G.R. No.

208731, January 27, 2016

PHILIPPINE AMUSEMENT AND GAMING CORPORATION, Petitioner, v. BUREAU OF
INTERNAL REVENUE, COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, AND REGIONAL
DIRECTOR, REVENUE REGION NO. 6, Respondents.
Taxation;

G.R. No. 204970, February 01, 2016

SPOUSES CLAUDIO AND CARMENCITA TRAYVILLA, Petitioners, v. BERNARDO SEJAS
AND JUVY PAGLINAWAN, REPRESENTED BY JESSIE PAGLINAWAN, Respondents.

Taxation; Docket Fees; Rule 141 of the Rules of Court , as amended by A.M No. 04-2-04-SC and
Supreme Court Amended Administrative Circular No. 35-2004 shall be the basis for the computation of
docket fees to be paid; the CA failed to consider that in determining jurisdiction, it could rely on the
declaration made in the Amended Complaint that the property is valued at P6,000.00. The handwritten
document sued upon and the pleadings indicate that the property was purchased by petitioners for the price
of P6,000.00. For purposes of filing the civil case against respondents, this amount should be the stated
value of the property in the absence of a current tax declaration or zonal valuation of the BIR. Rule 141 of
the Rules of Court, as amended by A.M. No. 04-2-04-SC and Supreme Court Amended Administrative
Circular No. 35-2004, provides that -

a) For filing an action or a permissive OR COMPULSORY counterclaim, CROSS-CLAIM, or

money claim against an estate not based on judgment, or for filing a third-party, fourth-party, etc.
complaint, or a complaint-in-intervention, if the total sum claimed, INCLUSIVE OF INTERESTS,
PENALTIES, SURCHARGES, DAMAGES OF WHATEVER KIND, AND ATTORNEY'S
FEES, LITIGATION EXPENSES AND COSTS and/or in cases involving property, the FAIR
MARKET value of the REAL property in litigation STATED IN THE CURRENT TAX
DECLARATION OR CURRENT ZONAL VALUATION OF THE BUREAU OF INTERNAL
REVENUE, WHICHEVER IS HIGHER, OR IF THERE IS NONE, THE STATED VALUE OF
THE PROPERTY IN LITIGATION OR THE VALUE OF THE PERSONAL PROPERTY IN
LITIGATION AS ALLEGED BY THE CLAIMANT x x x (Emphasis supplied)
shall be the basis for the computation of the docket fees to be paid. Since the value of the subject property
as stated in the Amended Complaint is just P6,000.00, then the RTC did not have jurisdiction over
petitioners' case in the first instance; it should have dismissed Civil Case No. 4633-2K5. But it did not. In
continuing to take cognizance of the case, the trial court clearly committed grave abuse of discretion.
G.R. No. 180402, February 10, 2016
COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Petitioner, v. PILIPINAS SHELL PETROLEUM
CORPORATION, Respondent.

Taxation; Excises Taxes; Tax Exemptions; Petroleum Product; petroleum products sold by local
manufacturers/sellers to international carriers are exempt from the imposition of excise taxes as these
international carriers enjoy exemption from payment of excise taxes under Section 135(a) of the NIRC.-
--- Pilipinas Shell already ruled that petroleum products sold by local manufacturers/sellers to international
carriers are exempt from the imposition of excise taxes as these international carriers enjoy exemption from
payment of excise taxes under Section 135(a) of the NIRC. For another the CIR foiled to state with
specificity the tenor of these issuances, except that these relate to the BIR's alleged grant of excise tax
exemption on petroleum products, without even making an effort to present an official copy of these
issuances, much less its contents. Moreover, the Court took upon itself the task of looking into these
issuances and discovered that BIR Ruling No. 051-99 actually involves the petroleum product withdrawals
by Petron who is not even party to the present case. On the other hand, Revenue Regulations No. 5-
2003 does not pertain solely to refund/credit of excise taxes on petroleum products but prescribes general
regulations on the manner of the issuance of tax credit certificates and the conditions for their use,
revalidation and transfer. For these reasons, the Court cannot sanction the CIR's "shotgun approach" and
sustain its bare arguments without more.

G.R. No. 202695, February 29, 2016

COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Petitioner, v. GJM PHILIPPINES
MANUFACTURING, INC., Respondent.

Taxation; Assessment; The CIR has three (3) years from the date of the actual filing of the return or
from the last day prescribed by law for the filing of the return, whichever is later, to assess internal
revenue taxes. Here, GJM filed its Annual Income fax Return for the taxable year 1999 on April 12,
2000. The three (3)-year prescriptive period, therefore, was only until April 15, 2003. The records reveal
that the BIR sent the FAN through registered mail on April 14, 2003, well-within the required period. The
Court has held that when an assessment is made within the prescriptive period, as in the case at bar, receipt
by the taxpayer may or may not be within said period. But it must be clarified that the rule does not dispense
with the requirement that the taxpayer should actually receive the assessment notice, even beyond the
prescriptive period.7 GJM, however, denies ever having received any FAN.
Same; Same; Same; If the taxpayer denies having received an assessment from the BIR, it then becomes
incumbent upon the latter to prove by competent evidence that such notice was indeed received by the
addressee.Flere, the onus probandi has shifted to the BIR to show by contrary evidence that GJM indeed
received the assessment in the due course of mail. It has been settled that while a mailed letter is deemed
received by the addressee in the course of mail, this is merely a disputable presumption subject to
controversion, the direct denial of which shifts the burden to the sender to prove that the mailed letter was,
in fact, received by the addressee.
G.R. No. 182737, March 02, 2016
SILICON PHILIPPINES, INC. (FORMERLY INTEL PHILIPPINES MANUFACTURING,
INC.), Petitioner, v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent.

Taxation; Tax Credit; Tax Refund; The administrative claim of a VAT-registered person for the issuance
by respondent of tax credit certificates or the refund of input taxes paid on zero-rated sales or capital goods
imported may be made within two years after the close of the taxable quarter when the sale or
importation/purchase was made.
Same; Same; Same; Upon the filing of an administrative claim, respondent is given a period of 120 days
within which to (1) grant a refund or issue the tax credit certificate for creditable input taxes; or (2) make a
full or partial denial of the claim for a tax refund or tax credit. Failure on the part of respondent to act on
the application within the 120-day period shall be deemed a denial.
Same; Same; Same; Judicial Claim; The judicial claim shall be filed within a period of 30 days after the
receipt of respondent's decision or ruling or after the expiration of the 120-day period, whichever is
sooner.Aside from a specific exception to the mandatory and jurisdictional nature of the periods provided
by the law, any claim filed in a period less than or beyond the 120+30 days provided by the NIRC is outside
the jurisdiction of the CTA.
Same; Same; Same;Same; Appeal; In case of full or partial denial of the claim for tax refund or tax credit,
or the failure on the part of the Commissioner to act on the application within the period prescribed
above, the taxpayer affected may, within thirty (30) days from the receipt of the decision denying the
claim or after the expiration of the one hundred twenty day-period, appeal the decision or the unacted
claim with the Court of Tax Appeals.