BPI Family Savings Bank v.

CTA
April 12, 2000 | Panganiban, J. | Judicial Notice (Sections 1 to 3, Rule 129)
PETITIONER: BPI Family Savings Bank
RESPONDENT: CTA
SUMMARY: The case involves a claim for tax refund on the amount of P112,491 representing BPIs tax
withheld for 1989. This was initially filed with the CIR alleging that the company did not apply the 1989
refundable amount to its 1990 Annual Income Tax Return or other tax liabilities due to the alleged business
losses it incurred for the same year. But, without waiting for CIR, it filed a petition for review with the CTA
which dismissed the petition. Hence, this petition.
DOCTRINE: As a rule, "courts are not authorized to take judicial notice of the contents of the records of
other cases, even when such cases have been tried or are pending in the same court, and notwithstanding
the fact that both cases may have been heard or are actually pending before the same judge."

Be that as it may, Section 2, Rule 129 provides that courts may take judicial notice of matters ought to be
known to judges because of their judicial functions. In this case, the Court notes that a copy of the Decision
in CTA Case No. 4897 was attached to the Petition for Review filed before this Court. Significantly,
respondents do not claim at all that the said Decision was fraudulent or nonexistent. Indeed, they do not
even dispute the contents of the said Decision, claiming merely that the Court cannot take judicial notice
thereof.

FACTS:
1. Case involves a claim for tax refund in the
amount of P112,491.00 representing petitioners tax
withheld for the year 1989.
2. Petitioner had a total refundable amount of
P297,492 inclusive of the P112,491.00 being
claimed as tax refund in the present case.
However, petitioner declared in its 1989 Income Tax
Return that the said total refundable amount of
P297,492.00 will be applied as tax credit to the
succeeding taxable year.
3. On October of 1990, petitioner filed written claim
for refund in the amount of P112,491.00 w/
respondent Commissioner of Internal Revenue
(CIR) alleging that it did not apply the 1989
refundable amount of P297,492.00 (including
P112,491.00) to its 1990 Annual Income Tax Return
or other tax liabilities due to the alleged business
losses it incurred for the same year.
4. Without waiting for respondent Commissioner of
Internal Revenue to act on the claim for refund,
petitioner filed a petition for review with respondent
Court of Tax Appeals, seeking the refund of the
amount of P112,491.00.
5. Court of Tax Appeals dismissed petitioners
petition on the ground that petitioner failed to
present as evidence its Corporate Annual Income
Tax Return for 1990 to establish the fact that

petitioner had not yet credited the amount of

P297,492.00 (inclusive of the amount P112,491.00
which is the subject of the present controversy) to
its 1990 income tax liability.
6. CA affirmed decision of the CTA.
"It is incumbent upon the petitioner to show proof
that it has not credited to its 1990 Annual income
Tax Return, the amount of P297,492.00 (including
P112,491.00), so as to refute its previous
declaration in the 1989 Income Tax Return that the
said amount will be applied as a tax credit in the
succeeding year of 1990. Having failed to submit
such requirement, there is no basis to grant the
claim for refund.
7. Petitioner calls the attention of the Court, to a
Decision rendered by the Tax Court in CTA Case
No. 4897, involving its claim for refund for the year
1990. In that case, the Tax Court held that
"petitioner suffered a net loss for the taxable year
1990 Respondent, however, urges this Court not to
take judicial notice of the said case.
ISSUE/S:
1. WON Court can take judicial notice of such
case?

RULING: Petition is hereby GRANTED and the

assailed Decision and Resolution of the Court of
Appeals REVERSED and SET ASIDE.
RATIO:
1. See Doctrine.

2. If respondents really believed that petitioner is

not entitled to tax refund, they could have easily
proved that it did not suffer any loss in 1990. It is
noteworthy that respondents opted not to assail the
fact appearing therein -- that petitioner suffered a
net loss in 1990 in the same way that it refused to
controvert the same fact established by petitioners
other documentary exhibits.

3. Decision in CTA Case No. 4897 is not the sole

basis of petitioners case. It is merely one more bit

of information showing the stark truth: petitioner did

not use its 1989 refund to pay its taxes for 1990.

4. Respondents argue that tax refunds are in the

nature of tax exemptions and are to be construed
against the claimant. However, petitioner has
established its claim. Petitioner may have failed to
strictly comply with the rules of procedure; it may
have even been negligent but these circumstances,
should not compel the Court to disregard
undisputed fact: that petitioner suffered a net loss in
1990, and that it could not have applied the amount
claimed as tax credits.

5. Technicalities and legalisms, however exalted,

should not be misused by the government to keep
money not belonging to it and thereby enrich itself
at the expense of its law-abiding citizens