Documente Academic
Documente Profesional
Documente Cultură
En Bane
MEDICARD PHILIPPINES, INC.
r''MEDICARD"),
Petitioner,
-versus-
COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL
Promulgated:
REVENUE,
Respondent.
JUN 1 9 2013tft.4,1z.,~~.Ar..c---~'-'----'---"---!:."-'-"----~
~;/6' ~.No.-,
x--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------x
DECISION
BAUTISTA,[.:
Penned by retired Associa te Justice Olga Palanca-Enriquez, and concurred by Associa te Justices Lovell R. Bautista and
Amelia Co tan gco-Manalas tas.
2 Rollo, pp. 80-102.
3 /d., pp. 72-74.
1
'
DECISION
CT A EB CASE NO. 925 (CTA Case No. 7948)
Page 2of9
The P arties4
Petitioner MEDICard Philippines, Inc. is a corporation duly
organized and existing under and by virtue of the laws of the
Philippines. Petitioner is a Health Maintenance Organization ("HMO"),
licensed by the appropriate regulatory agency which arranges for
coverage or designated managed care services needed by plan
members for fixed prepaid membership fees, and for a specified period
of time. One of the services rendered by petitioner to its members as an
HMO, is to act as an intermediary between the purchaser of health care
services and the healthcare providers for a fee.
Respondent is the duly appointed Commissioner of Internal
Revenue, vested with authority to administer and enforce national
internal revenue laws, including among others, the power to issue tax
assessments.
The Facts
On February 27, 2012, petitioner rested its case,s and on March 23,
2012 filed its "Formal Offer of Evidence." 6 Respondent filed her
corresponding "Comment" on May 4, 2012.7
On June 5, 2012, the Court in Division promulgated a Resolutions
partially granting the "Formal Offer of Evidence," but denied a number
of other exhibits. The Court denied the exhibits for the following
reasons: (1) failure to identify the exhibits during the trial; (2) failure to
indicate whether the exhibits are the originals, photocopies or certified
true copies; or (3) failure to submit copies of the exhibits to the Court.
Thus, on June 22, 2012, petitioner filed a "Motion for Partial
Reconsideration," 9 to which respondent filed a "Comment" on July 17,
2012.10 The "Motion for Partial Reconsideration" was denied through a
Resolution of the Court in Division dated July 27, 2012.1 1
DECISION
CTA EB CASE NO. 925 (CT A Case No. 7948)
Page 3 of9
The Issues
As stated in the Memorandum filed by respondent on December
14, 2012,13 the issues are as follows:
"Whether the Honorable Court of Tax Appeal[ s] En
Bane has jurisdiction over the present petition; and
Alternatively, should the Honorable Court En Bane
rule that it is has jurisdiction over the present petition whether the Third Division of the Honorable Court of Tax
Appeal[ s] correctly denied in part petitioner's Formal Offer
of Evidence for (1) failure to identify the exhibits during
trial; (2) for failure to indicate whether the exhibits are the
originals, photocopies or certified true copies; (3) failure to
submit copies of the exhibits to the Honorable Court."
The Ruling of the Court En Bane
The Court En Bane finds no merit in the Petition for Review filed
by MEDICard Philippines, Inc.
Petitioner states that there were voluminous documents that were
included in the Formal Offer of Evidence filed on March 23, 2012, and
that all the Exhibits were duly marked, identified and referred to, as
well as testified and certified as being faithful reproductions of the
original copies by the Court-Commissioned Independent Certified
Public Accountant through his Judicial Affidavits/Sworn Statements
and Final Report. 14 Petitioner states that the Supreme Court has held
that while the general rule is not to consider evidence not formally
offered, this rule has an exception. The exception is when the evidence
has been identified by testimony duly recorded and that it has been
12
13
H
DECISION
CT A EB CASE NO. 925 (CT A Case No. 7948)
Page 4 of9
15
/d., p. 283.
17
DECISION
CT A EB CASE NO. 925 (CT A Case No. 7948)
PageS of9
XXX
XXX
XXX
xxx"
XXX
XXX
XXX
xxx"
DECISION
CT A EB CASE NO. 925 (CT A Case No. 7948)
Page 6 of 9
20
21
DECISION
CT A EB CASE NO. 925 (CT A Case No. 7948)
Page 7 of 9
XXX
XXX
DECISION
CT A EB CASE NO. 925 (CT A Case No. 7948)
Page 8 of 9
LO
TISTA
WE CONCUR:
Presiding Justice
;t
.
JtJANITO C. CASTANEDA, JR.
~OV<A-f~ C . Ck;f'~~;
Associate Justice
E~P.UY
AssoCiate Justice
DECISION
CTA EB CASE NO. 925 (CT A Case No. 7948)
Page 9 of9
CAESAR A. CASANOVA
Associate Justice
G.i.tX. W. M~ ~ .. C~
CIELITO N . MINDARO-GRULLA
Associate Justice
(no part)
CERTIFICATION
Pursuant to Section 13 of Article VIII of the Constitution, it is hereby
certified that the conclusions in the above Decision were reached in
consultation with the members of the Court En Bane before the case was
assigned to the writer of the opinion of this Court.
Presiding Justice