TodayisSaturday,July23,2016

RepublicofthePhilippines
SUPREMECOURT
Manila
FIRSTDIVISION
G.R.No.168950January14,2015
ROHMAPOLLOSEMICONDUCTORPHILIPPINES,Petitioner,
vs.
COMMISSIONEROFINTERNALREVENUE,Respondents.
DECISION
SERENO,CJ:
ThisRule45Petition1requiresthisCourttoaddressthequestionoftimelinesswithrespecttopetitioner'sjudicial
claim for refund or credit of unutilized input ValueAdded Tax (VAT) under Sections 112(A) and 112(D)2 of the
1997TaxCode.PetitionerRohmApolloSemiconductorPhilippines.,Inc.(RohmApollo)assailstheDecision3and
Resolution4 of the Court of Tax Appeals En Banc (CTA En Banc) in CTA En Banc Case No. 59, affirming the
DecisioninCTACaseNo.6534oftheCTAFirstDivision.5Thelatterdeniedtheclaimfortherefundorissuanceof
a tax credit certificate filed by petitioner Rohm Apollo in the amount of P30,359,615.40 representin& unutilized
inputVATpaidoncapitalgoodspurchasedforthemonthsofJulyandAugust2000.
FACTS
PetitionerRohmApolloisadomesticcorporationregisteredwiththeSecuritiesandExchangeCommission.6Itis
alsoregisteredwiththePhilippineEconomicZoneAuthorityasanEcozoneExportEnterprise.7RohmApolloisin
thebusinessofmanufacturingsemiconductorproducts,particularlymicrochiptransistorsandtantaliumcapacitors
atthePeoplesTechnologyComplexSpecialEconomicZone,BarangayMaduya,CarmonaCavite.8Further,itis
registeredwiththeBureauofInternalRevenue(BIR)asavalueaddedtaxpayer.9
Sometime in June 2000, prior to the commencement of its operations on 1 September 2001, Rohm Apollo
engaged the services of Shimizu Philippine Contractors, Inc. (Shimizu) for the construction of a factory.10 For
services rendered by Shimizu, petitioner made initial payments of P198,551,884.28 on 7 July 2000 and
P132,367,923.58on3August2000.11
ItshouldbenotedatthispointthatSection112(B),12inrelationtoSection112(A)13ofthe1997TaxCode,allowsa
taxpayertofileanapplicationfortherefundortaxcreditofunutilizedinputVATwhenitcomestothepurchaseof
capitalgoods.Theprovisionsetsatimeframeforthefilingoftheapplicationattwoyearsfromthecloseofthe
taxablequarterwhenthepurchasewasmade.
Goingbacktothecase,petitionertreatedthepaymentsascapitalgoodspurchasesandthusfiledwiththeBIRan
administrative claim for the refund or credit of accumulated unutilized creditable input taxes on 11 December
2000.14 As the close of the taxable quarter when the purchases were made was 30 September 2000, the
administrativeclaimwasfiledwellwithinthetwoyearprescriptiveperiod.
PursuanttoSection112(D)15ofthe1997TaxCode,theCommissionerofInternalRevenue(CIR)hadaperiodof
120daysfromthefilingoftheapplicationforarefundorcrediton11December2000,oruntil10April2001,to
actontheclaim.Thewaitingperiod,however,lapsedwithoutanyactionbytheCIRontheclaim.
Insteadoffilingajudicialclaimwithin30daysfromthelapseofthe120dayperiodon10April,oruntil10May
2001, Rohm Apollo filed a Petition for Review with the CTA docketed as CTA Case No. 6534 on 11 September
2002.Itwasunderthebeliefthatajudicialclaimhadtobefiledwithinthetwoyearprescriptiveperiodendingon
30September2002.16
On27May2004,theCTAFirstDivisionrenderedaDecision17denyingthejudicialclaimforarefundortaxcredit.
Insupportofitsruling,theCTAFirstDivisionheld,amongothers,thatpetitionermusthaveatleastsubmittedits
VAT return for the third quarter of 2001, since it was in that period that it began its business operations. The

purpose was to verify if indeed petitioner did not carry over the claimed input VAT to the third quarter or the
succeedingquarters.
On 14 July 2004, petitioner RohmApollo filed a Motion for Reconsideration, but the tax court stood by its
Decision.18
On18January2005,thetaxpayerelevatedthecasetotheCTAEnBancviaaPetitionforReview.19
On 22 June 2005, the CTA En Bancrendered its Decision denying Rohm Apollos Petition for Review.20 The
appellatetaxcourtheldthatthefailuretopresenttheVATreturnsforthesubsequenttaxableyearprovedtobe
fataltotheclaimforarefund/taxcredit,consideringthatitcouldnotbedeterminedwhethertheclaimedamount
toberefundedremainedunutilized.PetitionerfiledaMotionforReconsiderationoftheDecision,butitwasdenied
forlackofmerit.
Persistent,thetaxpayerfiledthisRule45Petition,arguingthatithassatisfiedallthelegalrequirementsforavalid
claimforrefundortaxcreditofunutilizedinputVAT.
ISSUE
ThethresholdquestiontoberesolvediswhethertheCTAacquiredjurisdictionovertheclaimfortherefundortax
creditofunutilizedinputVAT.
THECOURTSRULING
WedenythePetitiononthegroundthatthetaxpayersjudicialclaimforarefund/taxcreditwasfiledbeyondthe
prescriptiveperiod.
Thejudicialclaimwasfiledoutoftime.
Section112(D)ofthe1997TaxCodestatesthetimerequirementsforfilingajudicialclaimfortherefundortax
creditofinputVAT.Thelegalprovisionspeaksoftwoperiods:theperiodof120days,whichservesasawaiting
periodtogivetimefortheCIRtoactontheadministrativeclaimforarefundorcreditandtheperiodof30days,
whichreferstotheperiodforfilingajudicialclaimwiththeCTA.Itisthe30dayperiodthatisatissueinthiscase.
The landmark case of Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. San Roque Power Corporation21 has interpreted
Section112(D).TheCourtheldthatthetaxpayercanfileanappealinoneoftwoways:(1)filethejudicialclaim
within30daysaftertheCommissionerdeniestheclaimwithinthe120daywaitingperiod,or(2)filethejudicial
claimwithin30daysfromtheexpirationofthe120dayperiodiftheCommissionerdoesnotactwithinthatperiod.
Inthiscase,thefactsarenotupfordebate.On11December2000,petitionerfiledwiththeBIRanapplicationfor
therefundorcreditofaccumulatedunutilizedcreditableinputtaxes.Thus,theCIRhadaperiodof120daysfrom
11 December 2000, or until 10 April 2001, to act on the claim. It failed to do so, however. Rohm Apollo should
thenhavetreatedtheCIRsinactionasadenialofitsclaim.Petitionerwouldthenhavehad30days,oruntil10
May2001,tofileajudicialclaimwiththeCTA.ButRohmApollofiledaPetitionforReviewwiththeCTAonlyon11
September2002.Thejudicialclaimwasthusfiledlate.
Theerrorofthetaxpayerliesinthefactthatithadmistakenlybelievedthatajudicialclaimneednotbefiledwithin
30daysfromthelapseofthe120dayperiod.Ithadbelievedthattheonlyrequirementisthatthejudicialclaim
must be filed withinthe twoyear period under Sections 112(A) and (B) of the 1997 Tax Code. In other words,
RohmApolloerroneouslythoughtthatthe30dayperioddoesnotapplytocasesoftheCIRsinactionafterthe
lapseofthe120daywaitingperiod,andthatajudicialclaimisseasonablyfiledsolongasitisdonewithinthetwo
yearperiod.Thus,itfiledthePetitionforReviewwiththeCTAonlyon11September2002.
These mistaken notions have already been dispelled by Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Aichi Forging
CompanyofAsia,Inc.(Aichi)22andSanRoque.Aichiclarifiedthatitisonlytheadministrativeclaimthatmustbe
filed within the twoyear prescriptive period.23 San Roque, on the other hand, has ruled that the 30day period
alwaysapplies,whetherthereisadenialorinactiononthepartoftheCIR.24
JusticeAntonioCarpio,writingfortheCourtinSanRoque,explainedthatthe30dayperiodisa1997TaxCode
innovationthatdoesawaywiththeoldrulewherethetaxpayercouldfileajudicialclaimwhenthereisinactionon
thepartoftheCIRandthetwoyearstatuteoflimitationsisabouttoexpire.JusticeCarpiostated:
The old rule that the taxpayer may file the judicial claim, without waiting for the Commissioner's decision if the
twoyearprescriptiveperiodisabouttoexpire,cannotapplybecausethatrulewasadoptedbeforetheenactment
ofthe30dayperiod.The30dayperiodwasadoptedpreciselytodoawaywiththeoldrule,sothatundertheVAT
Systemthetaxpayerwillalwayshave30daystofilethejudicialclaimeveniftheCommissioneractsonlyonthe
120th day, or does not act at all during the 120day period.With the 30day period always available to the
taxpayer,thetaxpayercannolongerfileajudicialclaimforrefundorcreditofinputVATwithoutwaitingforthe

Commissionertodecideuntiltheexpirationofthe120dayperiod.25 (Emphases supplied) The 30day period to

appealismandatoryandjurisdictional.
As a general rule, the 30day period to appeal is both mandatory and jurisdictional. The only exception to the
general rule is when BIR Ruling No. DA48903 was still in force, thatis, between 10 December 2003 and 5
October2010,TheBIRRulingexcusedprematurefiling,declaringthatthetaxpayerclaimantneednotwaitforthe
lapseofthe120dayperiodbeforeitcouldseekjudicialreliefwiththeCTAbywayofPetitionforReview.InSan
Roque,theHighCourtexplainedboththegeneralruleandtheexception:
To repeat, a claim for tax refund or credit, like a claim for tax exemption, is construed strictly against the
taxpayer. OneoftheconditionsforajudicialclaimofrefundorcreditundertheVATSystemiswiththe120+30
day mandatory and jurisdictional periods. Thus, strict compliance with the 120+30 day periods is necessary for
suchaclaimtoprosper,whetherbefore,during,oraftertheeffectivityoftheAtlasdoctrine,exceptfortheperiod
fromtheissuanceofBIRRulingNo.DA48903on10December2003to6October2010whentheAichidoctrine
was adopted, which again reinstated the 120+30 day periods as mandatory and jurisdictional.26 (Emphases
supplied)
1 w p h i1

SanRoquelikewiseruledouttheapplicationoftheBIRrulingtocasesoflatefiling.TheCourtheldthattheBIR
ruling, as an exception to the mandatory and jurisdictional nature of the 120+30 day periods, is limited to
prematurefilinganddoesnotextendtothelatefilingofajudicialclaim.27
Insum,prematurefilingisallowedforcasesfallingduringthetimewhenBIRRulingNo.DA48903wasinforce
nevertheless,latefilingisabsolutelyprohibitedevenforcasesfallingwithinthatperiod.
Asmentionedabove,thetaxpayerfileditsjudicialclaimwiththeCTAon11September2002.Thiswasbeforethe
issuanceofBIRRulingNo.DA48903on10December2003.Thus,RohmApollocouldnothavebenefitedfrom
theBIRRuling.Besides,itssituationwasnotacaseofprematurefilingofitsjudicialclaimbutoneoflatefiling.To
repeat, its judicial claim was filed on 11 September 2002 long after 10 May 2001, the last day of the 30day
periodforappeal.Thecasethusfallsunderthegeneralrulethe30dayperiodismandatoryandjurisdictional.
CONCLUSION
In fine, our finding is that the judicial claim for the refund or credit of unutilized input VAT was belatedly filed.
Hence,theCTAlostjurisdictionoverRohmApollosclaimforarefundorcredit.Theforegoingconsidered,there
isnoneedtogointothemeritsofthiscase.
A final note, the taxpayers are reminded that that when the 120day period lapses and there is inaction on the
part of the CIR, they must no longer wait for it to come up with a decision thereafter. The CIRs inaction is the
decisionitself.Itisalreadyadenialoftherefundclaim.Thus,thetaxpayermustfileanappealwithin30daysfrom
thelapseofthe120daywaitingperiod.
WHEREFORE,thePetitionisDENIEDforlackofmerit.
SOORDERED.
MARIALOURDESP.A.SERENO
ChiefJustice,Chairperson
WECONCUR:
TERESITAJ.LEONARDODECASTRO
AssociateJustice
LUCASP.BERSAMIN
AssociateJustice

JOSEPORTUGALPEREZ
AssociateJustice

ESTELAM.PERLASBERNABE
AssociateJustice
CERTIFICATION
Pursuant to Section 13, Article VIII of the Constitution, I certify that the conclusions in the above Decision had
beenreachedinconsultationbeforethecasewasassignedtothewriteroftheopinionoftheCourt'sDivision.
MARIALOURDESP.A.SERENO
ChiefJustice

Footnotes
1

Rollo,pp.1051.

Thesectionisnumbered112(0)underR.f..8424,butR.A.9337renumberedthesectionto112(C).

Id. at 252258 CTA En Banc Decision dated 22 June 2005, penned by Presiding Justice Ernesto D.
Acosta, and concurred in by Associate justices Lovell R. Bautista, Caesar A. Casanova, Juanito C.
Castaneda,Jr.,OlgaPalancaEnriquez,andErlindaP.Uy.
4

Id.at274275CTAResolutiondated28July2005.

Id.at117129dated27May2004,pennedbyAssociateJusticeLovellR.Bautista,andconcurredinby
PcesidingJusticeErnestoD.AoostaandAsjoeiotefostieeJuanitoC.Castaneda.
6

Rollo,p.252.

UndertheprovisionsofR.A.7916.

Rollo,p.253.

Id.at252.

10

Id.at253.

11

Id.

12

(B) Capital Goods. A VATregistered person may apply for the issuance of a tax credit certificate or
refund of input taxes paid on capital goods imported or locally purchased, to the extent that such input
taxeshavenotbeenappliedagainstoutputtaxes.Theapplicationmaybemadeonlywithintwo(2)years
afterthecloseofthetaxablequarterwhentheimportationorpurchasewasmade.(Emphasessupplied)
13

Section112(A)states:
SEC.112.RefundsorTaxCreditsofInputTax.
(A)ZeroratedorEffectivelyZeroratedSales.AnyVATregisteredperson,whosesalesarezero
ratedoreffectivelyzeroratedmay,withintwo(2)yearsafterthecloseofthetaxablequarterwhen
thesalesweremade,applyfortheissuanceofataxcreditcertificateorrefundofcreditableinputtax
dueorpaidattributabletosuchsales,excepttransitionalinputtax,totheextentthatsuchinputtax
has not been applied against output tax: Provided, however, That in the case of zerorated sales
under Section 106(A)(2)(a)(1), (2) and (B) and Section 108(B)(1) and (2), the acceptable foreign
currencyexchangeproceedsthereofhadbeendulyaccountedforinaccordancewiththerulesand
regulations of the Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas (BSP): Provided, further, That where the taxpayer is
engagedinzeroratedoreffectivelyzeroratedsaleandalsointaxableorexemptsaleofgoodsof
properties or services, and the amount of creditable input tax due or paid cannot be directly and
entirelyattributedtoanyoneofthetransactions,itshallbeallocatedproportionatelyonthebasisof
thevolumeofsales.(Emphasissupplied)

14

Rollo,p.118.

15

(D) Period within which Refund or Tax Credit of Input Taxes shall be Made. In proper cases, the
Commissioner shall grant a refund or issue the tax credit certificate for creditable input taxes within one
hundred twenty (120) days from the date of submission of complete documents in support of the
application filed in accordance with Subsection (A) and (B) hereof. In case of full or partial denial of the
claim for tax refund or tax credit, or the failure on the part of the Commissioner to act on the application
withintheperiodprescribedabove,thetaxpayeraffectedmay,withinthirty(30)daysfromthereceiptofthe
decisiondenyingtheclaimoraftertheexpirationoftheonehundredtwentydayperiod,appealthedecision
ortheunactedclaimwiththeCourtofTaxAppeals.(Emphasessupplied)
16

Rollo,p.253.

17

Id.

18

Id.at254.

19

Id.at252.

20

Id.

21

G.R.No.187485,12February2013,690SCRA336,397.

22

G.R.No.184823,6October2010,632SCRA422,443444.

23

Id.

24

Supranote21,at387388.

25

Id.

26

Id.at398399.

27

Id.at405406.

TheLawphilProjectArellanoLawFoundation