REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES

COURT OF TAX APPEALS

QUEZON CITY

SECOND DIVISION

QL DEVELOPMENT, CTA CASE NO. 10291

INC.,
Petitioner,
Members:
-versus-
CASTANEDA, JR., Chairperson and
COMMISSIONER OF BACORRO-VILLENA, 11.
BUREAU OF INTERNAL
REVENUE and BUREAU Promulgated:
OF INTERNAL
REVENUE,
Respondents. DEC 11 ZOZt
X-- --- - - - -- - -- --- - - -- - -- -- - -- - - - - - - - - -- -- - -- - -- -{ -- - - X

RESOLUTION

For this Court's resolution are the following:

1. petitioner's Compliance (Re: Resolution dated

March 3, 2021) filed through registered mail on
March 18, 2021 and received by this Court on May
19, 2021;

2. respondents' Motion for Reconsideration (Re:

Resolution dated 7 June 2021), filed June 25,
2021, with petitioner's Comment/Opposition (Re:
Motion for Reconsideration dated June 24,
2021), filed on October 20, 2021; and

3. petitioner's Compliance [Re: Resolution dated

OS July 2021], filed on October 20, 2021.
RESOLUTION
CTA CASE NO. 10291
Page 2 of 15

Respondents' Motion for

Reconsideration CRe:
Resolution dated 7 June
2021)

Respondents seek the reconsideration of the Court's

Resolution 1 promulgated on June 7, 2021, the dispositive portion of
which reads:

"WHEREFORE, premises considered, petitioner's Motion

for Early Resolution of the Issue of Prescription of
Collection of Taxes - with - Motion to Defer Pre-trial is
GRANTED. Accordingly, the assessment for deficiency taxes for
the taxable year 2010 issued against petitioner and contained in
the FAN/FLO dated December 11, 2014 and Questioned Decision
dated February 4, 2020, is CANCELLED."

Respondents seek the reversal of the assailed Decision on the

following grounds:

I. The Honorable Court has no jurisdiction over the

instant petition. The assessment against petitioner has
already become final, executory and demandable.

II. While maintaining that the Honorable Court has no

jurisdiction over the instant petition. Respondents'
right to assess petitioner for deficiency income tax,
value-added tax, withholding tax on compensation and
expanded withholding tax for taxable year 2010 has
not yet prescribed. The three-year limitation within
which to make the assessment finds no application to
the instant case.

III. Assuming arguendo that the Honorable Court can

exercise jurisdiction over the instant case and
assuming further that the five (5)-year period finds
application to the instant case, respondents' right to
assess did not prescribe.

In support of the above-enumerated grounds, respondents put

forward the following arguments:

1 Docket, Vol. III, pp. 1375-1383.

RESOLUTION
CTA CASE NO. 10291
Page 3 of 15

Respondents argue that a taxpayer's right to contest

assessments, particularly the right to appeal to this Court, may be
waived or lost as in this case. They state that respondent BIR, duly
issued the Formal Letter of Demand (FLD) and Assessment Notices
(BIR Form 0401) for taxable year 2010 which was received by
petitioner on December 12, 2014.

They aver that as contained in the petition, petitioner admits

that it received the FLD and Assessment Notices for taxable year
2010 on December 12, 2014.

Respondents contend that based on Section 228 of the NIRC of

1997, the taxpayer has thirty (30) days from receipt of the FLD and
Assessment Notices within which to file a valid protest.

Further, they state Section 3.1.5 of Revenue Regulations No.

12-99 [Subject: Implementing the Provisions of the National Internal
Revenue Code of 1997 Governing the Rules on Assessment of
National Internal Revenue Taxes, Civil Penalties and Interest and the
Extra-judicial Settlement of a Taxpayer's Criminal Violation of the
Code through Payment of Suggested Compromise Penalty].

According to the respondents, from the receipt of the FLD and

Assessment Notices on December 12, 2014, petitioner had until
January 12, 2015 within which to file a valid protest on the
assessment with the respondents.

Moreover, respondents submit that there was no valid protest

as contemplated by the NIRC of 1997 and the pertinent Rules.
Respondents maintain their position that the alleged protest failed to
comply with the requirements of Section 6 in relation to Section 228
of the NIRC of 1997 as implemented by Revenue Regulations No. 18-
2013 which requires that taxpayer shall state in his protest (i) nature
of protest whether reconsideration or reinvestigation specifying newly
discovered or additional evidence he intends to present if it is a
request for reinvestigation, (ii) date of the assessment notice and (iii)
the applicable law, rules and regulations or jurisprudence on which
the protest is based, otherwise, his protest shall be considered void
and without force and effect.

Respondents argue that with the failure of the petitioner to file

a valid protest, the assessment has long become final, due and
demandable. They state that petitioner was not able to timely appeal
RESOLUTION
CTA CASE NO. 10291
Page 4 of 15

to this Court a decision issued by the respondents. Respondents aver

that there was no decision to speak of.

Furthermore, respondents emphasize that the decision

contemplated in the law is one rendered on a disputed assessment.
Thus, they aver that it is primordial that the assessment be disputed
first. According to the respondents, since, petitioner failed to file a
valid protest to the FLD within the period provided by law, the
assessments have become final, executory and demandable. They
contend that being such, the assessments are not subject to judicial
scrutiny as it is already beyond the jurisdiction of this Court.

Lastly, respondents allege that it is clear from the provision of

Section 222 of the NIRC of 1997 in the three different cases of (1)
false return, (2) fraudulent return with the intent to evade tax, (3)
failure to file a return, the tax may be assessed, or a proceeding in
court for the collection of such tax may begin without assessment, at
any time within ten (10) years after the discovery of the (1) falsity,
(2) fraud, (3) omission. They state that the discrepancy in petitioner's
return manifests an evident substantial under declaration which
eloquently demonstrate the falsity or fraudulence of the VAT and
Income Tax returns with an intent to evade the payment of tax.

In refutation, petitioner states that respondents' motion for

reconsideration does not contest that their right to collect taxes has
already prescribed. It avers that in this regard, as correctly ruled
upon by this Court, respondent CIR's and BIR's right to collect the
assessment for deficiency taxes for taxable year 2010 as contained in
the FAN/FLD and Questioned Decision has already prescribed as early
as December 12, 2019 and the assessment should, accordingly, be
cancelled.

Furthermore, it contends that this Court properly exercised its

jurisdiction over the instant petition for review with due authority to
resolve the issue of prescription of the respondents' right to collect
taxes. Petitioner argues that indeed, pursuant to Section 7 of R.A.
No. 1125, as amended by R.A. No. 9282 and established
jurisprudence and issuances, this Court has jurisdiction over decisions
and any inaction, of respondents CIR and BIR involving disputed
assessments or other matters, arising under the NIRC or other laws
administered by respondent BIR, which includes the power to resolve
the issue on prescription of respondents' right to collect taxes.
RESOLUTION
CTA CASE NO. 10291
Page 5 of 15

Finally, petitioner alleges that the issue of the alleged non-

prescription of respondents' right to assess taxes is irrelevant in the
resolution of the issue of the prescription of the respondents' right to
collect taxes in the instant case.

Respondents' motion for reconsideration is bereft of merit.

The Court has jurisdiction

over the petition for
review.

Jurisdiction is conferred by law and is the capacity of a court to

"entertain, hear, and determine controversies." 2 The Court of Tax
Appeals, as a court of special jurisdiction, can only take cognizance of
matters clearly within its jurisdiction. 3

Section 7(a)(l) of RA No. 1125, as amended, confers upon the

CTA the jurisdiction to decide not only cases pertaining to disputed
assessments and refunds of internal revenue taxes, but also "other
matters" arising under the National Internal Revenue Code of 1997,
as amended, to wit:

"Sec. 7. Jurisdiction.- The erA shall exercise:

(a) Exclusive appellate jurisdiction to review by appeal, as

herein provided:

(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
Code or other laws administered by the Bureau of Internal
Revenue;" (Emphasis supplied)

This provision is further implemented by Section 3(a)(l), Rule 4

of the Revised Rules of the CTA (RRCTA), as follows:

"Sec. 3. Cases within the jurisdiction of the Court in

Divisions. -The Court in Divisions shall exercise:

2
Guy. vs. Couttof Appeals, G.R. Nos. 165849, 170186, 171066 and 176650, December 10, 2007.
3 Commissioner of Intemal Revenue vs. Silicon Philippines, Inc., G.R. No. 169778, March 12,2014
RESOLUTION
CTA CASE NO. 10291
Page 6 of 15

(a) Exclusive original or appellate jurisdiction to review by appeal

the following:

(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
Code or other laws administered by the Bureau of Internal
Revenue; (Emphasis supplied)

It is settled that for the erA

to acquire jurisdiction over a
"disputed assessment", the assessment must first be disputed by the
taxpayer and ruled upon by the CIR to warrant a decision from which
a petition for review may be taken to the CTA. 4

On the other hand, the term "other matters" has been ruled
to include, but not limited to: review of the BIR's authority and
decision to compromise; 5 prescription of the CIR's right to
collect taxes; 6 determination of the validity of a warrant of distraint
and levy issued by the CIR and the validity of a waiver of the statute
of limitations. 7

Under the provision quoted above and jurisprudence, the Court

has jurisdiction under "other matters" to resolve the issue of
prescription of the respondents' right to collect the alleged deficiency
taxes for the taxable year 2010.

The right of the government to

assess petitioner for deficiency
taxes for taxable year 2010 has
prescribed.

Section 203 of the NIRC of 1997, as amended, provides:

4
OceaniC Wireless Network, Inc. vs. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, G.R. No. 148380,
December 9, 2005.
5 Consolidated cases of Philippine National Oil Company vs. Court of Appeals, et a!., and
Philippine National Bank vs. Court of Appeals, eta!., G.R. Nos. 109976 and 112800, April 26,
2005.
6
Commissioner of Internal Revenue vs. Hambrecht & Quist Philippines, Inc., G.R. No. 169225,
November 17, 2010.
7
Philippine Journalists, Inc. vs. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, G.R. No. 162852, December
16, 2004.
RESOLUTION
CTA CASE NO. 10291
Page 7 of 15

"SEC. 203. Period of Limitation Upon Assessment and

Collection. - Except as provided in Section 222, internal revenue
taxes shall be assessed within three (3) years after the last
day prescribed by law for the filing of the return, and no
proceeding in court without assessment for the collection of such
taxes shall be begun after the expiration of such period:
Provided, That in a case where a return is filed beyond the
period prescribed by law, the three (3)-year period shall be
counted from the day the return was filed. For purposes of
this Section, a return filed before the last day prescribed by law
for the filing thereof shall be considered as filed on such last
day." (Emphasis supplied)

In the case of Commissioner of Internal Revenue vs. FMF

Development Corporatiorl, the Supreme Court held that the
government must assess internal revenue taxes on time so as not to
extend indefinitely the period of assessment and deprive the taxpayer
of the assurance that it will no longer be subjected to further
investigation for taxes after the expiration of reasonable period of
time, to wit:

"Under Section 203 of the NIRC, internal revenue taxes

must be assessed within three years counted from the period
fixed by law for the filing of the tax return or the actual date of
filing, whichever is later. This mandate governs the question of
prescription of the government's right to assess internal revenue
taxes primarily to safeguard the interests of taxpayers from
unreasonable investigation. Accordingly, the government must
assess internal revenue taxes on time so as not to extend
indefinitely the period of assessment and deprive the taxpayer of
the assurance that it will no longer be subjected to further
investigation for taxes after the expiration of reasonable period
of time."

Thus, respondents only have three years, counted from the

date of actual filing of the return or from the last day prescribed by
law for the filing of such return, whichever comes later, to assess a
national internal revenue tax or to begin a court proceeding for the
collection thereof without an assessment.

However, this rule is subject to the exceptions provided under

Section 222 of the NIRC of 1997, as amended, which states:

8 G.R. No. 167765, June 30, 2008.

RESOLUTION
CTA CASE NO. 10291
Page 8 of 15

"SEC. 222. Exceptions as to Period of Limitation of Assessment

and Collection of Taxes.-

(a) In the case of a false or fraudulent return with intent to

evade tax or of failure to file a return, the tax may be
assessed, or a proceeding in court for the collection of such tax
may be flied without assessment, at any time within ten (10)
years after the discovery of the falsity, fraud or omission:
Provided, That in a fraud assessment which has become final
and executory, the fact of fraud shall be judicially taken
cognizance of in the civil or criminal action for the collection
thereof.

xxxx." (Emphasis supplied)

It has been consistently held by this Court that allegations of

falsity or fraud in the filing of tax returns must be proven to exist by
clear and convincing evidence and cannot be justified by mere
speculation. The fraud or falsity contemplated by law is actual and
not constructive in nature. Therefore, it must be intentional with
willful and deliberate act of deception and with the sole objective of
avoiding tax. Apparently, the falsity or fraud is a question of fact and
should never be presumed.

Respondents claim that the discrepancy in petitioner's return

manifests an evident substantial under declaration which eloquently
demonstrate the falsity or fraudulence of the VAT and Income Tax
returns with an intent to evade the payment of tax.

After a careful evaluation of the records, the Court finds no

supporting evidence to prove that petitioner filed a false return
because the respondents did not present any witness or evidence to
support such allegation of falsity.

On the contrary, a scrutiny of the FAN/FLD9 and the FDDA10,

reveals that there is no indication that petitioner filed a false return.
If indeed there were false returns that had been filed by petitioner,
respondents should have imposed in the said FANFLD and FDDA a
penalty of 50% of the tax or of the deficiency tax in accordance with
Section 248(6) of the NIRC of 1997, as amended, to wit:

9 Exhibit "P-6", Docket, Vol. II, pp. 703-708.

to Exhibit "P-10", Docket, Vol. II, p. 726.
RESOLUTION
CTA CASE NO. 10291
Page 9 of 15

"SECTION 248. Civil Penalties.-

XXX XXX XXX

(B) In case of wilful neglect to file the return within the period
prescribed by this Code or by rules and regulations, or in case a
false or fraudulent return is wilfully made, the penalty to
be imposed shall be fifty percent (50%) of the tax or of
the deficiency tax, in case, any payment has been made on
the basis of such return before the discovery of the falsity or
fraud: Provided, That a substantial underdeclaration of taxable
sales, receipts or income, or a substantial overstatement of
deductions, as determined by the Commissioner pursuant to the
rules and regulations to be promulgated by the Secretary of
Finance, shall constitute prima facie evidence of a false or
fraudulent return: Provided, further, That failure to report sales,
receipts or income in an amount exceeding thirty percent (30%)
of that declared per return, and a claim of deductions in an
amount exceeding (30%) of actual deductions, shall render the
taxpayer liable for substantial underdeclaration of sales, receipts
or income or for overstatement of deductions, as mentioned
herein." (Emphasis supplied)

This Court had the occasion to rule in the case of Newspaper

Paraphernalia/ Inc. vs. Commissioner of Internal Revenu&1 that a
false return implies deviation from the truth, whether intentional or
not, and due process dictates that the taxpayer must be informed of
the facts and the law upon which the assessment is made. It was
likewise held by this Court that since respondents neither presented
any evidence to substantiate its claim that petitioner filed a false
return nor imposed the penalty of fifty percent of the tax or of the
deficiency tax, the issue on false return was a mere afterthought, viz:

"It is worthy to note that this is the first time respondent

has raised the argument that petitioner flied a false return. A
false return implies deviation from the truth, whether intentional
or not. There was no mention of respondent's findings that
petitioner filed a false return in her Answer, nor was it
mentioned by her lone witness in her Judicial Affidavit. Moreover,
it was never mentioned in the preliminary assessment notice or
in the FAN, as well as in the details of discrepancy attached
thereto. Due process dictates that the taxpayer must be
informed of the facts and the law upon which the assessment is
made. Furthermore, respondent did not present any evidence to
substantiate its claim that petitioner flied a false return, neither
did it Impose the penalty of fifty percent (50%) of the tax or of
the deficiency tax, pursuant to Section 248(8)5 of the 1997

11 Resolution, CTA Case No. 8599, January 22, 2015.

RESOLUTION
CTA CASE NO. 10291
Page 10 of 15

National Internal Revenue Code ('NIRC'). These circumstances,

taken together, can only lead the Court to conclude that the
argument raised by respondent in her Motion for Reconsideration
is a mere afterthought, and thus, deserves scant consideration."

Further, the Supreme Court ruled in the case of Commissioner

of Internal Revenue vs. Javier, et a/. 12 that a taxpayer who files a
false return is liable to pay a penalty of 50% of the tax due or of the
deficiency tax, to wit:

"Under the then Section 72 of the Tax Code (now Section

248 of the 1988 National Internal Revenue Code), a taxpayer
who files a false return is liable to pay the fraud penalty of SO%
of the tax due from him or of the deficiency tax in case payment
has been made on the basis of the return flied before the
discovery of the falsity or fraud."

Based on the foregoing, the respondents failed to convince this

Court that petitioner filed a false tax return; thus, the exception as to
period of limitation to assess petitioner for deficiency tax is
inapplicable to the instant case.

Furthermore, the prescription of respondents' right to collect

the alleged deficiency taxes has already been ruled upon by the
Court in the assailed Resolution, the pertinent portions of which are
quoted below:

"Hence, when an assessment is timely issued, the BIR is

given a period of five years within which to collect the tax
assessed, reckoned from the date the assessment notice had
been released, mailed or sent by the BIR to the taxpayer.

After perusal of the records of the case, the envelope13

that came with the FAN/FLD 14 show that there is a stamp
indicating that said documents were mailed on December 12,
201415. Thus, applying the above discussion, respondent had five
(5) years from December 12, 2014 within which to collect the
said assessed deficiency or until December 12, 2019.

In the instant case, respondent BIR issued the 8/R Letter

on August 10, 2020,1 6 the 8/R Letter on September 4, 202017

12 G.R. No. 78953, July 31, 1991.

13 Exhibits "P-7", Docket, Vol. II, p. 709.
14 Exhibit "P-6", Docket, Vol. II, pp. 703-708.
1s Exhibits "P-7-b", Docket, Vol. II, p. 709.
16 Exhibit "P-15", Docket, Vol. II, p. 784.
RESOLUTION
CTA CASE NO. 10291
Page 11 of 15

and the BIR Letter on September 11, 2020, 18 for collection of the
Subject Assessment. Clearly, these collection efforts by the
respondents were beyond December 12, 2019, and therefore
prescribed.

At this juncture, the Court stresses the following

pronouncements in the case of China Banking Corporation vs.
Commissioner of Internal Revenue,19 to wit:

"If the pleadings or the evidence on record

show that the claim is barred by prescription, the
court is mandated to dismiss the claim even if
prescription is not raised as a defense. In Heirs of
Va/ientes v. Ramas, we ruled that the CA may motu
proprio dismiss the case on the ground of
prescription despite failure to raise this ground on
appeal. The court is imbued with sufficient
discretion to review matters, not otherwise
assigned as errors on appeal, if it finds that
their consideration is necessary in arriving at
a complete and just resolution of the case.
More so, when the provisions on prescription
were enacted to benefit and protect taxpayers
from investigation after a reasonable period of
time." (Emphasis supplied)

Notably, in this case, the issue on prescription of

respondents' right to collect was raised as early as the filing of
the Petition for Review. However, a review of the records,
specifically respondents' Answer, and even their opposition to
the motion to suspend collection of taxes, shows that
respondents failed to controvert petitioner's allegation
concerning the prescription of respondents' right to collect taxes.
Even during the hearing set for the presentation of respondents'
evidence on the issue of prescription as one of the grounds for
petitioner's urgent motion to suspend collection of taxes, the
respondents manifested that they will no longer present
evidence, but will instead present its evidence in the main case. 20

Considering the Court's Resolution dated March 8, 2021,

submitting the issue of prescription for resolution, that the
findings on respondents' right to collect is based on the evidence
on record, and that respondents failed to controvert the same,
despite being given the opportunity to do so, it can be concluded
that the government's demand for payment of deficiency taxes in
the Questioned Decision dated February 4, 2020 is already

17
Exhibit "P-16", Docket, Vol. II, p. 786.
18 Exhibit "P-17", Docket, Vol. II, p. 788.
19 G.R. No. 172509, February 4, 2015.
20 Minutes of the hearing held on February 1, 2021.
RESOLUTION
CTA CASE NO. 10291
Page 12 of 15

barred by prescription and must therefore be cancelled. Thus, it

is no longer necessary to dwell on the propriety of the
assessment."

Considering the foregoing, the Court finds no cogent reason to

reverse or modify the assailed Resolution dated June 7, 2021.

Petitioner's Compliance £Re:

Resolution dated March 3.
20211 and Compliance CRe:
Resolution dated July 5.
2021)

On March 3, 2021, the Court issued a Resolution granting

petitioner's Motion for Partial Reconsideration [Re: Resolution dated
01 February 2021] and Extremely Urgent Verified Motion [For the
Issuance of a Suspension Order against the Collection of Taxes].
Accordingly, the collection of taxes is suspended.

Likewise, in the same Resolution, the Court ordered petitioner

to post a cash or surety bond equivalent to the amount claimed or
P7,255,673.65, within ten {10) days from receipt of this resolution.
The Court further stated that the bond must be a GSIS bond, or a
bond from other reputable surety company duly accredited by the
Supreme Court with the required supporting documents specified in
Supreme Court A.M. No. 04-7-02-SC, dated July 20, 2004.

Thereafter, petitioner filed its Compliance [Re: Resolution dated

March 3, 2021] on March 18, 2021.

In the said Compliance, petitioner manifested that it already

posted on March 18, 2021 the required surety bond from Milestone
Guaranty & Assurance Corp., a reputable surety company duly
accredited by the Supreme Court, for the amount of Seven Million
Two Hundred Fifty-Five Thousand Six Hundred Seventy-Three Pesos
and 65/100 {P7,255,673.65). Attached to the Compliance are the
following documents to prove the posting of the bond:

1. Original copy of the "Plaintiff's Bond for the

Issuance of a Preliminary Injunction" dated March
18, 2021, issued by Milestone Guaranty and
Assurance Corp. for the amount of Seven Million
RESOLUTION
CTA CASE NO. 10291
Page 13 of 15

Two Hundred Fifty-Five Thousand Six Hundred

Seventy-Three Pesos and 65/100 (P7,255,673.65);

2. Original copy of Official Receipt No. 7860679;

3. Certified photocopy of the Certification and

Authority (with photos of the authorized agents of
the bonding company) issued by the Office of the
Court Administrator on February 23, 2021;

4. Original Copy of the Certificate of Accreditation and

Authority issued by the Office of the Court
Administrator on February 23, 2021;

5. Original Copy of the Affidavit of Waiver issued by

Hao Chin Elaine Tible dated March 18, 2021;

6. Original Copy of Official Receipt No. 0435757;

7. Certified True Copy of the Certification issued by

the Insurance Commission to Milestone Guaranty
and Assurance Corporation on March 10, 2021,
showing approval of the judicial forms enumerated
therein;

8. Original Copy of Official Receipt No. 0408451;

9. Certified True Copy of the Certificate of Authority to

Transact issued to Milestone Guaranty and
Assurance Corporation by the Insurance
Commission on January 1, 2019;

10. Photocopy of Official Receipts Nos. 9559428C and

9564519C;

11. Photocopy of Official Receipt No. B-5741731 issued

by Milestone Guaranty and Assurance Corporation,
showing payments of the Premiums amounting to
P108,835.10, Documentary Stamp amounting to
P13,604.39, Local Business Tax amounting to
P119.73, Notarial Fees amounting to P500.00,
others amounting to P8,994.05; and VAT amounting
to Pl3,060.21; and

12. Photocopy of the Secretary's Certificate dated

January 19, 2021 containing the names and
RESOLUTION
CTA CASE NO. 10291
Page 14 of 1S

specimen signatures of the agents authorized,

empowered and directed, to sign policies for all
kinds of judicial bonds for civil/special proceedings
and criminal cases for and in behalf of the
corporation.

Then, on July 5, 2021, the Court issued a Resolution directing

petitioner to submit within a period of ten (10) days from notice the
original or certified true copy of the following: (1) The Official Receipt
with OR No. B-5741731, and/or any other document showing proof
of payment of legal fees under the Rules of Court and the
documentary stamp tax (thirty centavos [P 0.30] on each four pesos
[P4.00] or fractional part thereof, of the premium charged, pursuant
to Section 187 Title VII of RA No. 8424) and value-added tax (VAT)
under the National Internal Revenue Code of 1997 and (2) Secretary
Certificate containing the specimen signatures of the agents
authorized to transact business with the courts.

Subsequently, on October 20, 2021, petitioner filed its

Compliance [Re: Resolution dated OS July 2021], submitting the
following documents:

1. Certified Xeroxed Copy of the Original of the

Secretary's Certificate dated January 19, 2021
containing the names and specimen signatures of the
authorized representative of judicial bonds for
civil/special proceedings cases in their respective
areas of operation who are authorized to transact
business for and in behalf of the corporation,
including filing, follow up and processing of bonds
with the various courts; and

2. Original copy of the Official Receipt with OR No. B-

5741731.

The Court notes and considers the above submission as

substantial compliance with the Court's Resolution dated July 5,
2021.

WHEREFORE, premises considered, petitioner's Compliance

[Re: Resolution dated March 3, 2021] and Compliance [Re:
Resolution dated OS July 2021], are NOTED. Thus, finding the
RESOLUTION
CTA CASE NO. 10291
Page 15 of 15

surety bond and the attached documents to be in order, the surety

bond is hereby APPROVED.

On the basis of the posting of the Surety Bond, respondents

are hereby ENJOINED from collecting from petitioner the amount of
tax subject of the present Petition for Review either by distraint, levy,
or otherwise by any other means provided for by law, until further
orders from the Court.

On the other hand, Motion for

respondents'
Reconsideration (Re: Resolution dated 7 June 2021) is
DENIED for lack of merit.

SO ORDERED.

g_~ c. <2..Y"~d,. I _9:. '

JiJANITO C. CASTANEDA, iR.
Associate Justice

"\:.

JEANMARI~

~iiMtA
LANEE S. CUI-DAVID
Associate Justice