Case Digest (G.R. No. 233556)
Facts:
City Treasurer of Manila v. Philippine Beverage Partners, Inc., G.R. No. 233556, September 11, 2019, Supreme Court Second Division, Reyes, J., Jr., writing for the Court.The petitioner is the City Treasurer of Manila; the respondent is Philippine Beverage Partners, Inc. (substituted by Coca‑Cola Bottlers Philippines). On January 17, 2007 the City Treasurer issued a Statement of Account (SOA) under Bill No. 012007-33025 assessing respondent for local business taxes and regulatory fees for the first quarter of 2007 totaling P2,930,239.82.
Respondent protested the assessment by letter dated January 19, 2007 contending inter alia that local ordinances had been declared void and that imposition of tax under Section 21 in addition to Section 14 of the Revenue Code of Manila (RCM) constituted double taxation. Respondent tendered partial payment on January 22, 2007 (P506,080.89). The City denied the protest by letter dated February 2, 2007 (received February 6, 2007). Respondent nevertheless paid the full amount of P2,930,239.82 on February 13, 2007, filed a written claim for refund with the City Treasurer on March 2, 2007 for P2,424,158.93, and thereafter filed a Complaint for Revision of SOA and for Refund or Credit with the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Manila, Branch 47 on March 8, 2007.
The RTC, in a decision dated November 18, 2013, ordered refund of the overpayment in the amount claimed. The RTC denied the City’s motion for reconsideration by Order dated July 4, 2014. Petitioner then filed a Petition for Review with the Court of Tax Appeals (CTA) Second Division.
The CTA Second Division, in a Decision dated May 8, 2015, affirmed the RTC, holding that respondent complied with the requisites for refund and that petitioner waived other defenses by failing to raise them in its Answer and by agreeing to submit the case on memoranda. The CTA Second Division denied reconsideration in a Resolution dated July 20, 2015. Petitioner elevated the case to the CTA En Banc.
In a Decision dated December 22, 2016, the CTA En Banc denied the petition and affirmed the Second Division for lack of merit, reiterating that respondent timely filed its administrative claim and judicial action and that petitioner waived additional defenses. The CTA En Banc denied petitioner’s motion for reconsideration on June 13, 2017. Petitioner filed this Rule 45 Petition for Review on Certiorari to t...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- When a taxpayer has filed a written protest to a notice of assessment, may the taxpayer nevertheless institute a judicial action for refund after paying the tax?
- May the City offset respondent’s alleged deficiency taxes for 2006 and 2007 against respondent’s...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)