SECOND DIVISION

[G.R. No. 230104. March 16, 2022.]

BUREAU OF INTERNAL REVENUE, petitioner, vs. SAMUEL B.

CAGANG, respondent.

DECISION

HERNANDO, J : p

This Petition for Review on Certiorari 1 seeks the reversal of the June
27, 2016 Decision 2 and the February 6, 2017 Resolution 3 of the Court of
Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. SP No. 132453, which annulled and set aside the
August 13, 2013 Resolution 4 of the Department of Justice (DOJ) in NPS No.
XVI-INV-09H-00602. The said DOJ Resolution found probable cause and
recommended the filing of a criminal information against herein respondent
Samuel B. Cagang (Cagang) and Romulo M. Paredes (Paredes) as treasurer
and president, respectively, of CEDCO, Inc. (CEDCO) for their alleged
violation of Section 255 of the National Internal Revenue Code (NIRC). 5
The Facts:
On March 4, 2003, CEDCO received from the BIR a letter of authority
(LOA) dated February 20, 2003, purportedly authorizing certain persons
named therein to examine CEDCO's books of accounts and other accounting
records. 6 Based on the letter, the examination was supposed to cover
taxable years 1997 to 2001. 7
On April 14, 2003, CEDCO sought the cancellation of the LOA. In a
letter of even date, CEDCO pointed out that its records had been examined
yearly by the BIR. It also emphasized that it had availed of the Voluntary
Assessment and Abatement Program for taxable years 2000 and 2001, and
that it had already paid all deficiency taxes against it. Further, CEDCO
informed the BIR that its records from 1997 to 2000 were no longer available
for examination, as it had already disposed of the same pursuant to Section
235 of the NIRC. 8 However, the BIR denied CEDCO's request. Thus, CEDCO
had to submit all of its available records to the BIR. 9
On May 24, 2005, CEDCO received a Preliminary Assessment Notice
(PAN) dated May 3, 2005. CEDCO was assessed the following taxes for
taxable years 2000 and 2001: (a) income tax; (b) Value-Added Tax (VAT); (c)
expanded withholding tax.; and (d) withholding tax on compensation. 10 CAIHTE

CEDCO protested the said assessment through its letters dated June 5,
2005 and August 17, 2005. 11 Despite such protests, the BIR still issued a
Formal Letter of Demand (FLD) dated December 9, 2005, 12 with attached
details of the discrepancies and assessment notices of even date, 13
demanding payment by CEDCO of the supposed deficiency taxes in the
amount of P126,564,315.98 covering taxable years 2000 and 2001. 14 In a
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2022 cdasiaonline.com
 letter dated February 8, 2006, 15 CEDCO, through Cagang, as Director for
Administration & Finance, appealed or protested the FLD/Final Assessment
Notice (FAN). 16 Nonetheless, BIR issued a Final Decision on Disputed
Assessment (FDDA) dated September 28, 2007, which denied CEDCO's
protest, to wit:
Referring to your letter dated February 8, 2006[,] please be informed
that your protest against our deficiency taxes for the taxable years
2000 and 2001 involving the amounts of P105,020,061.50 and
P21,544,254.48, respectively, the subject matter of our covering
letter of demand dated November 10, 2005, is hereby denied for lack
of factual and legal basis. There were no additional documents
presented to us that would dispute the issues raised against you.
xxx xxx xxx
The records of this case showed that you have not substantially
introduced any evidenced (sic) to overthrow the validity of our said
findings, thus your protest was considered void and without force and
effect. 17
Based on the FDDA, CEDCO had the following tax liabilities:

2000 2001

Income Tax 75,284,998.00 15,245,561.59

Expanded Withholding 503,356.34 136,096.91

Tax

Value-Added Tax (VAT) 29,231,707.16 6,013,703.82

Withholding Tax 148,892.16 18

Compensation

Subsequently, on November 28, 2007, CEDCO availed of the tax

amnesty under Republic Act No. (RA) 9480. 19 The amnesty granted by the
law covered "all national internal revenue taxes for the taxable year 2005
and prior years, with or without assessments duly issued therefor, and that
have remained unpaid as of December 31, 2005 x x x." 20 On the same date,
CEDCO filed its tax amnesty payment form. CEDCO then paid the amnesty
tax the following day. 21
In a collection letter dated June 24, 2008, the BIR directed CEDCO to
pay its tax liabilities based on the FDDA. 22 For CEDCO's failure to settle its
tax obligations, a complaint-affidavit dated August 14, 2009 was filed
against Cagang and Paredes for violation of Section 255 of the NIRC. 23 In
the said complaint-affidavit, Cagang and Paredes, in their official capacities
as CEDCO's treasurer and president, respectively, were charged with the
alleged willful failure to pay CEDCO's deficiency taxes for taxable years 2000
and 2001. 24

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2022 cdasiaonline.com

 Ruling of the Department of
Justice-National Prosecution
Service (NPS).
After due hearing and the submission of the required pleadings by the
parties, the DOJ-NPS Task Force on Revenue Cases, through its Resolution 25
dated March 12, 2010, resolved to dismiss the complaint against Cagang and
Paredes for lack of probable cause. It ruled that the filing of the complaint
before the Prosecutor's Office or with the Office of the Chief State Prosecutor
for purposes of preliminary investigation is not the one contemplated in RA
9480 as "pending criminal cases for tax evasion and other criminal cases"
which has the effect of disqualifying a person or entity from availing of the
immunity under the law. Essentially, the DOJ-NPS made a distinction
between: (1) those cases for tax evasion where an Information had already
been filed in court; and (2) those which are merely pending before the
prosecutor's office. 26 The dispositive portion of the Resolution states:
WHEREFORE, premises considered, it is respectfully
recommended that the instant complaint be DISMISSED for lack of
probable cause. 27
The BIR then filed a motion for reconsideration but the DOJ-NPS denied
the same for lack of merit through its Resolution dated January 5, 2011. 28
Ruling of the Secretary of
Justice.
Undaunted, the BIR filed before the Secretary of Justice a petition for
review 29 dated March 30, 2011, challenging the ruling of the DOJ-NPS. The
petition was denied in a Resolution 30 dated February 27, 2012. According to
Undersecretary Francisco F. Baraan III, the issues raised therein were "mere
duplications of the issues raised in the motion for reconsideration which
have already been discussed in the assailed resolution." 31 The BIR moved
for another reconsideration, 32 which was granted in a Resolution 33 dated
August 13, 2013 by then Secretary of Justice Leila M. De Lima.
The August 13, 2013 Resolution explained that, "the questioned
interpretation that the term 'pending criminal cases' referred to in the
implementing rules means only those already filed in court cannot prevail
with what is expressly set forth in the said implementing rule as those 'filed
in Court or in the Department of Justice.' Hence, the dismissal of the
complaint was premised on an unfounded interpretation of the implementing
rule in question." 34
Consequently, the Secretary of Justice found probable cause for the
filing of an information against Cagang and Paredes for violation of Section
255 of the NIRC. The fallo of the Resolution reads: HEITAD

WHEREFORE, the assailed resolutions are hereby REVERSED

AND SET ASIDE. Accordingly, the investigating prosecutor
concerned is hereby DIRECTED to file the corresponding
Information/s against the respondents for violation of Section 255 of
the NIRC before the proper court of jurisdiction and to report the
action taken hereon within ten (10) days from receipt hereof.
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2022 cdasiaonline.com
 SO ORDERED. 35

Aggrieved, Cagang filed a petition for certiorari with prayer for

temporary restraining order and/or writ of preliminary injunction 36 dated
October 24, 2013 before the CA, raising the following grounds:
The Department of Justice acted with grave abuse of discretion
amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction in reversing its Resolution
Dated February 27, 2012.
I. The Department of Justice ignored essential facts on record
showing that Petitioner cannot be prosecuted for alleged willful
refusal to pay CEDCO, Inc.'s taxes, as follows:
A. CEDCO, Inc. had availed of the tax amnesty under
R.A. No. 9480 and is therefore not required to pay tax.
B. CEDCO, Inc. is qualified to immunity from criminal
penalties under the NIRC arising from the failure to pay
taxes. BIR's complaint dated August 14, 2009 was not yet
existing when R.A. No. 9480 took effect.
C. Petitioner was not a corporate officer or employee
who was responsible for the payment of CEDCO, Inc.'s tax
obligations.
II. The Resolution dated February 27, 2012 was already final and
executory when BIR filed its Motion for Reconsideration dated March
23, 2012. 37
Meanwhile, Informations were filed against Cagang and Paredes before
the Court of Tax Appeals (CTA) on February 11, 2014. They were accused of
alleged willful refusal to pay income tax and VAT for taxable years 2000 and
2001, in violation of Section 255 in relation to Sections 253 (d) and 256 of
the NIRC, as amended. The cases, entitled " People of the Philippines v.
Romulo M. Paredes and Samuel B. Cagang ," were docketed as Criminal
Cases Nos. 0-350 to 0-353. The Informations were later amended to include
CEDCO as one of the accused. 38
Subsequently, on September 17, 2014, Informations were also filed
against Cagang and Paredes before the Regional Trial Court of Cebu City.
This time, they were accused of alleged willful refusal to pay expanded
withholding tax for taxable years 2000 and 2001 and withholding tax on
compensation for taxable year 2001 of CEDCO, in violation of Section 255 in
relation to Sections 253 (d) and 256 of the NIRC, as amended. The cases,
entitled, "People of the Philippines v. Romulo M. Parades and Samuel B.
Cagang," were docketed as Criminal Cases Nos. CBU-105579 to 105581. 39
Ruling of the Court of Appeals:
In a Decision 40 dated June 27, 2016, the CA granted Cagang's petition.
It held that the Secretary of Justice acted with grave abuse of discretion
amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction when it found probable cause to
charge Cagang with the violation of Section 255 of the NIRC. 41 The CA found
that CEDCO was qualified to avail of the tax amnesty under RA 9480 and
that Cagang cannot be held liable. 42 The dispositive portion of the Decision
reads: ATICcS

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2022 cdasiaonline.com

 WHEREFORE, the petition is GRANTED. The Resolution dated
August 13, 2013 of the Department of Justice in NPS No. XVI-INV-09H-
00602 is hereby ANNULLED and SET ASIDE. Accordingly, its
Resolution dated February 27, 2012 which sustained the Resolution
dated March 12, 2010 of the Task Force on Revenue Cases
DISMISSING the complaint against petitioner Samuel B. Cagang is
hereby REINSTATED.
SO ORDERED. 43

The DOJ and BIR then filed their motion for reconsideration 44 dated
July 25, 2016, but the same was denied by the CA through its Resolution
dated February 6, 2017 for lack of merit. 45
Hence, the present petition, where the BIR, through the Office of the
Solicitor General (OSG), posits that: (1) CEDCO is disqualified from availing of
the tax amnesty provision of RA 9480 due to its existing withholding tax
liabilities; and (2) there is probable cause to charge Cagang with violation of
Section 255 of the NIRC, as amended, insofar as he failed to cause the
payment of the withholding taxes due the government. 46
Issues
The issues to be determined in the present case are whether: (1)
CEDCO is entitled to avail of the tax amnesty under RA 9480; and (2) there is
probable cause to charge Cagang with the violation of Section 255 of the
NIRC.
Our Ruling
The petition is meritorious.
Tax amnesty refers to the "absolute waiver by a sovereign of its right
to collect taxes and power to impose penalties on persons or entities guilty
of violating a tax law. Tax amnesty aims to grant a general reprieve to tax
evaders who wish to come clean by giving them an opportunity to straighten
out their records." 47 Simply put, it partakes of an absolute relinquishment
by the government of its right to collect what is due it and to give tax
evaders who wish to relent a chance to start with a clean slate. 48
In 2007, Congress enacted RA 9480, which granted a tax amnesty
covering "all national internal revenue taxes for the taxable year 2005 and
prior years, with or without assessments duly issued therefor, that have
remained unpaid as of December 31, 2005." 49 These national internal
revenue taxes include (a) income tax; (b) VAT; (c) estate tax; (d) excise tax;
(e) donor's tax; (f) documentary stamp tax; (g) capital gains tax; and (h)
other percentage taxes. 50 Pursuant to Section 6 of RA 9480, those who
availed themselves of the benefits of the law became "immune from the
payment of taxes, as well as additions thereto, and the appurtenant civil,
criminal or administrative penalties under the National Internal Revenue
Code of 1997, as amended, arising from the failure to pay any and all
internal revenue taxes for taxable year 2005 and prior years." 51 TIADCc

However, RA 9480 is not without exceptions. Section 8 of the said law

enumerates those persons and cases that are not covered by the law, viz.:
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2022 cdasiaonline.com
 Section 8. Exceptions. — The tax amnesty provided in Section 5
hereof shall not extend to the following persons or cases existing as
of the effectivity of RA 9480:
(a) Withholding agents with respect to their withholding
tax liabilities;
(b) Those with pending cases falling under the jurisdiction of the
Presidential Commission on Good Government;
(c) Those with pending cases involving unexplained or unlawfully
acquired wealth, revenue or income under the Anti-Graft and Corrupt
Practices Act;
(d) Those with pending cases filed in court involving violation of
the Anti-Money Laundering Law;
(e) Those with pending criminal cases for tax evasion and
other criminal offenses under Chapter II of Title X of the
National Internal Revenue Code of 1997, as amended, and the
felonies of frauds, illegal exactions and transactions, and
malversation of public funds and property under Chapters III
and IV of Title VII of the Revised Penal Code; and
(f) Tax cases subject of final and executory judgment by the
courts.
Meanwhile, the Department of Finance's Department Order No. 29-07,
which provides for the Implementing Rules and Regulations of RA 9480,
states that:
Section 5. Exceptions. — The tax amnesty shall not extend to the
following persons or cases existing as of the effectivity of this
Act:
(a) Withholding agents with respect to their withholding
tax liabilities;
(b) Those with pending cases falling under the jurisdiction of the
Presidential Commission on Good Government;
(c) Those with pending cases involving unexplained or unlawfully
acquired wealth or under the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act;
(d) Those with pending cases filed in court involving violation of
the Anti-Money Laundering Law;
(e) Those with pending criminal cases filed in court or in
the Department of Justice for tax evasion and other criminal
offenses under Chapter II of Title X of the National Internal
Revenue Code of 1997, as amended;
(f) Tax cases subject of final and executory judgment by the
courts.
From the foregoing, it is crystal clear that withholding taxes are not
covered by the amnesty program. Thus, there is merit in the BIR's
submission that CEDCO is not qualified to avail of the tax amnesty with
respect to its withholding tax liabilities. The Court does not agree with the
CA's findings that "CEDCO was assessed by the BIR, not as a withholding
agent that failed to withhold and/or remit some of its tax liabilities but as
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2022 cdasiaonline.com
 one that was directly liable for the tax and failed to pay the same on time" 52
and "CEDCO's tax deficiencies involve indirect taxes such as VAT and other
excise taxes, not withholding taxes." 53 A perusal of the records reveals that
as early as September 28, 2007, CEDCO had been assessed by the BIR for its
failure to withhold taxes and to remit the same to the government, as shown
by the FDDA:
TAXABLE YEAR 2000
2. EXPANDED WITHHOLDING TAX — (P503,356.34)
Verification disclosed that you have failed to comply with Section 57
of the NIRC, as amended which require the withholding of a tax on
the items of income payable to natural or juridical persons by payor-
corporation/persons.
Section 57 — "Withholding of Creditable Tax at Source" — The
Secretary of Finance may, upon the recommendation of the
Commissioner, require the withholding of a tax on the items of
income (underscore ours) payable to natural juridical persons,
residing in the Philippines, by payor-corporations/persons as provided
by law. . . . AIDSTE

You have admitted to the fact that payment of all monthly billings
were paid by the government agency to CEDCO account, which is
alleged a Project Office account, net of corresponding withholding
taxes. This is so because the government agency has to comply with
Sec. 57(B) of the NIRC. Payments of DPWH constitutes a taxable
income on the part of the recipients, the members of the consortium.
54

TAXABLE YEAR 2001

2. EXPANDED WITHHOLDING TAX — (P136,096.91)
Verification disclosed that you have failed to comply with Section 57
of the NIRC, as amended which require the withholding of a tax on
the items of income payable to natural or juridical persons by payor-
corporation/persons.
xxx xxx xxx
4. WITHHOLDING TAX ON COMPENSATION — (P148,892.16)
Verification disclosed that you have failed to comply with Section 79
of the NIRC, as amended which require every employer making
payment of wages to deduct and withhold the tax as prescribed by
law. Investigation disclosed that salaries & wages claimed per F/S
amounting to P640,638.00 were not subjected to withholding tax. 55
As such, while the CA was correct in ruling that "there was no pending
case yet against CEDCO whether before the courts of justice or at the
prosecutor's office" 56 considering that the complaint-affidavit was filed on
August 14, 2009, and the 2007 Tax Amnesty Law took effect on May 24,
2007 which CEDCO availed of on November 28, 2007, 57 CEDCO is
nevertheless disqualified to avail of the tax amnesty for its withholding tax
liabilities in accordance with Section 8 (a) of RA 9480 and Section 5 (a) of its
IRR.

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2022 cdasiaonline.com

 A tax amnesty, much like a tax exemption, is never favored or
presumed in law. The grant of a tax amnesty, similar to a tax exemption,
must be construed strictly against the taxpayer and liberally in favor of the
taxing authority. 58 Here, the Court finds that the tax amnesty under RA
9480 does not extend to CEDCO with respect to its existing withholding tax
liabilities, as explicitly provided in the said law.
However, with respect to the deficiency taxes pertaining to CEDCO's
income tax and VAT for taxable years for 2000 and 2001, the Court finds
that CEDCO is entitled or qualified to avail of the tax amnesty considering
that it had submitted the necessary documents and complied with the
requirements under RA 9480, 59 which the BIR does not dispute.
Moreover, the Court is not unmindful of the CTA's Resolution dated
February 11, 2014 in Criminal Cases Nos. 0-350 to 0-353 where the tax court
granted Cagang and Paredes' demurrer to evidence and dismissed, for
insufficiency of the prosecution's evidence, the charges against them for
willful refusal to pay income tax and VAT for taxable years 2000 and 2001.
60 The said CTA Resolution became final and executory and was entered in
the CTA's Book of Judgments on February 4, 2016. 61
Hence, CEDCO's outstanding deficiency taxes for income tax and VAT
for taxable years 2000 and 2001 are deemed fully settled pursuant to its
availment of the tax amnesty program under RA 9480.
Anent the second issue as to whether there is probable cause to charge
Cagang for the violation of Section 255 of the NIRC, the Court rules in the
affirmative. Section 255 states:
SEC. 255. Failure to File Return, Supply Correct and Accurate
Information, Pay Tax, Withhold and Remit Tax and Refund Excess
Taxes Withheld on Compensation . — Any person required under this
Code or by rules and regulations promulgated thereunder to pay any
tax, make a return, keep any record, or supply correct and accurate
information, who willfully fails to pay such tax, make such return,
keep such record, or supply such correct and accurate information, or
withhold or remit taxes withheld, or refund excess taxes withheld on
compensation at the time or times required by law or rules and
regulations shall, in addition to other penalties provided by law, upon
conviction thereof, be punished by a fine of not less than Ten
thousand pesos (P10,000.00) and suffer imprisonment of not less
than one (1) year but not more than ten (10) years.
In relation to this, Section 253 (d) enumerates who can be found
responsible or criminally liable for violations of the NIRC, to wit:
SEC. 253. General Provisions. —
xxx xxx xxx
(d) In the case of associations, partnerships or corporations, the
penalty shall be imposed on the partner, president, general manager,
branch manager, treasurer; officer-in-charge, and the employees
responsible for the violation.
In the present case, Cagang was charged with the alleged willful failure
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2022 cdasiaonline.com
 to pay CEDCO's deficiency taxes for taxable years 2000 and 2001 under
Section 255 of the NIRC as the purported treasurer of CEDCO. However,
Cagang contends that he cannot be held liable because he was never
appointed as the company's treasurer. He claimed he held the positions of
Corporate Secretary and Director of Finance, which are not included under
the enumeration of corporate officers under Section 253 (d) of the NIRC. acEHCD

The Court is not convinced.

A review of the records would reveal that evidence exists that Cagang
was appointed by CEDCO's Board of Directors as "the New Corporate
Secretary/Treasurer effective April 1, 1999" per Board Resolution No. 73. 62
Moreover, a certification dated June 26, 2000 shows that a certain Glory M.
Dela Cruz became treasurer of CEDCO. 63 Further, the General Information
Sheet filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year
2003 also shows that Cagang was the treasurer for CEDCO. 64
Based on the foregoing facts, the Court is inclined to agree with BIR
that there exists probable cause to charge Cagang with violation of Section
255 of the NIRC as he was, albeit for short period, the treasurer for CEDCO,
to wit:
The foregoing evidence shows that respondent Cagang was the
treasurer of CEDCO, Inc. in April 1999, and that this was only
interrupted on June 26, 2000 when Glory Dela Cruz was appointed
Treasurer. Under this circumstance, respondent has practically
admitted the fact that he was still the Treasurer from January to June
25, 2000. Bearing in mind the above-quoted provisions of the NLRC
on withholding tax, it is clear that respondent had the obligation to
pay such tax obligation of CEDCO, Inc. for the first quarter of 2000
within twenty-five (25) days from the close of [the] calendar quarter.
65

Probable cause has been defined as the existence of such facts and
circumstances as would excite the belief in a reasonable mind, acting on the
facts within the knowledge of the prosecutor, that the person charged was
guilty of the crime for which he was prosecuted. The term does not mean
"actual or positive cause" nor does it import absolute certainty. It is merely
based on opinion and reasonable belief. Thus, a finding of probable cause
does not require an inquiry into whether there is sufficient evidence to
procure a conviction. It is enough that it is believed that the act or omission
complained of constitutes the offense charged. Precisely, there is a trial
for the reception of evidence of the prosecution in support of the
charge. 66
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the petition is GRANTED. The
June 27, 2016 Decision and the February 6, 2017 Resolution of the Court of
Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 132453 are ANNULLED AND SET ASIDE.
SO ORDERED.
Perlas-Bernabe, Zalameda, J.Y. Lopez and Marquez, JJ., concur.

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2022 cdasiaonline.com

 Footnotes
* Per March 7, 2022 Raffle vice J. Rosario who concurred in the assailed CA
Decision.

1. Rollo, pp. 14-34.

2. Id. at 39-48. Penned by Associate Justice Edwin D. Sorongon and concurred in by

Associate Justices Ricardo R. Rosario (now a Member of this Court) and Marie
Christine Azcarraga-Jacob.

3. Id. at 49-51.

4. Id. at 90-93.
5. Id. at 39.

6. Id. at 62.

7. Id.

8. Id. at 63.
9. Id.

10. Id. at 64.

11. Id. at 64-65.

12. CA rollo, pp. 99-102.

13. Id. at 103-108; rollo, p. 40.

14. Rollo, p. 65.

15. CA rollo, pp. 110-115.

16. Rollo, p. 66.

17. CA rollo, pp. 116-120.

18. Rollo, p. 822.

19. Id. at 66.

20. Id.; Section 1, RA 9480 entitled, "AN ACT ENHANCING REVENUE

ADMINISTRATION AND COLLECTION BY GRANTING AN AMNESTY ON ALL
UNPAID INTERNAL REVENUE TAXES IMPOSED BY THE NATIONAL
GOVERNMENT FOR TAXABLE YEAR 2005 AND PRIOR YEARS." Approved: May
24, 2007.

21. Rollo, p. 67.

22. Id. at 41; CA rollo pp. 122-124.

23. Id.; id. at 62-66.

24. Rollo, p. 68.

25. CA rollo, pp. 261-268.

26. Id. at 267; Rollo, p. 42.

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2022 cdasiaonline.com
 27. Id. at 267.
28. Id. at 60-61.

29. Id. at 38-57.

30. Id. at 290-292.

31. Id. at 290.

32. Id. at 293-299.

33. Rollo, pp. 90-93.

34. Id. at 92.

35. Id.

36. CA rollo, pp. 3-30.

37. Id. at 15.

38. Rollo, p. 739.

39. Id.

40. Id. at 39-48.

41. Id. at 46.

42. Id. at 45.

43. Id. at 47.

44. CA rollo, pp. 509-516.

45. Rollo, pp. 49-51.

46. Id. at 22-23.

47. CS Garment, Inc. v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, 729 Phil. 253, 266
(2014).

48. Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Philippine Aluminum Wheels, Inc., 816

Phil. 638, 644 (2017).

49. CS Garment, Inc. v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, supra; Section 1, RA

9480.
50. Id. at 268.

51. Id.

52. Rollo, p. 45.

53. Id. at 46.

54. Id. at 173-174 and 823-824.

55. Id. at 175.

56. Id. at 45.
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2022 cdasiaonline.com
 57. Id.
58. Asia International Auctioneers, Inc. v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, 695
Phil. 852, 858 (2012).

59. Rollo, p. 745.

60. Id. at 739 and 783-792.

61. Id. at 739 and 794-796.

62. Id. at 824 and 258.

63. Id. at 754.

64. Id. at 824-825 and 259-260.

65. Id. at 827.

66. Unilever Phils., Inc. v. Tan, 725 Phil. 486, 498 (2014).

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2022 cdasiaonline.com