COMMISSION ON INTERNAL

REVENUE V.
THE SECRETARY OF
JUSTICE and
METROPOLITAN CEBU
WATER DISTRICT (MCWD)
GR NO. 209289
July 09, 2018
TIJAM, J.
FACTS OF THE CASE:

 Metropolitan Cebu Water District received a Preliminary Assessment Notice

from the Bureau of Internal Revenue for alleged tax deficiencies for the year
2000 in the total amount of P70,660,389.00 representing alleged deficiency
income, franchise and value added taxes with surcharge and interest, as well
as compromise penalties.
 Respondent filed a formal protest with the Regional Director of BIR Revenue
Region 13. However, the CIR failed to act on the protest within 180 days from
submission of the supporting documents.
 Thus, respondent filed a Petition for Review before the CTA.
 The CIR opposed the petition on the ground that Secretary of Justice (SOJ)
has jurisdiction over the dispute considering that respondent is a government-
owned or controlled corporation. As such, CTA dismissed the petition.
 Respondent filed a Petition for Arbitration before the SOJ. But in a complete
turnaround, the CIR claimed that the SOJ has no jurisdiction over the case
since the issue in dispute is the validity of the tax assessment.
 The case proceeded, SOJ rendered its decision declaring MCWD:
 Exempt from payment of income tax pursuant to NIRC
 Liable for franchise tax of two percent of its gross receipts
 Exempt from value-added tax
 Not liable to pay surcharge, interest and compromise penalty on the deficiency
taxes
 CIR moved for reconsideration with the SOJ but was denied.
 Aggrieved, CIR filed a Petition for Certiorari before the CA imputing grave
abuse of discretion on the SOJ for assuming jurisdiction over the case.
 CA likewise dismissed the same.
ISSUE OF THE CASE:

 WHETHER OR NOT SOJ HAS NO JURISDICTION TO DECIDE THE PETITION FOR

ARBITRATION FILED BY MWCD WHICH ASSAILS THE TAX ASSESSMENT ISSUED BY
THE BIR
RULING OF THE COURT:

 YES. The SOJ has jurisdiction to decide the case. The Court held that CA
correctly ruled that the SOJ did not commit any grave abuse of discretion in
holding that the dispute between the CIR and MWCD is properly within the
jurisdiction of the SOJ.
 SOJ has exclusive jurisdiction over ALL disputes between the government and
GOCCs pursuant to Administrative Code of 1987.
 Under PD 242, all disputes and claims SOLELY between the government
agencies and offices, including GOCCs, shall be ADMINISTRATIVELY SETTLED or
ADJUDICATED BY THE SECRETARY OF JUSTICE, THE SOLICITOR GENERAL, or
THE GOVERNMENT CORPORATE COUNSEL, depending on the issues and
government agencies involved.
 PD 242 is now embodied in Chapter 14, Book 4 of EO 292 otherwise known as
the Administrative Code of 1987. The pertinent provisions provides:
 Section 3. Cases involving mixed questions of law and of fact or only factual issues
SHALL be submitted to and settled or adjudicated by:
 SOLICITOR GENERAL : With respect to disputes, claims, controversies between or
among the departments, bureaus. Offices and other
agencies of the NATIONAL GOVERNMENT.
 NATIONAL CORPORATE COUNSEL: With respect to disputes, claims, controversies
between or among GOCCs or entities being served
by the OFFICE OF THE GOVERNMENT CORPORATE
COUNSEL.
 SECRETARY OF JUSTICE: With respect to ALL other disputes, claims, controversies
which do not fall under the categories mentioned;
The petition should be dismissed for failure
of the CIR to exhaust administrative remedies

 Under the DOCTRINE OF EXHAUSTION OF ADMINISTRATIVE REMEDIES, it is

mandated that where a remedy before an administrative body is provided by
statute, relief must be sought by exhausting this remedy prior bringing an
action to court in order to give the administrative body every opportunity to
decide a matter that comes within its jurisdiction.
 A litigant cannot go to court without first pursuing his administrative
remedies. Otherwise, his action is PREMATURE and his case is not ripe for
judicial determination.
 Thus, only after the PRESIDENT has decided the dispute between government
offices and agencies can the losing party resort to the courts, if it so desires.
 The non-observance of the said doctrine would result to lack of cause of
action, which is a ground for the dismissal of a complaint.
 Under the Administrative Code of 1987, where the amount of claim exceeds
1M pesos, the decision of the SOJ should be appealed to the Office of the
President (OP).
 Here, the value subject of the case is P70,660,389.00.
 As such, the CIR should have first appealed the decision of the SOJ to the OP
rather than to file a Petition for Certiorari to the CA.
 In the present case, there is plain, speedy and adequate remedy in the
ordinary course of law which is available to the CIR, which is an appeal to the
OP. The CIR, however, failed to avail the same through its own fault.
-FIN.