Judicial appeal right away within 30 days, or
The regional director did not
await the decision. Should that decision come
later on, the tax payer can still appeal even if
the appeal is long after 180 + 30 days. This rule
is embodied in the Revised Rules of the Court of
Tax Appeals (Rule 4) of the Revised Rules of the
Court of Tax Appeals.
Jurisprudentially Settled in Las Cona (2004). In
fact there is an earlier case entitled RCBC v. CIR
(2007). Motion for reconsideration, the court
resolved that motion explaining in that case.
The alternative options of a tax payer in case of
inaction on a disputed assessment.
The Revised Rules of the Court of Tax Appeals,
was even mentioned in the 2007 RCBC v. CIR
case. The original case was promulgated in 2006
RCBC v. CIR but there was no discussion about
the Revised Ruled of CTA. It was only taken up
in the motion for reconsideration. For the first
time the court mention the rules of CTA,
mentioning the available alternative remedies,
the second one was awaiting the decision of
Commissioner.
This remedy of awaiting the decision of the CIR
in case of his inaction. Is an alternative option
applicable in case involving disputed
assessment, quite clear from the revised rules
of the CTA. Also clear in the Las Cona and RCBC
cases, where they involved disputed assessment
cases. Do not apply this remedy of awaiting the
decision in any other tax case. There is no such
legal basis or jurisprudential basis.
What we have here as jurisprudence relating to
the remedy of awaiting the decision concerns
the disputed assessment case ONLY.
BIR v. PAGCOR (January 2016)
The assessment originated from the regional
office, assessment was protested also before
the regional office.
decide on the disputed assessment case.
PAGCOR elevate the appeal to the CIR due to
inaction of the regional director within 30 days.
CIR also did not decided on the issue within 180
days. Only then PAGCOR elevated this case to
the CTA.
CTA dismissed the appeal of PAGCOR. Basis:
1) Sec. 228 and is based on administrative
appeal based on a decision by the authorized
representative. There is no such remedy of
admin appeal to the CIR based on the inaction
by the authorized representative. As a remedy
not found expressly on the law, availed of has
no basis hence there is no legal effect, such as
the tolling of the 30 day period of appeal to the
CTA.
Inaction of the authorized representative after
180 days. Taxpayer can now directly go to the
CTA for appeal alleging inaction by the CIR or his
authorized representative.
PAGCOR in this case only appealed on its
second set of 180 days.
Relevant events only:
1. Assessment
2. Protest
3. Inaction of CIR or Authorized representative
4. Appeal to the CTA
If Taxpayer is going to appeal to the CTA, it must
be done within 30 days following inaction of
180 days.
That’s why the CTA ruled that appeal by
PAGCOR after 180 + 30 is a belatedly filed
appeal.
The case is similar to RCBC v. CIR (2006) only
that the case of PAGCOR is explicit in the fact
that the assessment originated in the regional
office and inaction pertains to the
commissioner’s authorized representative.
In RCBC there was also appeal but it was an
appeal to the CTA after 180+30. The ruling was
dismissible due to lack of jurisdiction because
appeal was filed belatedly. In 2016 case, CTA
also said, a belatedly filed appeal, no
jurisdiction.
Did the SC agree with CTA’s ruling that it has no
jurisdiction over the appeal?
SC agreed but only as to the result, meaning
CTA has no jurisdiction but not for the reason
that the appeal was taken belatedly, but for the
reason that the appeal was PREMATURE.
180 days - No appeal instead there was admin
appeal – 180 days judicial appeal. SC agreed
that the appeal was without legal basis? YES
Therefore it can be set aside without any legal
importance, yes it may be set aside because it is
a remedy not provided for in the law.
Would the appeal be taken cognizance of by the
CTA? No it cannot. But not for the reason given
by the CTA that the appeal was taken belatedly.
Rather, because the appeal was taken
prematurely.
How is it so?
According to the SC because the appeal before
the CTA is without a cause of action. No cause
of action. Because there was no adverse
decision complained of. There was no decision
that is subject of the appeal. Appellant here, the
tax payer has no reason to complain yet
because there was no decision yet that is
adverse to him/it. That conclusion of the court
reinforces that in cases of inaction there is an
alternative remedy:
1) To appeal right away
2) To await the decision
So if the period of time expired without any
appeal. It means the tax payer had availed of
the 2nd alternative remedy of awaiting the
decision. If that be the case what should the
taxpayer do? If the option was to await the
decision then it really as to await the decision.
The taxpayer cannot pre-empt that decision by
filing an appeal without the decision.
No decision from regional director, no decision
also from the commissioner. After inaction and
not availing of the judicial appeal, the option
must have been the 2nd option of awaiting the
decision. That being the case the taxpayer
ought to have waited for that decision. And
after the decision that is erroneous or adverse
to the taxpayer, only then can the taxpayer
appeal.
- If there is such decision, after inaction
by regional director, 30 days starts
without any appeal, may there be an
appeal after that? Yes as explained
earlier, if that appeal is based on an
adverse decision.
In this case no decision yet, hence appeal
was premature.
In this case, after appeal to the CTA, The
decision came. Decision came late.
Question now is can there be a cause of action?
NO
Can the appeal be amended in the CTA to
incorporate the cause of action? NO
If appeal from inaction, it must be within the 30
days. Without availing of that appeal following
inaction, it means remedy availed of is awaiting
decision.
If tax payer appealed after availing the 2nd
remedy, then his case has no cause of action.
because it has no cause of action, only because
it was premature.
Modifying the facts a little bit, had the decision
come earlier, the appeal would not have been
considered premature.

Basic rule in Civil procedure, amending to

incorporate the decision coming from the CTA
cannot be done. A person complaining without
any reason to complain cannot be permitted.

In this case, when the person invoked the

jurisdiction of the court, there was no cause of
action.

Now what is the implication of this note taken

by the court? The appeal may have been
entertained validly by the court by the CTA, had
it been taken after such decision.

1st 180+30----- 2nd 180+30---- Appeal was taken

hear after inaction -------- Decision only arrived
here.

*Atty starts doing hand gestures for example,

no idea (55:36)

Would it be wrong for the tax payer to

administratively appeal based on the inaction of
the RD? YES. It is a procedural defect, not
sanctioned by the law.

Court did sustained the view of the CTA here

that, administrative appeal based on the
inaction by the authorized representative in
disputed assessment case, is a remedy not
found in the law. Since it is not sanctioned by
law, it should have no legal effect. But this
would not say that because of the nullity of the
procedural step then it would invalidated the
appeal taken on later on. It is not the statement
of the law. The appeal here is defective only