Title
Republic vs. Robiegie Corporation
Case
G.R. No. 260261
Decision Date
Oct 3, 2022
BIR's tax deficiency assessment against Robiegie voided due to invalid reassignment of investigation authority without a new LOA, violating statutory and due process requirements.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 260261)

Petitioner and Respondent

Petitioner: Republic of the Philippines (represented by the CIR and the BIR)
Respondent: Robiegie Corporation

Key Dates

• July 27, 2009 – Original Letter of Authority (LOA) issued to RO David for 2008 audit.
• January 28, 2010 – Memorandum Referral reassigning the 2008 audit to RO Dy without a new LOA.
• August 18, 2011 – Preliminary Assessment Notice issued.
• September 19, 2011 – Final Assessment Notices assessing P10,804,991.21 in deficiencies.
• June 23, 2017 – Complaint for collection filed with Court of Tax Appeals (CTA).
• December 2, 2021 – CTA Second Division Decision voiding assessments.
• April 8, 2022 – CTA en banc Resolution upholding voidness of assessments.
• October 3, 2022 – Supreme Court decision affirming CTA rulings.

Applicable Law

• 1987 Constitution (granting CIR power to delegate investigatory functions).
• NIRC Sections 5, 6(A), 13 (authority to examine and assess via LOA).
• NIRC Section 17 (CIR’s power to assign/reassign officers to other duties).
• Revenue Memorandum Order (RMO) No. 43-90 C(5) (requiring new LOA upon reassignment).
• RMO No. 8-2006 and 62-2010, 69-2010 (BIR internal guidelines on LOAs and reassignments).
• Judicial precedents: Commissioner v. Sony Philippines, Inc.; Medicard Philippines, Inc.; Himlayang Filipino Plans, Inc.; McDonald’s Philippines Realty Corp.

Facts

The BIR issued LOA No. 00037842 for Robiegie’s 2008 books to RO David. Before audit completion, the Revenue District Officer issued a memorandum referring the case to RO Dy without a new LOA. RO Dy conducted the examination, RO Leonardo reviewed findings, and the BIR issued notices assessing over P10.8 million in tax deficiencies. Collection efforts against Robiegie failed for lack of collectible assets, prompting suit before the CTA.

CTA Second Division Ruling

The Second Division held the assessments void for lack of authority: RO Dy and subsequent personnel were never named in a valid LOA. A reassignment via mere memorandum by a Revenue District Officer cannot substitute for a new LOA issued by a properly empowered official under NIRC Section 6(A) and RMO 43-90.

CTA En Banc Ruling

Affirming the Division, the CTA en banc ruled that:

  1. Only a valid LOA—issued or revalidated by the Commissioner, Deputy Commissioners, or Regional Directors (or their delegates)—can confer investigatory authority.
  2. RMO 8-2006 and related issuances do not abrogate statutory LOA requirements.
  3. Section 17’s general reassign­ment power does not dispense with LOA issuance.
  4. Sony Philippines doctrine applies to all LOA defects, including unauthorized reassignments.

Positions of the Parties

Petitioner argued that BIR regulations permit case reassignments via memoranda under a single yearly LOA, that LOAs merely notify taxpayers, and that Section 17 authorizes officer rotation without new LOAs. Respondent countered that investigatory powers flow exclusively from a valid LOA, and that neither RMO nor statute allows substitution of revenue officers without issuing a new LOA.

Supreme Court Ruling

  1. LOA as Delegation of CIR’s Powers
    • Sections 6(A) and 13 vest examination and assessment powers in the CIR, delegable only through LOAs.
    • Jurisprudence (Medicard, McDonald’s, Himlayang Filipino) establishes that any examination by an unauthorized RO is null and void.

  2. New LOA Required for Reassignment
    • RMO 43-90 C(5) mandates issuance of a new LOA upon transfer of cases to other ROs.
    • Failure to issue a new LOA to RO Dy rendered the investigation invalid.

  3. Reassignment Power under Section 17
    • Section 17 conce

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster—building context before diving into full texts.