Title
Apex Mining Co., Inc. vs. Commissioner of Internal Revenue
Case
G.R. No. 122472
Decision Date
Oct 20, 2005
Apex Mining contested BIR's ad valorem tax assessment on minerals produced and purchased from small-scale miners. CA upheld tax liability, but Apex's motion for reconsideration was denied for being filed late. SC ruled the decision final, emphasizing strict compliance with procedural rules.
Font Size:

Case Digest (G.R. No. 122472)

Facts:

1. Business Operations of Apex Mining Co., Inc.

  • Apex Mining Co., Inc. (Apex) was engaged in mining, milling, concentrating, converting, smelting, manufacturing, buying, selling, and producing various ores, metals, and minerals from January to June 1988.
  • During this period, Apex either produced its own minerals or purchased minerals from small-scale miners.

2. Tax Assessment by the Bureau of Internal Revenue (BIR)

  • The BIR assessed Apex for ad valorem tax on minerals it produced at a rate of 5% and on minerals purchased from small-scale miners under Section 151 in relation to Section 127 of the Tax Code.
  • A Pre-assessment Notice was issued on November 7, 1989.

3. Protests and Proceedings

  • On November 17, 1989, Apex protested the assessment.
  • On December 11, 1989, the Commissioner of Internal Revenue (CIR) advised Apex to pay P3,748,961.21, representing the uncontested portion of the deficiency ad valorem tax.
  • On January 25, 1990, Apex protested the ad valorem tax on minerals purchased from small-scale miners amounting to P8,212,983.50 but did not contest the P2,570,863.17 assessment for its own mineral production.
  • On February 23, 1990, Apex reiterated its protest, which was denied by the CIR on March 12, 1990. The CIR demanded payment of P10,225,637.87 (for purchased minerals) and P4,659,368.13 (for its own production).

4. Court of Tax Appeals (CTA) Decision

  • On April 27, 1990, Apex filed a petition for review with the CTA.
  • The CTA ruled that Apex must pay the ad valorem tax on its own mineral production but canceled the assessment for deficiency excise tax on minerals purchased from small-scale miners, citing lack of legal basis.

5. Court of Appeals (CA) Decision

  • The CIR appealed to the CA, which modified the CTA decision on August 18, 1995. The CA upheld the assessment of ad valorem tax on minerals purchased from small-scale miners and sold to the Central Bank.
  • The CA ruled that the excise tax became due while the minerals were in Apex's possession, as the small-scale miners did not file a tax return upon extraction.

6. Procedural Lapse by Apex

  • Apex received the CA decision on September 11, 1995, and filed a motion for a 30-day extension to file a motion for reconsideration on September 22, 1995.
  • The motion for reconsideration was filed on October 11, 1995, beyond the 15-day reglementary period.
  • The CA denied the motion for reconsideration on October 27, 1995, for being filed out of time.

Issue:

  1. Whether the CA erred in upholding the assessment of ad valorem tax on minerals purchased by Apex from small-scale miners.
  2. Whether the CA correctly denied Apex's motion for reconsideration for being filed out of time.
  3. Whether the rules on the reglementary period for filing a motion for reconsideration should be relaxed in the interest of substantial justice.

Ruling:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Ratio:

  • (Subscriber-Only)


Jur is an AI-powered legal research platform in the Philippines for case digests, summaries, and jurisprudence. AI-generated content may contain inaccuracies; please verify independently.