G.R. No.

L-29485 March 31, 1976

COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, petitioner,

vs.
AYALA SECURITIES CORPORATION and THE HONORABLE COURT OF TAX APPEALS,

FACTS:

In a letter dated February 21, 1961, petitioner advised the respondent corporation of the assessment on its
accumulated surplus reflected on its income tax return for the fiscal year which ended September 30, 1955 which
respondent corporationprotested against for the following reasons: (1) the accumulation of the surplus was for a
bona fide business purpose and not to avoid the imposition of income tax on the individual shareholders, and (2)
that the said assessment was issued beyond the five-year prescriptive period.Two years after the assessment,
respondent corporation received a letter from the Chief, Manila Examiners calling the attention of the respondent
corporation to its outstanding and unpaid tax and requesting for its payment within five (5) days from receipt of the
said letter. Believing the aforesaid letter to be a denial of its protest, the herein respondent corporation filed with the
Court of Tax Appeals a Petition for Review of the assessment.

ISSUE:

Whether or not the instant case falls within the jurisdiction of the respondent Court of Tax Appeals;
RULING:

It is to be noted that the respondent Court of Tax Appeals is a court of special appellate jurisdiction created under R.
A. No. 1125. Thus under Section 7 (1), R. A. 1125, the Court of Tax Appeals exercises exclusive appellate
jurisdiction to review by appeal "decisions of the Collector of Internal Revenue in cases involving disputed
assessments, refunds of internal revenue taxes, fees or other charges, penalties imposed in relation thereto, or
other matters arising under the National Internal Revenue Code or other law or part of law administered by the
Bureau of Internal Revenue".

The letter of February 18, 1963 (Exh. G), in the view of the Court, is tantamount to a denial of the reconsideration or
protest of the respondent corporation on the assessment made by the petitioner, considering that the said letter is in
itself a reiteration of the demand by the Bureau of Internal Revenue for the settlement of the assessment already
made, and for the immediate payment of the same despite the vehement protest of the respondent corporation. This
certainly is a clear indication of the firm stand of petitioner against the reconsideration of the disputed assessment in
view of the continued refusal of the respondent corporation to execute the waiver of the period of limitation upon the
assessment in question.

This being so, the said letter amounts to a decision on a disputed or protested assessment and, therefore, the
court a quo did not err in taking cognizance of this case.

Commissioner of Customs vs. Marina Sales

Facts:
Respondent Marina Sales, Inc. (Marina) is engaged in the manufacture of Sunquick juice concentrates.
in the Philippines. As such, Marina usually imports raw materials into the country for the purpose.
In the past, the Bureau of Customs (BOC) assessed said type of importation with a 1% import duty rate.
Marina's importation arrived at the Manila International Container Port (MICP) for which
Marina computed and paid the duties at 1% import duty rate. However, the BOC examiners contested the
tariff classification of Marina's Import Entry. BOC examiners recommended to the Collector of Customs to
reclassify Marina's importation as covering composite concentrates for simple dilution with water to make
beverages) with a corresponding 7% import duty rate.
Marina requested the District Collector of the BOC to release Import Entry under its Tentative Release
System and undertook to pay the reclassified rate of duty should it be finally determined that such
reclassification was correct.
Marina's importations were raw materials used for the manufacture of its Sunquick products, not ready-to-
drink juice concentrates as argued by the Commissioner.
Commissioner elevated the case to the CTA-En Banc via a petition for review. The CTA En Banc
dismissed the petition for failing to file before the Second Division the required Motion for Reconsideration
before elevating his case to the CTA En Banc.
Issue:

WON CTA En Banc can take cognizance of a decision of CTA by division prior to the exhaustion of remedies available in
said division?

Ruling:
No. Rule 8, Section 1 of the Revised Rules of Court of Tax Appeals (CTA) requires that “the petition for review of a
decision or resolution of the Court in Division must be preceded by the filing of a timely motion for reconsideration or
new trial with the Decision” is mandatory. The word “must” clearly indicate the mandatory- not merely directory-
nature of a requirement. The rules are clear. Before the CTA En Banc could take cognizance of the petition for
review concerning a case falling under its exclusive appellate jurisdiction, the litigant must sufficiently show that it
sought prior reconsideration or moved for a new trial with the concerned CTA division. Procedural rules are not to be
trifled with or be excused simply because their non-compliance may have resulted in prejudicing a party’s
substantive rights. Rules are meant to be followed. They may be relaxed only for very exigent and persuasive
reasons to relieve a litigant of an injustice not commensurate to his careless non-observance of the prescribed
rules. Commissioner of Customs vs. Marina Sales, Inc., G.R. No. 183868, November 22, 2010.

G.R. No. 220502, February 12, 2018

STEEL CORPORATION OF THE PHILIPPINES, Petitioner, v. BUREAU OF CUSTOMS (BOC), BUREAU OF INTERNAL
REVENUE (BIR), DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE (DOF), OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT (OP), AND MUNICIPALITY OF
BALAYAN, BATANGAS, Respondents.

FACTS:

ISSUE:

RULING: