Title
Supreme Court
Philippine National Bank vs. Commissioner of Internal Revenue
Case
G.R. No. 206019
Decision Date
Mar 18, 2015
PNB sought a refund for excess creditable withholding tax paid to BIR, claiming a 6% rate was mistakenly applied instead of 5% on a foreclosure sale. SC ruled in favor, citing sufficient evidence of non-utilization by Gotesco.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 206019)

Nature of the Case

This case is an appeal filed by PNB through a Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court. The aim is to reverse the September 12, 2012, decision of the Court of Tax Appeals (CTA) En Banc, which reiterated its previous ruling from a February 12, 2013, resolution in CTA EB Case No. 762. The CTA had denied PNB's claim for a refund of excess creditable withholding tax amounting to PHP 12,400,004.71 that was allegedly overpaid to the Bureau of Internal Revenue (BIR).

Factual Background

Gotesco, having entered into a loan agreement secured by the Ever Ortigas Commercial Complex, defaulted on its obligations, prompting PNB to foreclose on the property. A certificate of sale was issued on August 4, 1999, allowing Gotesco the right to redeem the property within a year. Subsequently, Gotesco filed a civil suit against PNB regarding the foreclosure, which resulted in temporary injunctions but ultimately led to the CA reversing those injunctions in PNB's favor. During this process, PNB incurred significant tax payments, including a documentary stamp tax and withholding taxes associated with the foreclosure sale.

Tax Payments and Claims for Refund

Due to the complexities surrounding tax liabilities, PNB paid substantial amounts to the BIR, including penalties and surcharges related to both documentary stamp taxes and capital gains taxes. PNB contended that it mistakenly withheld a higher creditable withholding tax rate of 6% rather than the applicable 5%. Consequently, PNB sought a refund of what it characterized as overpaid taxes.

Initial Rulings by the CTA

The CTA Special First Division ultimately ordered the CIR to refund the penalty and interest payments to PNB but denied the claim for excess creditable withholding taxes due to insufficient evidence. While acknowledging that PNB applied the incorrect withholding rate, the CTA determined that PNB did not adequately demonstrate that Gotesco did not utilize the withheld taxes to satisfy its tax liabilities for the year 2003.

Analysis of Evidence

The CTA specified that for PNB’s claim to be valid, it needed to provide evidence—including Gotesco's 2003 Income Tax Return (ITR)—to substantiate that Gotesco did not use the withheld taxes. PNB attached Gotesco's ITR in its motion for reconsideration but still faced a ruling denying its request, as the presented materials were deemed insufficient. The CTA required concrete proof that Gotesco did not use the withheld amounts in its tax filings, particularly referencing tax forms that supported Gotesco's reported tax credits.

PNB's Appeal and Supreme Court Ruling

Upon appeal to the CTA En Banc, PNB reiterated that it had compiled sufficient evidence to show that Gotesco had not claimed the withheld taxes as credits against its own liabilities. The En Banc affirmed the earlier ruling, insisting that the income tax return alone could not determine non-utilization, underscoring the need for more detailed supporting documents.

In the Supreme Court's review, it concluded that PNB had indeed presented enough evidence demonstrating that Gotesco did not utilize the creditable withholding taxes owed, thus allowing for the refund. The Court emphasi

...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.