Case Summary (G.R. No. 182582)
Petitioner
Metropolitan Bank & Trust Company, successor to Solidbank, withholding agent on interest payments to LHC.
Respondent
Commissioner of Internal Revenue, charged with administering tax refunds under the National Internal Revenue Code and related revenue regulations.
Key Dates
- June 5, 1997: Solidbank enters into US$123,780,000 loan agreement with LHC.
- September 1, 2000: Metrobank acquires Solidbank and assumes its obligations.
- March 2, 2001 & October 31, 2001: LHC remits to Metrobank interest payments subject to 10% final withholding tax.
- April 25, 2001 & November 9, 2001 (approx.): Metrobank remits corresponding taxes to the BIR.
- December 27, 2002: Metrobank files administrative refund claim with CIR.
- September 10, 2003: Metrobank files judicial refund claim with the CTA.
- August 13, 2007: CTA First Division denies refund claim (prescription and insufficiency of evidence).
- April 21, 2008: CTA En Banc affirms denial on prescription ground.
- April 17, 2017: Supreme Court decision.
Applicable Law
- 1987 Philippine Constitution (as case decided after 1990)
- National Internal Revenue Code (NIRC) of 1997, Sections 204 and 229 (prescription periods for tax refunds).
- Revenue Regulations No. 02-98, Section 2.57(A) (final withholding tax rules).
Facts
Solidbank loaned US$123.78 million to LHC, with LHC obligated to withhold and remit 10% final tax on interest. Metrobank acquired Solidbank in September 2000. In March and October 2001, LHC paid interest to Metrobank and remitted US$106,178.69 to the BIR. Metrobank inadvertently included the same tax amounts in its own returns and likewise remitted them. It filed an administrative claim for refund in December 2002 and a judicial claim in September 2003.
Procedural History
- CTA First Division (Aug. 13, 2007): Denied March 2001 refund claim for prescription (filed judicial claim beyond two-year period) and October 2001 claim for lack of evidence.
- CTA First Division Resolution (Nov. 14, 2007): Allowed additional evidence on October 2001 claim; maintained denial of March 2001 claim.
- CTA En Banc (Apr. 21, 2008): Affirmed First Division’s prescription ruling on March 2001 claim.
Issue
Did Metrobank’s judicial claim for refund of its March 2001 final withholding tax prescribe under NIRC prescription rules?
Ruling
Yes. Metrobank’s judicial claim for the March 2001 tax, filed on September 10, 2003, was beyond the two-year prescriptive period from payment on April 25, 2001 and thus barred.
Legal Analysis
- NIRC Section 204(C) and Section 229 prescribe a two-year period after payment to file both administrative and judicial refund claims; a return showing overpayment serves as a written claim.
- Final withholding taxes are “full and final” payment of the specific income tax liability (Revenue Regulations No. 02-98, Sec. 2.57(A)) and not subject to end–o
Case Syllabus (G.R. No. 182582)
Facts
- On June 5, 1997, Solidbank Corporation granted Luzon Hydro Corporation (LHC) a foreign-currency loan of US$123,780,000, with LHC undertaking to shoulder and remit all required internal revenue taxes on the loan.
- Metrobank acquired Solidbank on September 1, 2000, thereby assuming Solidbank’s rights and obligations under the loan agreement.
- On March 2 and October 31, 2001, LHC remitted to Metrobank US$1,538,122.17 and US$1,333,268.31, respectively, withholding 10% final tax on the interest portions:
- March 2001 interest tax withheld: US$63,106.40 (₱3,060,029.24)
- October 2001 interest tax withheld: US$43,072.29 (₱2,236,743.81)
- These withheld amounts were duly paid to the Bureau of Internal Revenue by LHC and evidenced by LHC’s Schedules of Final Tax and Monthly Remittance Returns.
- Metrobank inadvertently included the same withheld amounts in its own monthly remittance returns and likewise paid them to the BIR.
- On December 27, 2002, Metrobank filed an administrative claim for refund with the BIR; upon the CIR’s inaction, it filed a judicial claim with the Court of Tax Appeals (CTA) on September 10, 2003 (CTA Case No. 6765).
Procedural History
- The CIR opposed Metrobank’s claim, contending that the refund was subject to administrative investigation, the taxpayer bore the burden of proving double payment, and that the claim was governed by the two-year prescriptive period and must be strictly construed.
- CTA First Division Decision (August 13, 2007):
- Denied the March 2001 refund claim as prescribed (payment on April 25, 200