Case Digest (G.R. No. 255473)
Facts:
Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Manila Medical Services, Inc., G.R. No. 255473, February 13, 2023, the Supreme Court Third Division, Singh, J., writing for the Court. The petitioner is the Commissioner of Internal Revenue (CIR); the respondent is Manila Medical Services, Inc. (MMS / Manila Doctors Hospital).MMS received a Preliminary Assessment Notice (PAN) dated October 19, 2010, which it protested on November 24, 2010. A Final Assessment Notice (FAN) issued on March 25, 2013; MMS protested that FAN on April 16, 2013, with the CIR receiving the protest on April 18, 2013. A Warrant of Distraint and Levy (WDL), dated September 5, 2014, was received by MMS on September 12, 2014, demanding payment of PHP 79,960,408.62; MMS filed a Petition for Review with the Court of Tax Appeals (CTA) on October 10, 2014.
The CIR answered on November 21, 2014, asserting among other defenses that MMS had received a Final Decision on Disputed Assessment (FDDA), that MMS filed false returns, and that the assessment was final and executory. The CTA Special Second Division, in a Decision dated November 6, 2018, declared the FAN and WDL null and void and granted MMS’ petition; its Resolution of January 30, 2019 denied the CIR’s motion for reconsideration. The CTA En Banc referred the case to the Philippine Mediation Center–CTA but received a “No Agreement to Mediate” report; the CTA En Banc, in a Decision dated September 1, 2020, denied the CIR’s petition for review and affirmed the division, and later denied reconsideration in a Resolution dated January 21, 2021. The CIR filed the present Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45 before the Supreme Court on March 24, 2021.
Central factual and legal disputes below were (a) whether MMS actually received the FDDA (the CIR alleged MMS received it on July 9, 2013; MMS denied receipt), (b) whether the FDDA satisfied the content requirements of Revenue Regulations No. 12-99, Sec. 3.1.6, and (c) whether the audit and resulting assessment were valid given that the Letter of Authority (LOA) on record, LOA No. 2007-0034491 (July 14, 2009), named other revenue officers while the audit was conducted by Revenue Officer Ethel C. Evangelista. The CTA an...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Did the CTA En Banc commit reversible error in denying the CIR’s Petition for Review (i.e., should the Supreme Court reverse the CTA En Banc’s affirmance of the cancellation of the FAN ...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)