3a.

epublic of tbe l)biHppines

~upreme ~ourt
;Jflllim iln

. FIRST DIVISION

COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL G.R. No. 258947

REVENUE,
Petitioner,
Present:

GESMUNDO, CJ., Chairperson,

CAGUIOA,
-versus- INTING,
GAERLAN,and
DIMAAMPAO, JJ.

COURT OF TAX APPEALS Promulgated:

SECOl\TJ> DIVISION and QL ~
v:/f'ftmaJ
DEVELOPMENT, INC.,
Respondents.
x---------------------------------------------------x
MAR 29 2022
J
DECISION

CAGUIOA, J.:

This is a Petition for Certiorari and Prohibition under Rule 65 (with

Urgent Prayer for Issuance of Temporary Restraining Order and/or Writ of
Preliminary Injunction) 1 (Petition) filed by petitioner Commissioner of ·
Internal Revenue (CIR) directly with the Court against respondents Court of
Tax Appeals (CTA) Second Division (CTA Division) and QL Development,
Inc. (QLDI), praying for the following reliefs:

WHEREFORE, premises considered, it is most respectfully prayed

of this Honorable Court that the instant petition be given DUE COURSE
and after consideration thereof:

I. A TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER and/or WRIT

OF PREl.IMINARY INJUNCTION be ISSUED against the
Second Division of the Court of Tax Appeals, enjoining the latter
from proceeding with CTA Case No. 10291 and from
implementing the prohibition against petitioner from collection

1
Rollo, pp. 3-44.
Decision 2 G.R. No. 258947

of deficiency taxes against private respondent, pending

resolution of the instant petition;

2. A WRIT OF CERTIORARI be ISSUED declaring the

Resolutions dated 07 June 2021 and 11 December 2021, as well
as the Writ of Prohibition enjoining petitioner from collecting
deficiency taxes against private respondent for TY 20 IO as
NULL and VOID for being issued with grave abuse of
discretion and/or lack of jurisdiction, setting aside the same;

3. A WRIT OF PROHIBITION be ISSUED to the Second

Division of the Court of Tax Appeals, enjoining the latter from
proceeding with CTA Case No. 10291, and from implementing
the Writ of Prohibition against petitioner, and ordering the said
court to dismiss the said case for lack of jurisdiction.

Other relief just and equitable under the premises are likewise
prayed for. 2

The CIR essentially challenges the June 7, 2021 3 and December 11,
2021 4 Resolutions in CTA Case No. 10291, which cancelled QLDI's
deficiency tax assessment for taxable year 2010 on the ground of prescription
and enjoined the CIR from collecting the assessed deficiency taxes against
QLDI.

The Facts

On November 12, 2012, QLDI received a Letter of Authority (LOA)

SN: eLA2010000021857/LOA-065°2012-00000060 5 dated October 30, 2012,
covering taxable year 2010 for deficiency taxes. On November 28, 2014, the
CIR served the Preliminary Assessment Notice (PAN) together with the
Details of Discrepancies6 to QLDI. 7 Thereafter, QLDI filed its reply to the
PAN on December 15, 2014. 8

On December 12, 2014, the CIR sent out the Formal Assessment Notice
(FAN) or Formal Letter ofDemand9 (FLD) with Details of Discrepancies to
QLDI. 10 Despite receipt of the F AN/FLD, QLDI failed to file a protest within
the 30-day period provided by law. Subsequently, as there was no disputed
assessment to speak of, as no protest was filed, the CIR issued a Final Decision
on Disputed Assessmentll (FDDA), which QLDI received on March 3, 2015.

2
Id. at 39-40; emphasis in the original.
Id. at 50-58. Signed by Associate Justices Juanito C. Castaf:ieda, Jr. and Jean Marie A. Bacorro-Villena.
4 Id. at 59-73. Signed by Associate Justices Juanita C. Castafieda, Jr., Jean Marie A. Bacorro-Villena and
Lanee S. Cui-David.
Id. at 86.
6
Id. at 12, 87-91.
7
Id. at 12: See also id. at 104-105, where QLDl alleged that it received the PAN on December 11, 2014.
Id. at 105.
9 Attached to the Petition as Annex "F," Formal Letter of Demand with Details of Discrepancies dated
December 11, 2014, id. at 92-96.
10
Id. at 57.
11 Attached to the Petition as Annex "G," Final Decision on Disputed Assessment dated February 11,201
id. at 97.
Decision 3 G.R. No. 258947

QLDI filed with the CIR a request for reconsideration dated March 30,
2015, which was denied by the CIR in the Decision dated February 4, 2020. 12
Consequently, the CIR ordered QLDI to pay the deficiency taxes and the
compromise penalty for taxable year 2010.

Proceedings before the CTA Division

On June 30, 2020, QLDI filed a Petition for Review 13 before the CTA
Division, challenging the CIR's February 4, 2020 Decision. Particularly,
QLDI questioned the validity of the assessment against it, and the prescription
of the CIR's right to collect taxes.

On March 5, 2021, QLDI filed a Motion for Early Resolution of the

14
Issue of Prescription of Collection of Taxes with Motion to Defer Pre-Trial.
QLDI alleged in its Motion that the CIR's right to collect taxes had already
prescribed as early as December 12, 2019, or five years from the date of
mailing/release/sending of the FAN/FLD on December 12, 2014.

On February 1, 2021, the CTA Division issued an Order stating that

"Considering the manifestation of [the CIR's] counsel that he will no longer
present evidence on the issue of prescription, but will instead present its
evidence in the main case, the issue of prescription is now submitted for
resolution." 15

In the assailed Resolution dated June 7, 2021, the CTA Division held
that the period within which the CIR may collect deficiency taxes had already
lapsed. Accordingly, the CTA Division cancelled the assessment for
deficiency taxes against QLDI for taxable year 2010.

The dispositive portion of the June 7, 2021 Resolution provided:

WHEREFORE, premises considered, petitioner's Motion for

Early Resolution of the Issue of Prescription of Collection of Taxes -
with - Motion to Defer Pre-Trial is GRANTED. Accordingly, the
assessment for deficiency taxes for taxable year 2010 issued against
petitioner and contained in the FAN/FLD dated December 11, 2014 and
Questioned Decision dated February 4, 2020, is CANCELLED.

SO ORDERED. 16

The CTA Division ruled that when an assessment is timely issued, the .
CIR has five years to collect the assessed tax, reckoned from the date the
assessment notice had been released, mailed, or sent by the Bureau of Internal
Revenue (BIR) to the taxpayer. Thus, in this case, the CIR had five years from
December 12, 2014, or until December 12, 2019, to collect the deficiency
12 Id. at 98.
13
Id. at 98-138.
14
Id. at 13.
15
Id. at 50.
16 Id. at 58; emphasis and underscoring in the original.
Decision 4 G.R. No. 258947

taxes. However, the CIR issued the BIR letters for the collection of taxes on
various dates in 2020, which were all beyond December 12, 2019.
Accordingly, the CTA Division ruled that the government's demand for
payment of deficiency taxes was already barred by prescription.

The CIR filed a Motion for Reconsideration, which the CTA Division
denied in its assailed Resolution dated December 11, 2021. The CTA Division
enjoined the CIR from collecting from QLDI the deficiency taxes either by
distraint or levy. It likewise held that its jurisdiction over "other matters"
arising under the National Internal Revenue Code of 1997 17 (NIRC) includes
the issue as to whether the CIR's right to collect taxes has already prescribed.
The dispositive portion of the Resolution reads:

WHEREFORE, premises considered, petitioner's Compliance

[Re: Resolution dated March 3, 2021] and Compliance [Re: Resolution
dated 05 July 2021], are NOTED. Thus, finding the surety bond and the
attached documents to be in order, the surety bond is hereby APPROVED.

On the basis of the posting of the Surety Bond, respondents are

hereby ENJOINED from collecting from petitioner the amount of tax
subject of the present Petition for Review either by distraint, levy, or
otherwise by any other means provided for by law, until further orders from
the Court.

On the other hand, respondents' Motion for Reconsideration (Re:

Resolution dated 7 June 2021) is DENIED for lack of merit.

SO ORDERED. 18

Hence, the present Petition.

The Issue

The core of the issue is whether the CIR' s right to collect taxes had
already prescribed.

The Court's Ruling

After a careful study of the allegations and the records of this case, the
Court resolves to dismiss the Petition and uphold the Resolutions dated June
7, 2021 and December 11, 2021 issued by the CTA Division.

The CIR availed itself of the wrong

remedy in filing the instant Petition
before the Court.

17 Republic Act No. 8424, December 11, 1997.

18 Rollo, pp. 72-73; emphasis in the original.
Decision 5 G.R. No. 258947

At the outset, it bears noting that the CIR directly filed a petition for
certiorari and prohibition with the Court, alleging that the twin Resolutions
issued by the CTA Division are interlocutory orders that cannot be appealed
before the CTA En Banc.

In CIR v. Court of Tax Appeals, 19 the Court held that the CTA En Banc
has jurisdiction over a final judgment or order but not over an interlocutory
order issued by the CTA Division. In reaching this conclusion, the Court
explained the concept ofa final judgment or order and distinguished it from
an interlocutory order, as follows:

In Denso (Phils.), Inc. v. Intermediate Appellate Court, we

expounded on the differences between a "final judgment" and an
"interlocutory order," to wit:

x x x A "final" judgment or order is one that finally

disposes of a case, leaving nothing more to be done by the
Court in respect thereto, e.g., an adjudication on the merits
which, on the basis of the evidence presented at the trial,
declares categorically what the rights and obligations of the
parties are and which party is in the right; or a judgment or
order that dismisses an action on the ground, for instance,
of res judicata or prescription. Once rendered, the task of the
Court is ended, as far as deciding the controversy or
determining the rights and liabilities of the litigants is
concerned. Nothing more remains to be done by the Court
except to await the parties' next move x x x and ultimately,
of course, to cause the execution of the judgment once it
becomes "final" or, to use the established and more
distinctive term, "final and executory."

xxxx

Conversely, an order that does not finally dispose of

the case, and does not end the Court's task of adjudicating
the parties' contentions and determining their rights and
liabilities as regards each other, but obviously indicates that
other things remain to be done by the Court, is
"interlocutory," e.g., an order denying a motion to dismiss
under Rule 16 of the Rules x x x. Unlike a "final" judgment
or order, which is appealable, as above pointed out, an
"interlocutory" order may not be questioned on appeal
except only as part of an appeal that may eventually be taken
from the final judgment rendered in the case. 20

Given the distinctions between a final judgment or order and an

interlocutory order, there is no doubt that the CTA Resolutions dated June 7,
2021 and December 11, 2021, which cancelled the assessment against QLDI
on the basis of prescription and enjoined the CIR from collecting the
deficiency taxes for taxable year 2010, are final judgments or orders. The

19
G.R. Nos. 203054-55, July 29, 2015, 764 SCRA 212.
20
Id. at 222; italics in the original, citations omitted.
Decision 6 G.R. No. 258947

CIR's proper remedy on the adverse Resolutions of the CTA Division was to
file an appeal by way of a petition for review with the CTA En Banc. Thus,
the CIR's filing of the instant Petition before this Court assailing the twin
Resolutions issued by the CTA Division is erroneous.

It is elementary in remedial law that the use of an erroneous remedy is

a cause for the outright dismissal of the petition for certiorari and it has been
repeatedly stressed that a petition for certiorari is not a substitute for a lost
appeal. This is due to the nature of a Rule 65 petition which lies only where
there is "no appeal," and "no plain, speedy and adequate remedy in the
ordinary course oflaw." 21

Nonetheless, even if the Court were to disregard the impropriety of the

remedy resorted to by the CIR, the Petition would still be dismissed.

The CTA has jurisdiction over the

case.

On the merits of the case, the CIR attributes grave abuse of discretion
to the CTA Division when it assumed jurisdiction over QLDI's Petition for
Review. The CIR claims that QLDI's failure to file a valid protest to the
FAN/FLD rendered the assessment against it already final, executory, and
demandable. As such, the assessments are not subject to judicial scrutiny, as
it is already beyond the CTA Division's jurisdiction.

The CIR's argument must fail in light of Section 7(a)(l) of Republic

Act No. (RA) 1125,22 as amended by RA 9282, 23 which confers upon the CTA
the jurisdiction to decide not only cases on disputed assessments and refimds
of internal revenue taxes, but also "other matters" arising under the NlRC:

SEC. 7. Jurisdiction. - The CTA shall exercise:

(a) Exclusive appellate jurisdiction to review by appeal, as herein

provided:

(1) Decisions of the Commissioner of Internal Revenue in cases

involving disputed assessments, refunds of internal revenue taxes,
fees or other charges, penalties in relation thereto, or other matters
arising under the National Internal Revenue [Code] or other laws
administered by the Bureau of Internal Revenue[.] (Emphasis
supplied)

21 Rondina v. Court ofAppeals, G.R. No. 172212, July 9, 2009, 592 SCRA 346, 355; citation omitted.
22 ANACTCREAT!NGTHECOURTOFTAXAPPEALS, June 16, 1954.
23 AN ACT EXPANDING THE JURISDICTION OF THE COURT OF TAX APPEALS (CTA), ELEVATING ITS RANK
TO THE LEVEL OF A COLLEGIATE COURT WITH SPECIAL JURISDICTION AND ENLARGING ITS MEMBERSHIP,
AMENDING FOR THE PURPOSE CERTAIN SECTIONS OF REPUBLIC ACT NO. 1125, AS AMENDED,
OTHERWISE KNOWN AS THE LAW CREATING THE COURT OF TAX APPEALS, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES,
March 30, 2004.
Decision 7 G.R. No. 258947

Based on the foregoing provision, the exclusive appellate jurisdiction

of the CTA Division is not limited to cases involving decisions of the CIR or
matters relating to assessments or refunds. In CIR v. Hambrecht & Quist
Philippines, Inc. ,24 the Court held that the issue of prescription of the CIR' s
right to collect taxes is covered by the term "other matters" over which the
CTA has appellate jurisdiction:

xx x [T]he issue of prescription of the BIR's right to collect taxes

may be considered as covered by the term "other matters" over which the
CTA has appellate jurisdiction.

Furthermore, the phraseology of Section 7, number ( 1), denotes an

intent to view the CTA's jurisdiction over disputed assessments and over
"other matters" arising under the NIRC or other laws administered by the
BIR as separate and independent of each other. This runs counter to
petitioner's theory that the latter is qualified by the status of the
former, i.e., an "other matter" must not be a final and unappealable tax
assessment or, alternatively, must be a disputed assessment. 25

To be sure, the fact that an assessment has become final for failure of
the taxpayer to file a protest within the time allowed only means that the
validity or correctness of the assessment may no longer be questioned on
appeal. However, the validity of the assessment itself is a separate and distinct
issue from the issue of whether the right of the CIR to collect the validly
assessed tax has prescribed. This issue of prescription, being a matter provided
for by the NIRC, is well within the jurisdiction of the CTA to decide. 26

The CIR 's right to collect taxes had

prescribed. The three-year, and not the
five-year, period applies to this case.

Regarding the period to collect taxes, the CTA Division held that when
an assessment is timely issued, the CIR has five years within which to collect
the assessed tax. Considering that the collection letters were issued beyond
five years, the CIR's right to collect from QLDI the assessed deficiency taxes
had already prescribed.

Section 203 of the NIRC, as amended, which provides for the

prescriptive period in the assessment and collection of internal revenue taxes,
reads:

SEC. 203. Period ofLimitation Upon Assessment and Collection.~

Except as provided in Section 222, internal revenue taxes shall be assessed
within three (3) years after the last day prescribed by law for the filing of
the return, and no proceeding in court without assessment for the collection
. of such taxes shall be begun after the expiration of such period: Provided,
That in a case where a return is filed beyond the period prescribed by law,

24 G.R. No. 169225, November 17, 2010, 635 SCRA 162.

25 Id. at 169.
26 Id. at 170.
Decision 8 G.R. No. 258947

the three (3)-year period shall be counted from the day the return was filed.
For purposes of this Section, a return filed before the last day prescribed by
law for the filing thereof shall be considered as filed on such last day.

In CIR v. United Salvage and Towage (Phils.), Inc., 27 the Court held
that in cases of assessments issued within the three-year ordinary period, the
CIR has another three years within which to collect taxes, thus:

The statute of limitations on assessment and collection of national

internal revenue taxes was shortened from five (5) years to three (3) years
by virtue of Batas Pambansa Blg. 700. Thus, petitioner has three (3) years
from the date of actual filing of the tax return to assess a national internal
revenue tax or to commence court proceedings for the collection thereof
without an assessment. However, when it validly issues an assessment
within the three (3)-year period, it has another three (3) years within
which to collect the tax due by distraint, levy, or court proceeding. The
assessment of the tax is deemed made and the three (3)-year period for
collection of the assessed tax begins to run on the date the assessment
notice had been released, mailed or sent to the taxpayer. 28

Applying the foregoing ruling, the Court holds that the CTA Division
erred when it applied the five-year period to collect taxes. The five-year period
for collection of taxes only applies to assessments issued within the
extraordinary period of 10 years in cases of false or fraudulent return or failure
to file a return. Indeed, Section 222 of the NIRC, as amended, provides:

SEC. 222. Exceptions as to Period ofLimitation ofAssessment and

Collection ofTaxes. -

(a) In the case of a false or fraudulent return with intent to evade

tax or of failure to file a return, the tax may be assessed, or a proceeding
in court for the collection of such tax may be filed without assessment, at
any time within ten (10) years after the discovery of the falsity, fraud or
omission: Provided, That in a fraud assessment which has become final and
executory, the fact of fraud shall be judicially taken cognizance of in the
civil or criminal action for the collection thereof.

xxxx

(c) Any internal revenue tax which has been assessed within the
period oflimitation as prescribed in paragraph (a) hereof may be collected
by distraint or levy or by a proceeding in court within five (5) years
following the assessment of the tax. (Emphasis supplied)

Here, given that the subject assessment was issued within the three-year
ordinary prescriptive period to assess, the CIR had another three years to
initiate the collection of taxes by distraint or levy or court proceeding.
Accordingly, since the FAN/FLD was mailed on December 12, 2014,29 the
CIR had another three years reckoned from said date, or until December 12,

27
G.R. No.197515,July2,2014, 729SCRA 113.
28 Id. at 133; emphasis supplied, citations omitted and italics in the original.
29 Rollo, p. 57.
Decision 9 G.R. No. 258947

2017, to enforce collection of the assessed deficiency taxes. Verily,

prescription had already set in when the CIR initiated its collection efforts
only in 2020. 30 The Court also notes that regardless of which period to apply,
i.e., five years as determined by the CTA Division or three years, the CIR's
collection efforts were, as they are, barred by prescription.

In an attempt to convince this Court that its right to collect the

deficiency taxes had not yet prescribed, the CIR avers that the FDDA received
by QLDI effectively operated as a collection letter for the satisfaction of
deficiency tax liabilities. 31

The Court finds no merit in the CIR's assertion.

To reiterate, the CIR's collection efforts are initiated by distraint, levy,

or court proceeding. The distraint and levy proceedings are validly begun or
commenced by the issuance of a warrant of distraint and levy and service
thereof on the taxpayer. 32 And a judicial action for the collection of a tax is
initiated: (a) by the filing of a complaint with the court of competent
jurisdiction; or (b) where the assessment is appealed to the CTA, by filing an
answer to the taxpayer's petition for review wherein payment of the tax is
prayed for. 33 However, in this case no warrant of distraint and/or levy was
served on QLDI, and no judicial proceedings were initiated by the CIR within
the prescriptive period to collect.

At this juncture, the Court ought to reiterate that while taxes are the
lifeblood of the nation, the Court cannot allow tax authorities indefinite and
infinite periods to assess and collect alleged unpaid taxes. Certainly, it is an
injustice to leave taxpayers in perpetual uncertainty whether they will be made
liable for deficiency or delinquent taxes. 34 The Court has elaborated on the
significance of adopting a statute of limitations on tax assessment and
collection in this wise:

The law prescribing a limitation of actions for the collection of the

income tax is beneficial both to the Govennnent and to its citizens; to the
Govennnent because tax officers would be obliged to act promptly in the
making of assessment, and to citizens because after the lapse of the period
of prescription citizens would have a feeling of security against
unscrupulous tax agents who will always find an excuse to inspect the books
of taxpayers, not to determine the latter's real liability, but to take advantage
of every opportunity to molest peaceful, law-abiding citizens. Without such
legal defense taxpayers would furthermore be under obligation to always
keep their books and keep them open for inspection subject to harassment
by unscrupulous tax agents. The law on prescription being a remedial
measure should be interpreted in a way conducive to bringing about the

30
Id.
31 Id. at 27.
32 Bank of the Philippine Islands v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, G.R. No. 139736, October 17,
2005, 473 SCRA 205,224.
33 Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Pilipinas Shell Petroleum Corporation, G.R. Nos. 197945 &
204119-20, July 9, 2018, 871 SCRA 183,222.
34 Id. at 225.
Decision 10 G.R. No. 258947

beneficient purpose of affording protection to the taxpayer within the

contemplation of the Commission which recommends the approval of the
law. 35

The CTA has authority to enjoin the

collection of taxes; requirements.

The Court also rejects the CIR's argument that the CTA Division acted
without jurisdiction when it was enjoined to collect taxes against QLDI. For
the CIR, the CTA Division has no power to issue writs of injunction and
prohibition, but may only suspend the collection oftaxes. 36

While an injunction is not available to restrain the collection oftaxes, 37

this rule admits of exception under Section 11 of RA 1125, as amended by
RA 9282, which allows the suspension of collection of taxes if, in the Court's
opinion, the collection may jeopardize the interest of the government and/or
the taxpayer, viz.:

SEC. 11. Who May Appeal; Mode of Appeal; Effect of Appeal. -

Any party adversely affected by a decision, ruling or inaction of the
Commissioner of Internal Revenue, the Commissioner of Customs, the
Secretary of Finance, the Secretary of Trade and Industry or the Secretary
of Agriculture or the Central Board of Assessment Appeals or the Regional
Trial Courts may file an appeal with the CTA within thirty (30) days after
the receipt of such decision or ruling or after the expiration of the period
fixed by law for action as referred to in Section 7(a)(2) herein.

xxxx

No appeal taken to the CTA from the decision of the Commissioner

of Internal Revenue or the Commissioner of Customs or the Regional Trial
Court, provincial, city or municipal treasurer or the Secretary of Finance,
the Secretary of Trade and Industry or the Secretary of Agriculture, as the
case may be, shall suspend the payment, levy, distraint, and/or sale of any
property of the taxpayer for the satisfaction of his tax liability as provided
by existing law: Provided, however, That when in the opinion of the Court
the collection by the aforementioned government agencies may
jeopardize the interest of the Government and/or the taxpayer the
Court [ at] any stage of the proceeding may suspend the said collection
and require the taxpayer either to deposit the amount claimed or to file
a surety bond for not more than double the amount with the Court.
(Emphasis supplied)

Pursuant to the foregoing, the CTA may enjoin the collection of taxes
if such collection will jeopardize the interest of the government or the

35 Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. The Stanley Works Sales (Phils.), Incorporated, G.R. No. 187589,
December 3, 2014, 743 SCRA 642, 654-655, citing Republic of the Phils. v. Ablaza, 108 Phil. I 105,
1108 (1960).
36
Rollo, pp. 27-28.
37 Section 218 of the NIRC, as amended, reads:
SEC. 218. Injunction not Available to Restrain Collection ofTax. - No court shall
have the authority to grant an injunction to restrain the collection of any national internal
revenue tax, fee or charge imposed by this Code.
Decision 11 G.R. No. 258947

taxpayer. In this regard, the Court ruled that the CTA has ample authority to
issue injunctive writs to restrain the collection of tax, 38 especially in cases
where prescription has set in. 39

To recall, the December 11, 2021 CTA Resolution enjoined the CIR
from collecting the deficiency taxes against QLDI until further orders from
the CTA Division. The Court finds that the CTA Division's act of enjoining
the CIR from collecting deficiency taxes had sufficient basis, as it was
centered on the finding that the CIR's right to collect the assessed deficiency
taxes had already lapsed. Moreover, QLDI posted a surety bond, which the
CTA Division approved.

On the strength of the foregoing observations, the Court cannot grant

the CIR's application for injunctive relief. The CIR failed to establish that it
is entitled to the reliefs demanded in the Petition. 40 Neither was it able to show
the material and substantial invasion of a right sought to be protected. The
application for a temporary restraining order and writ of preliminary
injunction is therefore denied. 41

WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Petition is DISMISSED.

The June 7, 2021 and December 11, 2021 Resolutions of the Court of Tax
Appeals Second Division in CTA Case No. 10291 are hereby AFFIRMED.

SO ORDERED.

WE CONCUR:

AL ~ G. GESMUNDO
~ h i e f Justice
Chairperson

38 Pacquiao v. Court of Tax Appeals, First Division, G.R. No. 213394, April 6, 2016, 789 SCRA 19, 43,
39 See id. at 43. See also Collector of Internal Rev. v. Reyes and Court of Tax Appeals, 100 Phil. 822, 831
(1957).
40 RULES OF COURT, Rule 58, Sec. 3.
41 In Cayabyab v. Dimson, G.R. No. 223862, July 10, 2017, 830 SCRA 520,528, the Court enumerated
the requisites for an applicant to be entitled to the injunctive writ: (a) there exists a clear and unmistakable
right to be protected; (b) the right is directly threatened by an act sought to be enjoined; (c) the invasion
of the right is material and substantial; and (d) there is an urgent and paramount necessity for the writ to
prevent serious and irreparable damage.
Decision 12 G.R. No. 258947

HEN ;AMuft~AN ·
Associate Justice

ARB. DIMAAMP AO
Associate Justice

CERTIFICATION

Pursuant to Section 13, Article VIII of the Constitution, it is hereby

certified that the conclusions in the above Decision had been reached in
consultation before the case was assigned to the writer of the opinion of the
Court's Division.

G.GESMUNDO