City Of Manila v. Hon. Grecia-Cuerdo, G.R.

IV. JUDICIAL REMEDIES

No. 175723, February 4, 2014).
A. Jurisdiction of the Court of Tax Appeals
1. Cases within the jurisdiction of the
(RA 1125 as amended by RA 9282)
Court of Appeals en Banc (Sec. 2, Rule 4,
Revised Rules of CTA)
Court of Tax Appeals (CTA)
The Court en banc shall exercise exclusive
The Court of Tax Appeals has
appellate jurisdiction to review by appeal the
jurisdiction over both civil and criminal
following: [ARMoR]
aspects of a tax case. The concentration of
tax cases in one court will enhance the
1. Decisions or resolutions on motions for
disposition of these cases since it will take
reconsideration or new trial of the Court in
them out of the jurisdiction of regular courts
Divisions in the exercise of its exclusive
which, admittedly, do not have expertise in
appellate jurisdiction over: [ALT]
the field of taxation. (J. Dimaampao, 2015)
a. Cases arising from administrative
agencies – BIR, BOC, DoF, DTI, and
Expanded Jurisdiction of the CTA under
DA;
RA 9282
b. Local tax cases decided by
the RTC in the exercise of their
1. Exclusive original jurisdiction over
original jurisdiction; and
criminal cases arising from violations of the
c. Tax collection cases decided by the
NIRC or the TCCP and other laws
RTC in the exercise of their original
administered by the BIR and the BOC where
jurisdiction involving final and
the principal amount of taxes and fees,
executory assessments for taxes,
exclusive of charges and penalties, is P1
fees, charges and penalties, where the
million or more and exclusive appellate
principal amount of taxes and
jurisdiction in lieu of the CA over decisions of
penalties claimed is less than P1
the RTC where the amount is less than P1
million pesos;
million or no specified amount is claimed;
2. Decisions, resolutions or orders of the
2. Exclusive original jurisdiction over
RTC in cases decided or resolved by
tax collection cases where principal amount
them in the exercise of their appellate
of taxes and fees, exclusive of charges and
jurisdiction over:
penalties, is P1 million or more and exclusive
appellate jurisdiction over decisions of the
a. Local tax cases
RTC where the amount is less than P1
b. Tax collection cases;
million.
3. Decisions, resolutions or orders on
3. Appellate jurisdiction over decisions
motions for reconsideration or new trial of the
of CBAA in the exercise of their appellate
Court in Division in the exercise of its
jurisdiction over cases involving the
exclusive original jurisdiction over tax
assessment of taxation of real property; and
collection cases; and
4. Exclusive appellate jurisdiction over
4. Decisions of the CBAA in the exercise of
decisions of the RTC in local taxes originally
its appellate jurisdiction over cases involving
decided by them.
the assessment and taxation of real property
originally decided by the provincial or city
NOTE: The decisions of the CTA are no
board of assessment appeals (Sec. 2, Rule
longer appealable to the CA. The decision of
4, RRCTA).
a division of the CTA may be appealed to the
CTA en banc, which in turn may be appealed
NOTE: Decisions, orders, and resolutions of
directly to the SC only on questions of law.
the RTC in local tax cases do not include real
property tax which is an ad valorem tax. The
Although there is no categorical statement
jurisdiction of the CTA en banc involves only
under RA 1125 as well as the amendatory RA
those real property tax cases originally
9282, which provides that the CTA has
decided by the CBAA in the exercise of its
jurisdiction over petitions for certiorari
appellate jurisdiction under Sec. 7[a][5] of
assailing interlocutory orders issued by the
R.A. 9282 and under R.A. 7160 (Habawel v.
RTC in local tax cases filed before it, the
CTA, G.R. No. 174759, September 7, 2011).
prevailing doctrine is that a court may issue a
writ of certiorari in aid of its appellate
The CTA is devoid of jurisdiction to entertain
jurisdiction if said court has jurisdiction to
appeals from the decision of the Municipal
review, by appeal or writ of error, the final
Board of Assessment Appeals. The proper
orders or decisions of the lower court (The
remedy is to appeal such decision to the
CBAA, which under the LGC, has appellate
jurisdiction over decisions of Local Board of
Assessment Appeals (Caltex Phil, Foe. v.
CBAA, L-50466, May 31, 1982).
RA 9282 provides that CTA has jurisdiction
over decisions of the CBAA in the exercise of
its appellate jurisdiction over cases involving
the assessment and taxation of real property
originally decided by the provincial or city
board of assessment appeals.
2. Cases within the jurisdiction of the
Court in divisions (Sec. 3, Rule 4, RRCTA)
I. Exclusive Original Jurisdiction
Tax collection cases involving final and
executor y assessments for taxes, fees,
charges and penalties, where the principal
amount of taxes and fees, exclusive of
charges and penalties, claimed is P1 million
pesos or more.
NOTE: Collection cases where the principal
amount of taxes and fees, exclusive of
charges and penalties claimed is less than
P1 million shall be tried by the proper MTC,
MeTC, or RTC, depending on their respective
jurisdiction. The jurisdiction of the CTA in
these cases shall be appellate (R.A. 1125,
Sec. 7[b][1]).
II. Exclusive Appellate Jurisdiction to
Review by Appeal
1. Decisions of the Commissioner of Internal
Revenue in cases involving disputed
assessments, refunds of internal revenue
taxes, fees or other charges, penalties in
relation thereto, or other matters arising
under the National Internal Revenue or other
laws administered by the Bureau of Internal
Revenue
Note: Undisputed assessments are already
final and collectible. The taxpayer failed to
seasonably protest the assessment within a
period of 30 days from receipt of the notice of
assessment.
What does “other matters” under
the NIRC or the TCCP mean?
The term “other matters” includes cases
which can be considered within the scope of
the function of the BIR and BOC by applying
the ejusdem generis rule (that is, such cases
should be of the same nature as those that
have preceded them).
The CTA law clearly bestows jurisdiction to
the CTA even on “other matters arising under
the National Internal Revenue Code”. Thus,
the issue of whether the right of the CIR to
collect has prescribed, collection being one of
the duties of the BIR, is considered covered
by the term “other matters”. The fact that
assessment has become final for failure to
protest only means that the validity or
correctness of the assessment may no longer
be questioned on appeal. However, this issue
is entirely distinct from the issue of whether
the right to collect has in fact prescribed.
(CIR v Hambrecht)
2. Inaction by the Commissioner of Internal
Revenue in cases involving disputed
assessments, refunds of internal revenue
taxes, fees or other charges, penalties in
relations thereto, or other matters arising
under the National Internal Revenue Code or
other laws administered by the Bureau of
Internal Revenue, where the National Internal
Revenue Code provides a specific period of
action, in which case the inaction shall be
deemed a denial;
Note: The inaction by the CIR within the 180-
day period under Sec. 228 of the NIRC is
deemed a denial.
3. Decisions, orders or resolutions of the
Regional Trial Courts in local tax cases
originally decided or resolved by them in the
exercise of their original or appellate
jurisdiction
4. Decisions of the Commissioner of
Customs in cases involving liability for
customs duties, fees or other money
charges, seizure, detention or release of
property affected, fines, forfeitures or other
penalties in relation thereto, or other matters
arising under the Customs Law or other laws
administered by the Bureau of Customs
5. Decisions of the Central Board of
Assessment Appeals in the exercise of its
appellate jurisdiction over cases involving the
assessment and taxation of real property
originally decided by the provincial or city
board of assessment appeals
6. Decisions of the Secretary of Finance on
customs cases elevated to him automatically
for review from decisions of the
Commissioner of Customs which are adverse
to the Government under Section 2315 of the
Tariff and Customs Code
NOTE: The purpose and rationale of the
automatic review in customs cases- the
provision for automatic review by the COC
and the Secretary of Finance of unappealed
seizure and protest cases was conceived to
protect the government against corrupt and
conniving customs collectors (Yaokasin v.
COC, G.R. No. 84111, December 22, 1989).
7. Decisions of the Secretary of Trade and
Industry (non-agricultural products,
commodities or articles), and the Secretary of
Agriculture (for agricultural products,
commodities, or articles), involving dumping
and countervailing duties under Section 301
or 302 of the Tariff and Customs Code, and
safeguard measures under RA 8800, where
either party may appeal the decision to
impose or not to impose said duties.
NOTE: The SC held that the lower courts can
acquire jurisdiction over a claim for collection
of deficiency taxes only after the assessment
made by the CIR has become final and
appealable, not where there is still a pending
CTA case(Yabes v. Flojo, G.R. No. L-46954,
July 20, 1982).
Q: Does the CTA have the power to review
tax cases motu proprio? (1977 Bar)
A: NO. The CTA has no power motu proprio
to review tax cases. It can resolve cases only
if a civil action for collection of sum of money
is filed before it in the exercise of its
exclusive original jurisdiction, or a petition for
review is filed in the exercise of its exclusive
appellate jurisdiction. An information may be
filed with the CTA directly where the principal
amount of taxes and fees, exclusive of
charges and penalties, is P1 million or more.
Q: Does the CTA have jurisdiction to rule
on validity of a Rule or Regulation issued
by an administrative agency?
A: NO. While the law confers on the CTA
jurisdiction to resolve tax disputes in general,
this does not include cases where the
constitutionality of a law or rule is challenged.
Where what is assailed is the validity or
constitutionality of a law, or a rule or
regulation issued by the administrative
agency in the performance of its quasi-
legislative function, the regular courts have
jurisdiction to pass upon the same (British
American Tobacco v. Camacho, G.R. No.
163583, August 20, 2008). NOTE: However,
in 2016, the Supreme Court ruled that the
Court of Tax Appeals has undoubted
jurisdiction to pass upon the constitutionality
or validity of a tax law or regulation when
raised by the taxpayer as a defense in
disputing or contesting an assessment or
claiming a refund. It is only in the lawful
exercise of its power to pass upon all maters
brought before it, as sanctioned by Section 7
of Republic Act No. 1125, as amended.
This Court, however, declares that the Court
of Tax Appeals may likewise take cognizance
of cases directly challenging the
constitutionality or validity of a tax law or
regulation or administrative issuance
(revenue orders, revenue memorandum
circulars, rulings).
In other words, within the judicial system, the
law intends the Court of Tax Appeals to have
exclusive jurisdiction to resolve all tax
problems. Petitions for writs of certiorari
against the acts and omissions of the said
quasi-judicial agencies should, thus, be filed
before the Court of Tax Appeals.
Republic Act No. 9282, a special and later
law than Batas Pambansa Blg. 129 provides
an exception to the original jurisdiction of the
Regional Trial Courts over actions
questioning the constitutionality or validity of
tax laws or regulations. Except for local tax
cases, actions directly challenging the
constitutionality or validity of a tax law or
regulation or administrative issuance may be
filed directly before the Court of Tax Appeals.
Furthermore, with respect to administrative
issuances (revenue orders, revenue
memorandum circulars, or rulings), these are
issued by the Commissioner under its power
to make rulings or opinions in connection with
the implementation of the provisions of
internal revenue laws. Tax rulings, on the
other hand, are official positions of the
Bureau on inquiries of taxpayers who request
clarification on certain provisions of the
National Internal Revenue Code, other tax
laws, or their implementing regulations.
Hence, the determination of the validity of
these issuances clearly falls within the
exclusive appellate jurisdiction of the Court of
Tax Appeals under Section 7(1) of Republic
Act No. 1125, as amended, subject to prior
review by the Secretary of Finance, as
required under Republic Act No. 8424.
(Banco de Oro vs. Republic of the
Philippines, G.R. No. 198756, August 16,
2016).
In CIR v. Secretary of Justice, to restate, as a
general rule, all disputes/claims and
controversies, solely between or among the
departments, bureaus, offices, agencies and
instrumentalities of the National Government,
including GOCCs, such as those arising from
the interpretation and application of statues,
contracts or agreements shall be
administratively settled or adjudicated by the
Secretary of Justice or the Solicitor
General. (Secs. 66-68, Revised
Administrative Code) As an exception, when
the disputes/claims and controversies
involves a tax assessment, even when the
parties to the dispute are departments,
bureaus, offices, agencies and
instrumentalities of the National Government,
including GOCCs, the exclusive appellate
jurisdiction remains with the CTA. (Sec. 7, RA
1125)