Republic of the Philippines

SUPREME COURT
Manila

FIRST DIVISION

G.R. No. 188016 January 14, 2015

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, represented by the COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL

REVENUE, Petitioner,
vs.
TEAM (PHILS.) ENERGY CORPORATION (formerly MIRANT (PHILS.) ENERGY
CORPORATION), Respondent.

When the respondent was able to establish prima facie its right to the refund by testimonial and
object evidence, the petitioner should have presented rebuttal evidence to shift the burden of
evidence back to the respondent. Indeed, the petitioner ought to have its own copies of the
respondents quarterly returns on file, on the basis of which it could rebut the respondent's claim that
it did not carry over its unutilized and excess creditable withholding taxes for the immediately
succeeding quarters.

Republic of the Philippines

SUPREME COURT
Manila

FIRST DIVISION

G.R. No. 188260 November 13, 2013

LUZON HYDRO CORPORATION, Petitioner,

vs.
COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent.

DECISION

BERSAMIN, J.:

The Court cannot accept its tender of such receipts and return now, for, indeed, the non-production
of documents as vital and material as such receipts and return were to the success of its claim for
refund or tax credit was improbable, as it goes against the sound business practice of safekeeping
relevant documents precisely to ensure their future use to support an eventual substantial claim for
refund or tax credit.
 Republic of the Philippines
SUPREME COURT
Baguio City

THIRD DIVISION

G.R. No. 160949 April 4, 2011

COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE Petitioner,

vs.
PL MANAGEMENT INTERNATIONAL PHILIPPINES, INC., Respondent.

DECISION

BERSAMIN, J.:

However, in view of it irrevocable choice, the respondent remained entitled to utilize that amount of
1,200,000.00 as tax credit in succeeding taxable years until fully exhausted. In this regard,
prescription did not bar it from applying the amount as tax credit considering that there was no
prescriptive period for the carrying over of the amount as tax credit in subsequent taxable years.14

Republic of the Philippines

SUPREME COURT
Manila

FIRST DIVISION

G.R. No. 180651 July 30, 2014

NURSERY CARE CORPORATION; SHOEMART, INC.; STAR APPLIANCE CENTER, INC.; H&B,
INC.; SUPPLIES STATION, INC.; and HARDWARE WORKSHOP, INC., Petitioners,
vs.
ANTHONY ACEVEDO, in his capacity as THE TREASURER OF MANILA; and THE CITY OF
MANILA,Respondents.

DECISION

BERSAMIN, J.:

We note that although Coca-Cola Bottlers Philippines, Inc. and Swedish Match Philippines, Inc.
involved Section 21 vis--vis Section 14 (Tax on Manufacturers, Assemblers and Other
Processors)39 of the Revenue Code of Manila, the legal principlesenunciated therein should similarly
apply because Section 15 (Tax on Wholesalers, Distributors, or Dealers)and Section 17 (Tax on
Retailers) of the Revenue Code of Manila imposed the same nature of tax as that imposed under
Section 14, i.e., local business tax, albeit on a different subject matter or group of taxpayers.
 Republic of the Philippines
SUPREME COURT
Manila

FIRST DIVISION

G.R. No. 176317 July 23, 2014

MANOLITO GIL Z. ZAFRA, Petitioner,

vs.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondent.

DECISION

BERSAMIN, J.:

Notably, there is a big disparity between the amount covered by BIR Form No. 25.24 issued to the
taxpayer, and the amount for the same receipt number appearing in the Monthly Collection Reports
indicating the falsification resorted to by the accused in the official reports he filed, thereby remitting
less than what was collected from taxpayers concerned, resulting tothe loss of revenue for the
government as unearthed by the auditors."20 (Emphasis and underscoring supplied)

Republic of the Philippines

SUPREME COURT
Manila

FIRST DIVISION

G.R. No. 165354 January 12, 2015

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, represented by the NATIONAL POWER

CORPORATION, Petitioner,
vs.
HEIRS OF SATURNINO Q. BORBON, AND COURT OF APPEALS, Respondents.

DECISION

BERSAMIN, J.:

In light of these premises, we now expressly hold that the taking of private property, consequent to
the Governments exercise of its power of eminent domain, is always subject to the condition that the
property be devoted to the specific public purpose for which it was taken. Corollarily, if this particular
purpose or intent is not initiated or not at all pursued, and is peremptorily abandoned, then the
former owners, if they so desire, may seek the reversion of the property, subject to the return of the
amount of just compensation received. In such a case, the exercise of the power of eminent domain
has become improper for lack of the required factual justification.

Republic of the Philippines

SUPREME COURT
Manila

FIRST DIVISION

G.R. No. 161759 July 2, 2014

COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, Petitioner,

vs.
OILINK INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION, Respondent.

DECISION

BERSAMIN, J.:

Indeed, the doctrine of piercing the corporate veil has no application here because the
Commissioner of Customs did not establish that Oilink had been set up to avoid the payment of
taxes or duties, or for purposes that would defeat public convenience, justify wrong, protect fraud,
defend crime, confuse legitimate legal or judicial issues, perpetrate deception or otherwise
circumvent the law. It is also noteworthy that from the outset the Commissioner of Customs sought
to collect the deficiency taxes and duties from URC, and that it was only on July 2, 1999 when the
Commissioner of Customs sent the demand letter to both URC and Oilink. That was revealing,
because the failure of the Commissioner of Customs to pursue the remedies against Oilink from the
outset manifested that its belated pursuit of Oilink was only an afterthought. WHEREFORE, the
Court AFFIRMS the decision promulgated by the Court of Appeals on September 29, 2003.