CIR vs. PHILEX
Uploaded by
Barem Salio-anCIR vs. PHILEX
Uploaded by
Barem Salio-anCommissioner of Internal Revenue Vs.
Philex Mining Corporation
G.R. No. 218057; January 18, 2021
FACTS:
Philex is a domestic corporation engaged in the mining business. On January 21, 2010,
Philex filed its original Quarterly VAT Return for the fourth quarter of 2009. On September 13,
2011, it filed an amended Quarterly VAT Return for its total zero-rated sales of
P2,680,497,020.60, importation of goods of P93,018,475.00 with input tax of P11,162,217.00,
and purchases of services of P132,944,084.17 with input tax of P15,953,290.10.
On September 28, 2011, pursuant to Section 4.112-1 of Revenue Regulations (RR) No.
16-2005, Philex filed its claim for refund/tax credit with the One Stop Shop (OSS) Center of the
Department of Finance in the amount of P27,115,507.10. The CIR failed to act on Philex's
administrative claim for refund which prompted Philex to file a Petition for Review with the
CTA on January 27, 2012.
The CTA Second Division partially granted Philex's Petition for Review. The CIR is
hereby ORDERED to REFUND in favor of Philex the amount of P18,610,568.32, representing
its unutilized and excess input VAT attributable to its zero-rated sales for the fourth quarter of
2009. The CIR elevated the case to the CTA En Banc. However, the CTA En Banc denied CIR's
Petition for Review.
ISSUE:
Whether Philex is entitled to a tax refund in the amount of P18,610,568.32, representing
its unutilized and excess input VAT attributable to its zero-rated sales for the fourth quarter of
2009.
RULING:
Yes, Philex is entitled to a refund of P18,610,568.32 representing its unutilized and
excess input VAT attributable to its zero-rated sales for the fourth quarter of 2009.
First, Philex’s judicial claim was not premature and its supporting documents to its
application are complete. Pursuant to Section 112 (c) of the NIRC, the running of the 120-day
period for the CIR to decide the claim for refund commences from the time of the submission
of complete documents in support of the tax refund application. For purposes of determining
when the supporting documents have been completed, it is the taxpayer who ultimately
determines when complete documents have been submitted for the purpose of commencing and
continuing the running of the 120-day period. After all, he may have already completed the
necessary documents the moment he filed his administrative claim, in which case, the 120-day
period is reckoned from the date of filing. The taxpayer may have also filed the complete
documents on the 30th day from filing of his application, pursuant to RMC No. 49-2003. He may
very well have filed his supporting documents on the first day he was notified by the BIR of the
lack of necessary documents. In such cases, the 120-day period is computed from the date the
taxpayer is able to submit the complete documents in support of his application.
Records show that Philex filed its application for tax refund, attaching therewith the
necessary documents, on September 28, 2011. Within the period of 120 days from September 28,
2011, the CIR could have notified Philex, by way of a request, to submit additional documents
which he/she deems necessary. Considering that no notice was given by the CIR or no other
action was taken within the said 120 days, Philex had 30 days from January 26, 2012, the
expiration of the 120-day period, or until February 26, 2012, to appeal to the CTA. Again,
records show that Philex properly and timely filed its judicial claim on February 3, 2012. There
is thus no merit in the CIR's contention that Philex's judicial claim was premature or that its
supporting documents were incomplete.
Second, as to the substantiation of the claim for refund, the court holds that there is no
need for it to go over and review once again the documents presented by Philex which were
already passed upon by the CTA. It is settled that this Court is not a trier of facts. Factual
questions should not be entertained in petitions for review filed under Rule 45 of the Rules of
Court. The factual findings of the trial court are generally not disturbed on appeal unless it is
perceived to have overlooked, misunderstood or misinterpreted certain facts or circumstances of
weight, which, if properly considered, would affect the result of the case and warrant a reversal
of the decision involved. Besides, there is no cogent reason to depart from the CTA En
Banc's finding that Philex's zero-rated sales, which were supported by financial invoices dated
outside the period of claim, were actually generated during the period of claim in view of the
provisional invoices and bills of lading during the latter period.
Here, the CTA Second Division commissioned an Independent Certified Public
Accountant (ICPA) who found, after examining Philex's voluminous documents, that its claim
for refund was well-founded. The CTA En Banc likewise saw no reason to deviate from the
findings of the ICPA and the CTA Second Division in partially granting Philex's refund "as the
same is supported by pieces of evidence, which prove Philex's compliance with the requirements
for refund of its claimed input tax attributable to zero-rated sales for the fourth quarter of taxable
year 2009.
Finally, the submission of the subsidiary sales journal and subsidiary purchase journal is
not indispensable to support Philex's claim for refund. Section 112(A) of the NIRC, which
enumerates the requisites for a taxpayer to be entitled to a tax refund or credit, does not require
subsidiary journals as part of the substantiation requirements. The subsidiary journals are not
required, but they may be utilized by the CIR as vital sources of information for other purposes
such as making assessments.
