4/2/2017 G.R.No.

105208

TodayisSunday,April02,2017

CustomSearch

RepublicofthePhilippines
SUPREMECOURT
Manila

THIRDDIVISION

G.R.No.105208May29,1995

COMMISSIONEROFINTERNALREVENUE,petitioner,
vs.
THEPHILIPPINEAMERICANLIFEINSURANCECO.,THECOURTOFTAXAPPEALSandTHECOURTOF
APPEALS,respondents.

ROMERO,J.:

Thisisapetitionforreviewoncertiorarifiledbypetitioner,CommissionerofInternalRevenue,oftheDecision1
dated March 26, 1992 of the Court of Appeals in CAGR No. 26598, entitled "Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. The
Philippine American Life Insurance Co. & the Court of Tax Appeals" affirming the decision of respondent Court of Tax
AppealswhichorderedtherefundtothePhilippineAmericanLifeInsuranceCo.(Philamlife)oftheamountofP3,643,015.00
representingexcesscorporateincometaxesforthefirstandsecondquartersof1983.

PrivaterespondentfiledacasebeforetheCourtofTaxAppeals(CTA)docketedasCTACaseNo.4018entitled
"ThePhilippineAmericanLifeInsuranceCompanyversusCommissionerofInternalRevenue."

OnSeptember16,1991,theCTArenderedadecisionintheaboveentitledcase,thedispositiveportionofwhich
states:

WHEREFORE,petitioner'sclaimforrefundforP3,246,141.00andP396,874.00representingexcess
corporatedincometaxpaymentsforthefirstandsecondquartersof1983,respectively,oratotalof
P3,643,015.00isherebyGRANTED.Accordingly,respondentCommissionerofInternalRevenue,is
herebyorderedtorefundtopetitionerPhilippineAmericanLifeInsuranceCompanythetotalamount
ofP3,643,015.00.

Withrespecttopetitioner'sclaimforrefundofP215,742.00representing1983withholdingtaxeson
rental income the same is hereby DENIED for failure to present proof of actualwithholding and
paymentwiththeBureauofInternalRevenue.Nocosts.

Thefacts,uncontrovertedbypetitioner,are:

On May 30, 1983, private respondent Philamlife paid to the Bureau of Internal Revenue (BIR) its first quarterly
corporateincometaxforCalendarYear(CY)1983amountingtoP3,246,141.00.

OnAugust29,1983,itpaidP396,874.00fortheSecondQuarterof1983.

FortheThirdQuarterof1983,privaterespondentdeclaredanettaxableincomeofP2,515,671.00andataxdue
ofP708,464.00.AftercreditingtheamountofP3,899,525.00itdeclaredarefundableamountofP3,158,061.00.

For its Fourth and final quarter ending December 31, private respondent suffered a loss and thereby had no
incometaxliability.Inthereturnforthatquarter,itdeclaredarefundofP3,991,841.00representingthefirstand
second quarterly payments: P215,742.00 as withholding taxes on rental income for 1983 and P133,084.00
representing1982incometaxrefundappliedas1983taxcredit.

In1984,privaterespondentagainsufferedalossanddeclarednoincometaxliability.However,itappliedastax
credit for 1984, the amount of P3,991,841.00 representing its 1982 and 1983 overpaid income taxes and the
amountofP250,867.00aswithholdingtaxonrentalincomefor1984.

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1995/may1995/gr_105208_1995.html 1/7
4/2/2017 G.R.No.105208

On September 26, 1984, private respondent filed a claim for its 1982 income tax refund of P133,084.00. On
November22,1984,itfiledapetitionforreviewwiththeCourtofTaxAppeals(C.T.A.CaseNo.3868)withrespect
toits1982claimforrefundofP133,084.00.

On December 16, 1985, it filed another claim for refund with petitioners appellate division in the aggregate
amountofP4,109,624.00,computedasfollows:

1982incometaxrefundable
appliedastaxcredit P133,084
1983incometaxrefundable
appliedastaxcredit P3,858,757
1984taxcreditonrental P250,867

Total P4,242,708

Less: 1983claimfor
refundalready
filedwiththe
BIRandthe
CTA
(CaseNo. P133,084
3868)

NetAmountRefundable P4,109,624
===========

OnJanuary2,1986,privaterespondentfiledapetitionforreviewwiththeCTA,docketedasCTACaseNo.4018
regardingits1983and1984claimsforrefundintheabovestatedamount.

Later,itamendeditspetitionbylimitingitsclaimforrefundtoonlyP3,858,757.00computedasfollows:

CalendarYear
Ending123183
DatePaid O.R.No. AmountPaid
FirstQuarter 5/30/83 B2269337 P3,246,141.00
SecondQuarter 8/29/83 B1938178 396,874.00
1983WithholdingTaxonrentalincome 215,742.00
1983IncomeTaxRefundable P3,858,757.00

The issue in this case is the reckoning date of the twoyear prescriptive period provided in Section 230 of the
NationalInternalRevenueCode(formerlySection292)whichstatesthat:

Recoveryoftaxerroneouslyorillegallycollected.Nosuitorproceedingshallbemaintainedinany
court for the recovery of any national internal revenue tax hereafter alleged to have been
erroneously or illegally assessed or collected, or of any penalty claimed to have been collected
without authority, or of any sum alleged to have been excessive or in any manner wrongfully
collected,untilaclaimforrefundorcredithasbeendulyfiledwiththeCommissionerbutsuchsuitor
proceeding may be maintained, whether or not such tax, penalty, or sum has been paid under
protestorduress.

Inanycase,nosuchsuitorproceedingshallbebegunaftertheexpirationoftwoyearsfromthedate
ofpaymentofthetaxorpenaltyregardlessofanysuperveningcausethatmayariseafterpayment:
Provided, however, That the Commissioner may, even without a written claim therefor, refund or
credit any tax, where on the face of the return upon which payment was made, such payment
appearsclearlytohavebeenerroneouslypaid.

Forfeitureofrefund.Arefundcheckorwarrantissuedinaccordancewiththepertinentprovisions
ofthisCodewhichshallremainunclaimedoruncashedwithinfive(5)yearsfromthedatethesaid

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1995/may1995/gr_105208_1995.html 2/7
4/2/2017 G.R.No.105208

warrant or check was mailed or delivered shall be forfeited in favor of the government and the
amountthereofshallreverttotheGeneralFund.

Petitionerposesthefollowingquestion:Inacasesuchasthis,whereacorporatetaxpayerremits/paystotheBIR
taxwithheldonincomeforthefirstquarterbutwhosebusinessoperationsactuallyresultedinalossforthatyear,
asreflectedintheCorporateFinalAdjustmentReturnsubsequentlyfiledwiththeBIR,shouldnottherunningof
theprescriptiveperiodcommencefromtheremittance/paymentattheendofthefirstquarterofthetaxwithheld
insteadoffromthefilingoftheFinalAdjustmentReturn?

Insupportofitscontention,petitionercitesthecaseofPacificProconLtd.v.CourtofTaxAppeals,eta1.2 wherein
the CTA denied therein petitioner's claim for refund after it construed Section 292 (now Section 230) of the NIRC to be
mandatory and "not subject to any qualification," hence it applies regardless of the conditions under which payment may
havebeenmade.TheTaxCourtruled:

UnderSection292(formerlySection306)oftheNationalInternalRevenueCode,aclaimforrefund
ofataxallegedtohavebeenerroneouslyorillegallycollectedshallbefiledwiththeCommissionerof
InternalRevenuewithintwoyearsfromthedateofpaymentofthetax,andthatnosuitorproceeding
for refund shall be begun after the expiration of the said twoyear period (Citation omitted). As a
matteroffact,thesaidsectionfurtherprovidesthat:...Inanycase,nosuchsuitorproceedingshall
bebegunaftertheexpirationoftwoyearsfromthedateofpaymentofthetaxorthedateofpayment
ofthetaxorpenaltyregardlessofanysuperveningcausethatmayariseafterpayment.

Petitioner states that the phrase "regardless of supervening cause that may arise after payment" is an
amendatoryphraseunderthesaidSection292whichdidnotappearinSection306oftheoldTaxCodebeforeit
wasamendedbyPresidentialDecreeNo.69,whichbecameeffectiveJanuary1,1973.Petitionerarguesthatthe
incorporation of the said phrase did away with any other interpretation and, therefore, the reckoning period of
prescriptionunderSection292(nowsection230)isfromthedateofpaymentoftaxregardlessoffinancialloss
(the"superveningcause").Thus,theclaimforrefundoftheamountsofP3,246,141.00andP396,874.00paidon
May30,1983andAugust29,1983,respectively,hasprescribed.

Wefindpetitioner'scontentionstobeunmeritorious.

ItistruethatinthePacificProconcase,weheldthattherighttobringanactionforrefundhadprescribed,thetax
having been found to have been paid at the end of the first quarter when the withholding tax corresponding
theretowasremittedtotheBureauofInternalRevenue,notatthetimeoffilingoftheFinalAdjustmentReturnin
Aprilofthefollowingyear.

However,thiscasewasoverturnedbytheCourtinCommissionerofInternalRevenuev.TMXSalesIncorporated
andtheCourtofTaxAppeals,3whereinwesaid:

...inresolvingtheinstantcase,itisnecessarythatweconsidernotonlySection292(nowSection
230) of the National Internal Revenue Code but also the other provisions of the Tax Code,
particularlySections84,85(nowbothincorporatedasSection68),Section86(nowSection70)and
Section 87 (now Section 69) on Quarterly Corporate Income Tax Payment and Section 321 (now
Section 232) on keeping of books of accounts. All these provisions of the Tax Code should be
harmonizedwitheachother.

Section292(nowSection230)stipulatesthatthetwoyearprescriptiveperiodtoclaimrefundsshouldbecounted
fromdateofpaymentofthetaxsoughttoberefunded.Whenappliedtotaxpayersfilingincometaxreturnsona
quarterlybasis,thedateofpaymentmentionedinSection292(nowSection230)mustbedeemedtobequalified
bySections68and69ofthepresentTaxCodewhichrespectivelyprovide:

Sec.68DeclarationofQuarterlyIncomeTax.Everycorporationshallfileinduplicateaquarterly
summary declaration of its gross income and deductions on a cumulative basis for the preceding
quarter or quarters upon which the income tax, as provided in Title II of this Code shall be levied,
collectedandpaid.TheTaxsocomputedshallbedecreasedbytheamountoftaxpreviouslypaidor
assessed during the preceding quarters and shall be paid not later than sixty (60) days from the
closeofeachofthefirstthree(3)quartersofthetaxableyear.

Sec.69.FinalAdjustmentReturn.EverycorporationliabletotaxunderSection24shallfileafinal
adjustmentreturncoveringthetotalnetincomefortheprecedingcalendarorfiscalyear.Ifthesum
ofthequarterlytaxpaymentsmadeduringthesaidtaxableyearisnotequaltothetotaltaxdueon
theentiretaxablenetincomeofthatyearthecorporationshalleither:

(a)Paytheexcessstilldueor

(b)Berefundedtheexcessamountpaid,asthecasemaybe.

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1995/may1995/gr_105208_1995.html 3/7
4/2/2017 G.R.No.105208

Incasethecorporationisentitledtoarefundoftheexcessestimatedquarterlyincometaxespaid,
the refundable amount shown on its final adjustment return may be credited against the estimated
quarterlyincometaxliabilitiesforthetaxablequartersofthesucceedingtaxableyear.

Itmaybeobservedthatalthoughquarterlytaxesduearerequiredtobepaidwithinsixtydaysfromthecloseof
eachquarter,thefactthattheamountshallbedeductedfromthetaxdueforthesucceedingquartershowsthat
until a final adjustment return shall have been filed, the taxes paid in the preceding quarters are merely partial
taxesduefromacorporation.Neitheramountcanserveasthefinalfiguretoquantitywhatisduethegovernment
norwhatshouldberefundedtothecorporation.

ThisinterpretationmaybegleanedfromthelastparagraphofSection69oftheTaxCodewhichprovidesthatthe
refundableamount,incasearefundisdueacorporation,isthatamountwhichisshownonitsfinaladjustment
returnandnotonitsquarterlyreturns.

Therefore, when private respondent paid P3,246,141.00 on May 30, 1983, it would not have been able to
ascertainonthatdate,thatthesaidamountwasrefundable.Thesameapplieswithcogencytothepaymentof
P396,874.00onAugust29,1983.

Clearly, the prescriptive period of two years should commence to run only from the time that the refund is
ascertained,whichcanonlybedeterminedafterafinaladjustmentreturnisaccomplished.Inthepresentcase,
thisdateisApril16,1984,andtwoyearsfromthisdatewouldbeApril16,1986.Therecordshowsthattheclaim
forrefundwasfiledonDecember10,1985andthepetitionforreviewwasbroughtbeforetheCTAonJanuary2,
1986. Both dates are within the twoyear reglementary period. Private respondent being a corporation, Section
292(nowSection230)cannotserveasthesolebasisfordeterminingthetwoyearprescriptiveperiodforrefunds.
As we have earlier said in the TMX Sales case, Sections 68, 69, and 70 on Quarterly Corporate Income Tax
PaymentandSection321shouldbeconsideredinconjunctionwithit.

Moreover,evenifthetwoyearperiodhadalreadylapsed,thesameisnotjurisdictional4andmaybesuspendedfor
reasonsofequityandotherspecialcircumstances.5

Petitioner also raises the issue of whether or not private respondent has satisfactorily shown by competent
evidencethatitisentitledtotheamountsoughttoberefunded.Thisbeingaquestionoffact,thisCourtisbound
by the findings of the Court of Tax Appeals which has clearly established the propriety of private respondent's
claimforrefundforexcess1983quarterlyincometaxpayments.Ontheotherhand,petitionerCommissionerof
InternalRevenuehasfailedtopresentanydocumentaryortestimonialevidenceinsupportofhiscase.Instead,
heoptedtopostponethehearingsseveraltimesandlaterchosetosubmitthecasefordecisiononthebasisof
therecordsandpleadingsofinstantcase.

To repeat, we find that private respondent has presented sufficient evidence in support of its claim for refund,
whereaspetitionerhasfailedtocontrovertthesameadequately.

WHEREFORE,theinstantpetitionisDISMISSEDandthedecisionoftheCourtofAppealsisherebyAFFIRMEDin
toto.Nocosts.

SOORDERED.

MeloandFrancisco,JJ.,concur.

Feliciano,J.,tooknopart.

SeparateOpinions

VITUG,J.,concurring:

Domestic corporations, as well as foreign corporations engaged in trade or business in the Philippines, are
requiredtorenderwithinsixtydaysfollowingthecloseofeachquarterincometaxreturnsonacumulativebasis
for the preceding quarter or quarters, upon which their income tax is paid, and a final adjustment return on or
beforethe15thdayofAprilorofthefourthmonthfollowingthecloseofthefiscalyearcoveringtheentiretaxable
incomeoftheprecedingcalendarorfiscalyear.Thetaxthuscomputed,adjustedandthereuponpaideachtime

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1995/may1995/gr_105208_1995.html 4/7
4/2/2017 G.R.No.105208

for any of the quarters preceding the last quarter of the taxable year is provisional in nature. The income tax
liabilityoftaxpayersisdeterminedonthebasisofafulltaxableperiod.

Section 230 of the National Internal Revenue Code precludes any suit or proceeding from being maintained in
any court for the recovery of any national internal revenue tax alleged to have been erroneously or illegally
assessedorcollected,orofanypenaltyclaimedtohavebeencollectedwithoutauthority,orofanysumsaidto
have been excessive or in any manner wrongfully collected unless (a) a written claim for the refund or credit
thereofhasbeendulyfiledwiththeCommissionerand(b)thesuitorproceedingshallhavebeeninstitutedwithin
two years from the date of payment of the tax or penalty regardless of any supervening cause that might arise
aftersuchpayment(revokingtheruleannouncedinCommissionervs.NationalPowerCorporation,31SCRA112
andCommissioner vs. Victorias Milling Company, 22 SCRA 13). The twoyear period, it may be observed, is a
limitation of action not only in submitting the written claim for the refund of the tax to the Commissioner but
likewiseinfilingthecase(appeal)withtheCourtofTaxAppeals(whichhasjurisdictionthereoverexclusiveofthe
regular courts). This twoyear period, unlike the thirtyday period of appeal from the decision of the
Commissioner,isnotjurisdictional1anditmaytherebybesuspendedunderexceptionalcircumstances.2Itmayalsobe
well to point out, parenthetically, that this twoyear prescriptive period is intended to apply to suits or proceedings for the
recoveryoftaxes,penaltiesorsumserroneously,excessively,illegallyorwrongfullycollected,accordingly,anavailmentof
ataxcreditgrantedbylawmayhaveadifferentprescriptiveperiod.AbsentanyspecificprovisionintheTaxCodeorspecial
laws,thatperiodwouldbetenyearsunderArticle1144oftheCivilCode.3

Wheneverapplicable,thetwoyearprescriptiveperiodstartsfromthefullandfinalpaymentofthetaxsoughtto
berecovered.4InCollectorofInternalRevenuevs.Prieto,5TheCourtquotedwithapprovalthedisquisitionoftheCourt
ofTaxAppealsthusly:

ThedefunctBoardofTaxAppealsinthecaseofRCACommunications,Inc.vs.David(B.T.A.Case
No. 116, Resolution, June 18, 1953) held that when the tax is paid in installments, the prescriptive
periodoftwoyearsprovidedinsection306oftheRevenueCodeshouldbecountedfromthedateof
thefinalpayment.Weagreewiththisviewasbeingreasonableandwhichappearstobetheuniform
doctrine in American jurisdiction. This rule proceeds from the theory that, in contemplation of tax
laws,thereisnopaymentuntilthewholeorentiretaxliabilityiscompletelypaid.Thus,apaymentof
apartorportionthereof,cannotoperatetostartthecommencementofthestatuteoflimitations.In
thisregardtheword"tax,"orwords"thetax"instatutoryprovisionscomparabletosection306ofour
RevenueCodehavebeenuniformlyheldtorefertotheentiretaxandnotaportionthereof(Clarkvs.
U.S. 69 F. 2d 748 A.S. Kriedner Co. vs. U.S. 30 F Supp. 724 Hills vs. U.S. 50 F 2d 302, 55 F 2d
1001), and the vocables "payment of tax" within statutes requiring refund claim, refer to the date
whenallthetaxwaspaid,notwhenaportionwaspaid(Braunvs.U.S.8FSupp.860,863).

Thetwoyearperiod,inthecaseofthequarterlyincometaxpaymentsystemforcorporations,shouldbedeemed
tostartonlyfromthetimethefinaladjustmenttaxisdueandpayable.InGibbsvs.Commissioner,6theCourtsaid
that if the tax is withheld at source, a concept similar to, albeit not on all fours with, the corporate quarterly tax payment
scheme, the two year period starts when the tax falls due at the end of the taxable year. In fine, corporate income tax
paymentsforthefirstthreequartersofthetaxableyearshould,forpurposesofthetwoyearprescriptiveperiod,bedeemed
to have been paid on the 15th day of April or of the fourth month following the close of the fiscal year covering the entire
taxableincomeoftheprecedingcalendarorfiscalyear.7

Isubscribe,therefore,totheponenciaofmyesteemedcolleague,Mme.JusticeFleridaRuthP.Romero,affirming
thedecisionoftheCourtofAppealsthatsustainedthejudgmentoftheCourtofTaxAppeals.

SeparateOpinions

VITUG,J.,concurring:

Domestic corporations, as well as foreign corporations engaged in trade or business in the Philippines, are
requiredtorenderwithinsixtydaysfollowingthecloseofeachquarterincometaxreturnsonacumulativebasis
for the preceding quarter or quarters, upon which their income tax is paid, and a final adjustment return on or
beforethe15thdayofAprilorofthefourthmonthfollowingthecloseofthefiscalyearcoveringtheentiretaxable
incomeoftheprecedingcalendarorfiscalyear.Thetaxthuscomputed,adjustedandthereuponpaideachtime
for any of the quarters preceding the last quarter of the taxable year is provisional in nature. The income tax
liabilityoftaxpayersisdeterminedonthebasisofafulltaxableperiod.

Section 230 of the National Internal Revenue Code precludes any suit or proceeding from being maintained in
any court for the recovery of any national internal revenue tax alleged to have been erroneously or illegally
assessedorcollected,orofanypenaltyclaimedtohavebeencollectedwithoutauthority,orofanysumsaidto
have been excessive or in any manner wrongfully collected unless (a) a written claim for the refund or credit
thereofhasbeendulyfiledwiththeCommissionerand(b)thesuitorproceedingshallhavebeeninstitutedwithin
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1995/may1995/gr_105208_1995.html 5/7
4/2/2017 G.R.No.105208

two years from the date of payment of the tax or penalty regardless of any supervening cause that might arise
aftersuchpayment(revokingtheruleannouncedinCommissionervs.NationalPowerCorporation,31SCRA112
andCommissioner vs. Victorias Milling Company, 22 SCRA 13). The twoyear period, it may be observed, is a
limitation of action not only in submitting the written claim for the refund of the tax to the Commissioner but
likewiseinfilingthecase(appeal)withtheCourtofTaxAppeals(whichhasjurisdictionthereoverexclusiveofthe
regular courts). This twoyear period, unlike the thirtyday period of appeal from the decision of the
Commissioner,isnotjurisdictional1anditmaytherebybesuspendedunderexceptionalcircumstances.2Itmayalsobe
well to point out, parenthetically, that this twoyear prescriptive period is intended to apply to suits or proceedings for the
recoveryoftaxes,penaltiesorsumserroneously,excessively,illegallyorwrongfullycollected,accordingly,anavailmentof
ataxcreditgrantedbylawmayhaveadifferentprescriptiveperiod.AbsentanyspecificprovisionintheTaxCodeorspecial
laws,thatperiodwouldbetenyearsunderArticle1144oftheCivilCode.3

Wheneverapplicable,thetwoyearprescriptiveperiodstartsfromthefullandfinalpaymentofthetaxsoughtto
berecovered.4InCollectorofInternalRevenuevs.Prieto,5TheCourtquotedwithapprovalthedisquisitionoftheCourt
ofTaxAppealsthusly:

ThedefunctBoardofTaxAppealsinthecaseofRCACommunications,Inc.vs.David(B.T.A.Case
No. 116, Resolution, June 18, 1953) held that when the tax is paid in installments, the prescriptive
periodoftwoyearsprovidedinsection306oftheRevenueCodeshouldbecountedfromthedateof
thefinalpayment.Weagreewiththisviewasbeingreasonableandwhichappearstobetheuniform
doctrine in American jurisdiction. This rule proceeds from the theory that, in contemplation of tax
laws,thereisnopaymentuntilthewholeorentiretaxliabilityiscompletelypaid.Thus,apaymentof
apartorportionthereof,cannotoperatetostartthecommencementofthestatuteoflimitations.In
thisregardtheword"tax,"orwords"thetax"instatutoryprovisionscomparabletosection306ofour
RevenueCodehavebeenuniformlyheldtorefertotheentiretaxandnotaportionthereof(Clarkvs.
U.S. 69 F. 2d 748 A.S. Kriedner Co. vs. U.S. 30 F Supp. 724 Hills vs. U.S. 50 F 2d 302, 55 F 2d
1001), and the vocables "payment of tax" within statutes requiring refund claim, refer to the date
whenallthetaxwaspaid,notwhenaportionwaspaid(Braunvs.U.S.8FSupp.860,863).

Thetwoyearperiod,inthecaseofthequarterlyincometaxpaymentsystemforcorporations,shouldbedeemed
tostartonlyfromthetimethefinaladjustmenttaxisdueandpayable.InGibbsvs.Commissioner,6theCourtsaid
that if the tax is withheld at source, a concept similar to, albeit not on all fours with, the corporate quarterly tax payment
scheme, the two year period starts when the tax falls due at the end of the taxable year. In fine, corporate income tax
paymentsforthefirstthreequartersofthetaxableyearshould,forpurposesofthetwoyearprescriptiveperiod,bedeemed
to have been paid on the 15th day of April or of the fourth month following the close of the fiscal year covering the entire
taxableincomeoftheprecedingcalendarorfiscalyear.7

Isubscribe,therefore,totheponenciaofmyesteemedcolleague,Mme.JusticeFleridaRuthP.Romero,affirming
thedecisionoftheCourtofAppealsthatsustainedthejudgmentoftheCourtofTaxAppeals.

Footnotes

1CAG.R.SPNo.26598,JoseC.Campos,Jr.,J,ponente,AlfredoM.MarigomenandFortunato
A.Vailoces,JJ.,concurringRollo,p.49.

2G.R.No68013,November12,1984.

3G.R.No.83736,January13,1992.

4Oral&DentalCollegevs.CourtofTaxAppeals,102Phil.912.

5PanayElectricCo.vs.Collector,103Phil.819.

VITUG,J.,concurring:

1OralandDentalCollegevs.CourtofTaxAppeals,102Phil.912.

2PanayElectricCompanyvs.Collector,103Phil.819.

3SeeVictoriasMillingCompanyvs.CentralBank,13SCRA479.

4SeeCommissionervs.Palanca,18SCRA496.

52SCRA1007.

615SCRA318.

7SeeSections7577,NationalInternalRevenueCode.
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1995/may1995/gr_105208_1995.html 6/7
4/2/2017 G.R.No.105208

TheLawphilProjectArellanoLawFoundation

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1995/may1995/gr_105208_1995.html 7/7