You are on page 1of 2

[G.R. No. 202556. September 12, 2012.

]
DANILO A. LIHAYLIHAY, petitioner, vs. BUREAU
OF INTERNAL REVENUE, REPRESENTED BY
COMMISSIONER KIM S. JACINTO-HENARES, ET
AL., respondent.

NOTICE

Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Second Division, issued a Resolution
dated 12 September 2012 which reads as follows:
G.R. No. 202556 (Danilo A. Lihaylihay v. Bureau of Internal
Revenue, represented by Commissioner Kim S. JacintoHenares, et al.).
After a judicious perusal of the records, the Court resolves to DISMISS
the instant petition for failure to sufficiently show, based on the recital
of facts therein, that mandamus lies in this case to compel respondent
Bureau of Internal Revenue (BIR) to collect the alleged delinquent
taxes of Fortune Tobacco Corporation (FTC) or to deliver to petitioner
Danilo Lihaylihay his informer's reward.
Mandamus is a remedy available to compel the performance of
ministerial duties. 1 However, the assessment and imposition of tax
liabilities is within BIR's discretionary power, which cannot be ordered
by mandamus. 2 Records show that the BIR found no legal justification
to warrant the filing and collection of taxes against FTC. Thus, in the
absence of arbitrariness, which petitioner failed to establish in this
case, the BIR's exercise of its discretionary power is not subject to the
contrary judgment. 3 Consequently, there being no delinquent taxes
assessed, no collection can be made nor any informer's reward
became due 4 in favor of petitioner. (Carpio, J., no part due to prior
inhibition in related cases; Mendoza, J., designated Acting Member
per Raffle dated September 10, 2012.)
SO ORDERED.
||| (Lihaylihay v. BIR, G.R. No. 202556, September 12, 2012)
Danilo A. Lihaylihay was from Masbate. During early childhood, Lihaylihay heard
of yamashita treasures brought into the Philippines by the Japanese. But, these

public treasures were unlawfully looted out by President Marcos. As a result, the
filipino nation was in great hunger during martial law which led to the dictators
ouster. President Corazon C. Aquino issued EO 1, creating the PCGG principally
tasked to assist her in the recovery and forfeiture of all ill-gotten wealth amassed
by Ferdinand E. Marcos and family.
Lihaylihay, an avid fanatic of President Cory Aquino, by virtue of existing law and
jurisprudence, took the cudgel of denouncing with the Office of President Cory,
the unlawful manner by which Ferdinand E. Marcos acquired those ill-gotten
wealth which were deposited in several secret bank accounts in 177 countries all
over the world. President Cory Aquino then issued EO. 14-A granting immunity
from criminal prosecution to persons who provide information leading to the
forfeiture or recovery of the ill-gotten properties or wealth amassed by Marcos, et
al throughout the world. Republic Act No. 2338 rewards 25% of the revenues
(tax or non- tax receipts) recovered by the government as a result of the
information furnished by the informer.
Lihaylihay started claiming his 25% informers reward on the actual recoveries
of the Philippine government but President Cory Aquino rebuffed him. During the
administrations of President Ramos and President Estrada, Lihaylihay again
asked for the release of payment of his vested informers reward moneys but to
no avail.
Failing to get what he believed was a P1.13 billion reward due him, a tax informer filed plunder
charges against Justice Secretary Leila de Lima and BIR Revenue officials led by Commissioner
Kim Henares. Lihaylihay said he was entitled to P1.13 billion because the reward was supposed
to amount to 25 percent of the amount he had helped recover. Henares earlier said that
informants should get 10 percent or P1 million, whichever is lower.
He said that the BIR officials, instead of giving him his money, illegally connived with De Lima
and caused the publication of a new DOJ opinion 48 that revoked the ruling of former Justice
Secretary Raul Gonzalez saying that the reward should be 25 percent of the recovered amount.
With this DOJ opinion, the DOJ and the BIR officials misappropriated or malversed his money. He
added that the officials had taken advantage of their official positions, authority, connections and
influence to unjustly enrich themselves or the state, to his detriment.