assessments issued within the
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2022 cdasiaonline.com
 extraordinary period of 10 years in cases of false or fraudulent return or
failure to file a return. Indeed, Section 222 of the NIRC, as amended,
provides:
SEC. 222. Exceptions as to Period of Limitation of
Assessment and Collection of Taxes. —
(a) In the case of a false or fraudulent return with
intent to evade tax or of failure to file a return, the tax may be
assessed, or a proceeding in court for the collection of such tax may
be filed without assessment, at any time within ten (10) years after
the discovery of the falsity, fraud or omission: Provided, That in a
fraud assessment which has become final and executory, the fact of
fraud shall be judicially taken cognizance of in the civil or criminal
action for the collection thereof.
xxx xxx xxx
(c) Any internal revenue tax which has been assessed
within the period of limitation as prescribed in paragraph (a) hereof
may be collected by distraint or levy or by a proceeding in court
within five (5) years following the assessment of the tax. (Emphasis
supplied)
Here, given that the subject assessment was issued within the three-
year ordinary prescriptive period to assess, the CIR had another three years
to initiate the collection of taxes by distraint or levy or court proceeding.
Accordingly, since the FAN/FLD was mailed on December 12, 2014, 29 the
CIR had another three years reckoned from said date, or until December 12,
2017, to enforce collection of the assessed deficiency taxes. Verily,
prescription had already set in when the CIR initiated its collection efforts
only in 2020. 30 The Court also notes that regardless of which period to
apply, i.e., five years as determined by the CTA Division or three years, the
CIR's collection efforts were, as they are, barred by prescription.
In an attempt to convince this Court that its right to collect the
deficiency taxes had not yet prescribed, the CIR avers that the FDDA
received by QLDI effectively operated as a collection letter for the
satisfaction of deficiency tax liabilities. 31
The Court finds no merit in the CIR's assertion. ETHIDa

To reiterate, the CIR's collection efforts are initiated by distraint, levy,

or court proceeding. The distraint and levy proceedings are validly begun or
commenced by the issuance of a warrant of distraint and levy and service
thereof on the taxpayer. 32 And a judicial action for the collection of a tax is
initiated: (a) by the filing of a complaint with the court of competent
jurisdiction; or (b) where the assessment is appealed to the CTA, by filing an
answer to the taxpayer's petition for review wherein payment of the tax is
prayed for. 33 However, in this case no warrant of distraint and/or levy was
served on QLDI, and no judicial proceedings were initiated by the CIR within
the prescriptive period to collect.
At this juncture, the Court ought to reiterate that while taxes are the
lifeblood of the nation, the Court cannot allow tax authorities indefinite and
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2022 cdasiaonline.com
 infinite periods to assess and collect alleged unpaid taxes. Certainly, it is an
injustice to leave taxpayers in perpetual uncertainty whether they will be
made liable for deficiency or delinquent taxes. 34 The Court has elaborated
on the significance of adopting a statute of limitations on tax assessment
and collection in this wise:
The 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 latter's real liability, but to take advantage of every opportunity to
molest peaceful, law-abiding citizens. Without such 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 beneficient purpose of affording protection to the taxpayer within
the contemplation of the Commission which recommends the
approval of the law. 35
The CTA has authority to enjoin the
collection of taxes; requirements.
The Court also rejects the CIR's argument that the CTA Division acted
without jurisdiction when it was enjoined to collect taxes against QLDI. For
the CIR, the CTA Division has no power to issue writs of injunction and
prohibition, but may only suspend the collection of taxes. 36
While an injunction is not available to restrain the collection of taxes, 37
this rule admits of exception under Section 11 of RA 1125, as amended by
RA 9282, which allows the suspension of collection of taxes if, in the Court's
opinion, the collection may jeopardize the interest of the government and/or
the taxpayer, viz.:
SEC. 11. Who May Appeal; Mode of Appeal; Effect of Appeal.
— Any party adversely affected by a decision, ruling or inaction of the
Commissioner of Internal Revenue, the Commissioner of Customs, the
Secretary of Finance, the Secretary of Trade and Industry or the
Secretary of Agriculture or the Central Board of Assessment Appeals
or the Regional Trial Courts may file an appeal with the CTA within
thirty (30) days after the receipt of such decision or ruling or after the
expiration of the period fixed by law for action as referred to in
Section 7(a)(2) herein.
xxx xxx xxx
No appeal taken to the CTA from the decision of the
Commissioner of Internal Revenue or the Commissioner of Customs or
the Regional Trial Court, provincial, city or municipal treasurer or the
Secretary of Finance, the Secretary of Trade and Industry or the
Secretary of Agriculture, as the case may be, shall suspend the
payment, levy, distraint, and/or sale of any property of the taxpayer
for the satisfaction of his tax liability as provided by existing law:
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2022 cdasiaonline.com
 Provided, however, That when in the opinion of the Court the
collection by the aforementioned government agencies may
jeopardize the interest of the Government and/or the
taxpayer the Court [at] any stage of the proceeding may
suspend the said collection and require the taxpayer either to
deposit the amount claimed or to file a surety bond for not
more than double the amount with the Court. (Emphasis
supplied)
Pursuant to the foregoing, the CTA may enjoin the collection of taxes if
such collection will jeopardize the interest of the government or the
taxpayer. In this regard, the Court ruled that the CTA has ample authority to
issue injunctive writs to restrain the collection of tax, 38 especially in cases
where prescription has set in. 39
To recall, the December 11, 2021 CTA Resolution enjoined the CIR from
collecting the deficiency taxes against QLDI until further orders from the CTA
Division. The Court finds that the CTA Division's act of enjoining the CIR from
collecting deficiency taxes had sufficient basis, as it was centered on the
finding that the CIR's right to collect the assessed deficiency taxes had
already lapsed. Moreover, QLDI posted a surety bond, which the CTA Division
approved.
On the strength of the foregoing observations, the Court cannot grant
the CIR's application for injunctive relief. The CIR failed to establish that it is
entitled to the reliefs demanded in the Petition. 40 Neither was it able to
show the material and substantial invasion of a right sought to be protected.
The application for a temporary restraining order and writ of preliminary
injunction is therefore denied. 41
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Petition is DISMISSED. The
June 7, 2021 and December 11, 2021 Resolutions of the Court of Tax
Appeals Second Division in CTA Case No. 10291 are hereby AFFIRMED. cSEDTC

SO ORDERED.
Gesmundo, C.J., Inting, Gaerlan and Dimaampao, JJ., concur.

Footnotes

1. Rollo , pp. 3-44.

2. Id. at 39-40; emphasis in the original.
3. Id. at 50-58. Signed by Associate Justices Juanito C. Castañeda, Jr. and Jean Marie
A. Bacorro-Villena.
4. Id. at 59-73. Signed by Associate Justices Juanito C. Castañeda, Jr., Jean Marie A.
Bacorro-Villena and Lance S. Cui-David.
5. Id. at 86.
6. Id. at 12, 87-91.
7. Id. at 12. See also id. at 104-105, where QLDI alleged that it received the PAN on
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2022 cdasiaonline.com
 December 11, 2014.
8. Id. at 105.
9. Attached to the Petition as Annex "F," Formal Letter of Demand with Details of
Discrepancies dated December 11, 2014, id. at 92-96.
10. Id. at 57.
11. Attached to the Petition as Annex "G," Final Decision on Disputed Assessment
dated February 11, 2015, id. at 97.
12. Id. at 98.
13. Id. at 98-138.

14. Id. at 13.

15. Id. at 50.
16. Id. at 58; emphasis and underscoring in the original.
17. Republic Act No. 8424, December 11, 1997.

18. Rollo , pp. 72-73; emphasis in the original.

19. G.R. Nos. 203054-55, July 29, 2015, 764 SCRA 212.
20. Id. at 222; italics in the original, citations omitted.
21. Rondina v. Court of Appeals , G.R. No. 172212, July 9, 2009, 592 SCRA 346, 355;
citation omitted.
22. AN ACT CREATING THE COURT OF TAX APPEALS, June 16, 1954.
23. AN ACT EXPANDING THE JURISDICTION OF THE COURT OF TAX APPEALS (CTA),
ELEVATING ITS RANK TO THE LEVEL OF A COLLEGIATE COURT WITH SPECIAL
JURISDICTION AND ENLARGING ITS MEMBERSHIP, AMENDING FOR THE
PURPOSE CERTAIN SECTIONS OF REPUBLIC ACT NO. 1125, AS AMENDED,
OTHERWISE KNOWN AS THE LAW CREATING THE COURT OF TAX APPEALS,
AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES, March 30, 2004.
24. G.R. No. 169225, November 17, 2010, 635 SCRA 162.
25. Id. at 169.

26. Id. at 170.

27. G.R. No. 197515, July 2, 2014, 729 SCRA 113.
28. Id. at 133; emphasis supplied, citations omitted and italics in the original.
29. Rollo , p. 57.
30. Id.

31. Id. at 27.

32. Bank of the Philippine Islands v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, G.R. No.
139736, October 17, 2005, 473 SCRA 205, 224.
33. Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Pilipinas Shell Petroleum Corporation, G.R.
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2022 cdasiaonline.com
 Nos. 197945 & 204119-20, July 9, 2018, 871 SCRA 183, 222.
34. Id. at 225.
35. Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. The Stanley Works Sales (Phils.),
Incorporated, G.R. No. 187589, December 3, 2014, 743 SCRA 642, 654-655,
citing Republic of the Phils. v. Ablaza, 108 Phil. 1105, 1108 (1960).

36. Rollo , pp. 27-28.

37. Section 218 of the NIRC, as amended, reads:
SEC. 218. Injunction not Available to Restrain Collection of Tax. — No court
shall have the authority to grant an injunction to restrain the collection of any
national internal revenue tax, fee or charge imposed by this Code.
38. Pacquiao v. Court of Tax Appeals, First Division, G.R. No. 213394, April 6, 2016,
789 SCRA 19, 43.

39. See id. at 43. See also Collector of Internal Rev. v. Reyes and Court of Tax
Appeals, 100 Phil. 822, 831 (1957).
40. RULES OF COURT, Rule 58, Sec. 3.
41. In Cayabyab v. Dimson , G.R. No. 223862, July 10, 2017, 830 SCRA 520, 528,
the Court enumerated the requisites for an applicant to be entitled to the
injunctive writ: (a) there exists a clear and unmistakable right to be
protected; (b) the right is directly threatened by an act sought to be
enjoined; (c) the invasion of the right is material and substantial; and (d)
there is an urgent and paramount necessity for the writ to prevent serious
and irreparable damage.

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2022 cdasiaonline.com