REPUBLIC vs. LIM TIAN TENG SONS & CO., INC.

(8)

FACTS: Lim Tian Teng Sons & Co. Inc. filed a protest to the assessment made by the CIR against it./ The CIR didn’t reply
but instead referred the case to the Solicitor General for collection by judicial action./ Thus, the Solicitor General
demanded respondent the payment and stating that judicial action would be instituted without further notice upon
failure to pay./ Respondent, instead of appealing to the CTA, wrote a letter to the CIR reiterating its request for
reinvestigation./

ISSUE: WON the CIF has jurisdiction over the collection case./

RULING: Yes, the assessment became final and executor when upon receipt of the demand letter from the Solicitor
General, the respondent failed to appeal to the CTA./ The action of the CIR referring the case to the Solicitor General for
collection is tantamount to CIR’s denial of respondent’s request for reinvestigation./ This is the decision appealable to the
CTA, so that the assessment wouldn’t attain its finality./

SURIGAO ELECTRIC CO., INC. vs. CTA (9)

FACTS: Petitioner received a warrant of distraint and levy to enforce the collection of a deficiency franchise tax plus
surcharge, which it contested on time./ The Commissioner advised petitioner to take up the matter with the General
Auditing Office./ An exchange of correspondence between the three ensued, all on the matter of the petitioner’s liability
for deficiency franchise tax./ A revised assessment was issued to the petitioner, which the latter requested for
recomputation to the Commissioner./ The Commissioner denied the request for recomputation, thus, petitioner
appealed to the CTA./

ISSUE: WON the petitioner’s appeal to the CTA was time-barred./

RULING: Yes, because it is filed beyond the 30 days from the date of receipt of the letter containing the revised
assessment./ It is the said letter that constitute as the final action taken by the Commissioner on the petitioner’s several
request for reconsideration and recomputation./ The tenor of the letter, specifically, the statement regarding the resort
to legal remedies, unmistakably indicates the final nature of the determination by the Commissioner to the petitioner’s
deficiency franchise tax liability./

CIR vs. AYALA SECURITIES CORPORATION (7)

FACTS: CIR advised Ayala Securities Corporation its assessment on the corporation’s accumulated surplus reflected on its
income tax return, which the respondent protested on time./ Respondent subsequently received a letter from the Chief
Manila Examiners of the Office of the CIR, calling the attention of the respondent to its outstanding and unpaid tax and
thereby requesting for its payment./ Believing the aforesaid letter to be a denial of its protest, respondent filed with the
CTA a petition for review of the assessment within the thirty-day period to appeal./ CIR contends that the petition is
premature as the letter received by the respondent is merely an ordinary letter designed to remind delinquent taxpayers
and certainly not a decision on a disputed assessment appealable to the CTA./

ISSUE: WON the instant case falls within the jurisdiction of the CTA./

RULING: Yes, the letter from the Chief Manila Examiners of the Office of the CIR is tantamount to a denial of the protest
of the respondent on the assessment made by the CIR, considering that the said letter is in itself a reiteration of the
assessment already made, in spite of the vehement protest of the respondent./ This certainly is a clear indication of the
firm stand of CIR against the protest of the disputed assessment./

YABES vs. FLOJO (10)

FACTS: Doroteo Yabes, through counsel, filed a protest on the assessment made by the CIR to him./ Subsequently,
Doroteo Yabes was informed by the CIR of the denial of his request for reinvestigation./ However, eight day later, the CIR
wrote a letter advising him that the administrative appeal will be held in abeyance pending the resolution of the issues in
a similar case./ Thereafter no words ware received from the petitioner, but instead, the petitioners received a summons
and copy of the complaint filed by the CIR with the CIF for collection./ Taking the complaint as the final decision of the
CIR on the disputed assessment, petitioner filed a petition for review with the CTA and subsequently filed a formal
motion to dismiss with the CFI. /

ISSUE: WON CFI can lawfully acquire jurisdiction over a contested assessment made by the CIR which has not yet become
final, executor and incontestable, and which assessment is being contested in the CTA and still pending consideration./

RULING: No, CFI can only acquire jurisdiction over this case filed against the heirs of the taxpayer if the assessment made
by the CIR had become final and incontestable./ If the contrary is established, then the CTA has exclusive jurisdiction over
the case./ In the case at bar, the petitioners filed a protest in the CTA within the 30-day period to appeal upon receipt of
the summons and complaint filed by the CIR with the CFI./ The filing of the complaint for collection with the CFI by the
CIR may be considered as the final decision of the CIR which is proper to appeal with the CTA. /

ADVERTISING ASSOCIATES, INC. vs. CA (9)

FACTS: Advertising Associates contested the assessments made by the CIR against it./ Without taking action with the
protest, the CIR resorted to the summary remedy of issuing warrants of distraint and levy, which were properly served
upon the petitioner./ More than a year later, the Acting Commissioner wrote a letter answering the request of the
petitioner./ The letter was closed with a statement that the said letter contains the CIR final decision on the matter.
/Upon receipt of the letter, petitioner filed a petition for review within the 30-day period to appeal. /

ISSUE: WON the petition for review filed with the CTA is filed on time./

RULING: Yes, the reviewable decision is that contained in Acting Commissioner’s letter and not the warrant of distraint./
The 30-day period to appeal with the CTA would not begin to run unless the Commissioner would indicate to the
taxpayer in clear and unequivocal language what constitutes his final determination of the disputed assessment./ That
procedure is demanded by the pressing need for fair play, regularity and orderliness in administrative action and without
needless difficulty for the taxpayer to determine when his right to appeal to the CTA accrues./

CIR vs. ALGUE, INC. (10)

FACTS: Algue filed a letter of request for reinvestigation on the assessment made by CIR against him./ Subsequently, a
warrant of distraint and levy was presented to Algue, which its counsel refused to accept contending that there is a
pending protest filed./ However, the protest cannot be found in the dockets of the CIR, compelling Algue’s counsel to
submit a Photostat copy of the protest filed to the CIR./ After which, Alque received a letter from the CIR that it will not
take any action on the protest./ Upon receipt of the letter, Alque filed a petition for review with the CTA./

ISSUE: WON the appeal of the respondent from the decision of the CIR was made on time and in accordance with law./

RULING: Yes, the petition was seasonably filed. /While as a rule, the warrant of distraint and levy is a proof of the finality
of the assessment and renders hopeless a request for reconsideration, being tantamount to an outright denial thereof
and makes the said request deemed rejected. /But there is a special circumstance in the case at bar that prevents the
application of this said doctrine./ In the case at bar, the letter of protest was apparently not taken into account before
the warrant of distraint and levy was issued, thus, the issuance of the warrant is not tantamount to a final decision of the
CIR denying the protest. /

CIR vs. UNION SHIPPING CORPORATION (8)

FACTS: The respondent received an assessment letter from the CIR stating that it had delinquent taxes due.
/Subsequently, it filed its motion for reconsideration. /The next communication respondent received was already a Final
Notice before Seizure. /Respondent considering the final notice as a final decision of the petitioner regarding its protest,
it filed a petition for review with the CTA./

ISSUE: WON the final notice before seizure constitutes as the final decision of the CIR to the protest of the respondent,
thus, appealable to the CTA./

RULING: Yes, a final demand letter from the CIR, reiterating to the taxpayer the immediate payment of a tax deficiency
assessment previously made, is tantamount to a denial of the taxpayer’s request for reconsideration. /In the case at bar,
the very title of the demand letter expressly indicated that it was final notice prior seizure of property. /The letter itself
clearly stated that respondent was being given a last opportunity to pay, otherwise, its properties would be subjected to
distraint and levy. /

OCEANIC WIRELESS NETWORK vs. CIR (10)

FACTS: Petitioner received an assessment from the CIR, which it protested on time./ Acting in behalf of the
Commissioner, the Chief of the BIR Accounts Receivable and Billing Division, reiterated the tax assessment while denying
petitioner’s request for reinvestigation./ Including in the letter is a demand for payment and a warning that failure to pay,
the case shall be referred to the Collection Enforcement Division for the issuance of a warrant of distraint and levy
without further notice. /Thus, upon failure to pay of the petitioner, the corresponding warrants of distraint and levy were
issued and properly served to the petitioner. /Only then, the petitioner filed a petitioner filed a petition for review with
the CTA./

ISSUE: WON a demand letter for tax deficiency assessments issued and signed by a subordinate officer acting in behalf of
the CIR, is deemed final and executor and subject to an appeal to the CTA./

RULING: Yes, the letter of demand in question constitutes without doubt the final action taken by the BIR on petitioner’s
request for reconsideration. /The general rule is that the CIR may delegate any power vested upon him by law to Division
Chiefs or to officials of higher rank./ However there are four instances under the NIRC wherein the CIR cannot delegate
its power, the case at bar is not among these four. /Thus, the authority to make tax assessments may be delegated to
subordinate officers and said assessment has the same force and effect as that issued by the Commissioner himself, if
not reviewed or revised by the latter such as in this case. /

ALLIED BANKING CORPORATION vs. CIR (10)

FACTS: Petitioner received a preliminary assessment notice from the BIR and filed a protest against it immediately./
Subsequently, the BIR wrote a formal letter of demand with assessment notice to the petitioner which contains a
statement that the assessment is the final decision of the BIR based on investigation and if petitioner disagrees, the latter
may appeal the final decision within 30 days from receipt thereof. /Upon receipt of the last letter, the petitioner filed a
petition for review with the CTA./

ISSUE: WON the formal letter of demand issued by the BIR can be construed as a final decision of the CIR appealable to
the CTA./

RULING: Yes, based on the estoppel. /The doctrine of exhaustion of administrative remedies shall be observed before an
appeal to the CTA can be made, thus, the final assessment notice, not the preliminary assessment, should be protested
by the taxpayer with 30 days upon its receipt with the CIR. /Only then, the matter becomes a disputed assessment that
the CIR must decide. /The decision of the CIR is the one appealable to the CTA not the assessment notice. /However, this
doctrine of exhaustion of administrative remedies recognize certain exceptions, one of which is the case at bar, which is
the estoppel on the part of the administrative agency concerned./ It appears from the language used and tenor of the
formal demand letter issued to the petitioner, the CIR has already made a final decision on the matter and that the
remedy of the petitioner is to appeal the final decision with the CTA within 30 days upon receipt thereof./