Title
Supreme Court
Metropolitan Bank and Trust Co. vs. Commissioner of Internal Revenue
Case
G.R. No. 178797
Decision Date
Aug 4, 2009
Metrobank contested a P477M DST assessment on its UNISA product for 1999. The Supreme Court ruled that its compliance with the Tax Amnesty Program extinguished the liability, canceling the assessment.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 178797)

Applicable Law

The legal framework governing this case is primarily found in the National Internal Revenue Code (NIRC), particularly Section 180, concerning Documentary Stamp Tax (DST), relevant prior to its amendment by Republic Act No. 9243 on May 20, 2004.

Background Facts

Metrobank, a licensed banking institution, launched a product called the Universal Savings Account (UNISA) that functions similarly to a time deposit but is evidenced by a passbook. Following an investigation under Letter of Authority No. LOA 2000 00052501, the BIR assessed Metrobank for a deficiency DST for the year 1999 amounting to P473,207,457.97. The assessment was contested by Metrobank, which argued that the UNISA should not incur DST and opposed the surcharge for alleged deficiency.

Assessment Process and Challenges

Metrobank filed a protest against the initial PAN but was met with an official assessment quantifying the deficiency DST. Subsequently, the CIR denied Metrobank’s protest, compelling further appeal to the CTA. After a series of decisions, the CTA upheld CIR's assessment, ruling that similar financial products had been previously determined to incur DST.

Legal Arguments and Interpretations

Metrobank contended that the UNISA should not be taxed under Section 180 of the NIRC as it was not a negotiable instrument and differed fundamentally from traditional time deposits. It argued that flexibility in withdrawals without penalty distinguished it from time deposits, which required a fixed holding period. Metrobank also referenced the legislative history behind Republic Act No. 9243, claiming that such amendments solidified the notion that passbook accounts did not attract DST prior to the law's amendment.

Court’s Rationale

The Court of Tax Appeals en banc concluded that UNISA accounts behaved similarly to time deposits and should thus be subject to DST. It referenced prior jurisprudence establishing that the mere labeling of a financial product (e.g., passbook or certificate of deposit) does not exempt it from tax liabilities if the underlying realities of the account align closely with taxable categories defined within the law.

Tax Amnesty Consideration

During the pendency of the appeal, Metrobank invoked a tax amnesty under Republic Act No. 9480, claiming immunity from past tax liabilities, including the contested DST deficiency for the year

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur is a legal research platform serving the Philippines with case digests and jurisprudence resources. AI digests are study aids only—use responsibly.