Case Digest (G.R. No. 260261) Core Legal Reasoning Model
Core Legal Reasoning Model
Facts:
In Republic of the Philippines v. Robiegie Corporation (G.R. No. 260261, October 3, 2022), the petitioner seeks to collect alleged P10,804,991.21 in deficiency taxes for 2008 from Robiegie Corporation, a Manila‐based drugstore. On July 27, 2009, the Bureau of Internal Revenue (BIR) issued LOA No. 00037842 to Revenue Officer (RO) Jose Francisco David, Jr. to audit Robiegie’s 2008 books. On January 28, 2010, a Memorandum Referral No. 031-0006-10, signed by the Revenue District Officer and without issuance of a new LOA, reassigned the audit to RO Cecille D. Dy. Pursuant to her investigation, a Preliminary Assessment Notice was issued on August 18, 2011, followed by a Formal Letter of Demand and Final Assessment Notices on September 19, 2011. After an unsuccessful search for leviable assets, the Republic filed a collection suit before the Court of Tax Appeals (CTA) in June 2017. The CTA Second Division dismissed the complaint, ruling the assessments null for lack of a valid LOA nami Case Digest (G.R. No. 260261) Expanded Legal Reasoning Model
Expanded Legal Reasoning Model
Facts:
- Parties and Subject Matter
- Petitioner: Republic of the Philippines; Respondent: Robiegie Corporation, a drugstore operator in Sta. Cruz, Manila.
- Subject: Collection of alleged P10,804,991.21 deficiency taxes for taxable year 2008.
- Issuance and Reassignment of LOA
- July 27, 2009: BIR issued LOA No. 00037842 to RO Jose Francisco David, Jr. under GS Felix M. Roy to audit Robiegie’s 2008 books.
- January 28, 2010: Memorandum Referral No. 031-0006-10 by the Revenue District Officer reassigned the July 2009 LOA to RO Cecille D. Dy under GS Jessica O. Bernales; LOA and notice served to Robiegie.
- Assessment Proceedings
- August 18, 2011: Regional Director Misajon issued PAN on RO Dy’s findings.
- September 19, 2011: FLD and FANs assessed Robiegie with P315,680.28 income tax, P10,397,181.78 VAT, P20,129.15 EWT and P72,000 compromise penalty.
- June 23, 2017: BIR filed complaint with the CTA for collection after failing to locate leviable assets.
- CTA Adjudication
- June 8, 2020: CTA Second Division dismissed the complaint, ruling RO Dy lacked LOA authority to investigate.
- August 26, 2020: CTA Second Division denied reconsideration, emphasizing RMO No. 43-90’s requirement of a new LOA for reassignment.
- December 2, 2021 and April 8, 2022: CTA en banc affirmed dismissal and denied petition for reconsideration.
- Supreme Court Petition
- The Republic filed a petition for review on certiorari, contesting the LOA requirement for reassignments and invoking RMO Nos. 8-2006, 62-2010, 69-2010 and NIRC Section 17.
- Robiegie filed a comment supporting the CTA rulings and asserting that RO Dy and RO Leonardo had no valid LOA.
Issues:
- Whether RO Dy’s investigation via a memorandum referral—absent a new LOA—validly delegated the CIR’s investigatory power.
- Whether NIRC Section 17’s reassignment authority of internal revenue officers obviates the requirement for a new LOA.
- Whether the Sony Philippines doctrine on LOA defects applies to cases of reassignment without an LOA.
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)