TAX

2
Rights and Remedies of Taxpayers
Under the NIRC

I.

AMEND RETURN

A"y. Terence Conrad H. Bello

A. Amend Tax Return

A. Amend Tax Return

May a TP amend his tax return as a ma"er of

right?
Yes, subject to the following condiHons:
The amendment is made within 3 years from the ling
of the return; and
No noHce for invesHgaHon or audit of such return,
statement or declaraHon has, in the meanHme, been
actually served upon the TP ( 6(A))

A"y. Terence Conrad H. Bello

Slide No. 3

Rohm Apollo Semiconductor Phil. v. CIR

Although TP is allowed to amend its returns, the
amendment so allowed does not extend as to give
support to TPs allegaHons in its pleadings that are
contradictory to the exisHng evidence on record

A"y. Terence Conrad H. Bello

Slide No. 4

A. Procedure
What is the procedure for protesHng an assessment?
1. NoCce of informal conference TP to respond in 15 days from receipt of
noHce, otherwise he shall be considered in default; docket to be endorsed to
the next higher oce for review and issuance of assessment, if warranted
2. PAN TP to respond within 15 days, otherwise he shall be considered in
default, in which case a formal le"er of demand and assessment noHce shall
be issued to TP
If TP les reply disagreeing with PAN, FAN/FLD shall be issued
3. FAN TP to le a protest within 30 days, otherwise the assessment shall
become nal, executory and demandable
4. Relevant supporCng documents to be submi"ed by TP within 60 days from
the ling of the protest, otherwise the assessment shall become nal,
executory and demandable
Per RR 18-2013, applicable only to requests for reinvesHgaHon
5. Appeal to CTA within 30 days from denial of protest or within 30 days from
the lapse of 180 days from submission of relevant supporHng documents,
otherwise the assessment shall become nal, executory and demandable

II. PROTEST ASSESSMENT

A"y. Terence Conrad H. Bello

A"y. Terence Conrad H. Bello

Slide No. 6

B. NoHce of Informal Conference

B. NoHce of Informal Conference

Does the BIRs failure to issue a noHce of

i n f o r m a l c o n f e r e n c e i n v a l i d a t e t h e
assessment?
No. The law only requires the issuance of
a PAN prior to the FAN. NoHce of informal
conference only a directory requirement
under RR 12-99

A"y. Terence Conrad H. Bello

Slide No. 7

C. PAN

Slide No. 9

C. PAN

Slide No. 8

If TP fails to present evidence during the PAN stage, does

this mean that the TP is precluded from introducing
evidence in the FAN stage?
No. TP sHll enHtled to protest the FAN and submit relevant
supporHng docs. Failure to present evidence during PAN
stage (or even failure to respond to the PAN) not an implied
admission of the correctness of the assessment
It is only upon TPs failure to le a protest upon receipt of
the FAN or to appeal the denial of the protest within the
prescribed periods would the FAN become nal,
unappealable and executory thereby negaHng TPs right to
present evidence precisely because the right to dispute the
assessment has prescribed and the court can no longer
acquire jurisdicHon over the same
A"y. Terence Conrad H. Bello

Slide No. 10

C. PAN

What is the BIRs remedy then if TP fails to

present evidence during the PAN stage?
BIR is enHtled to issue a FAN based on its
ndings

A"y. Terence Conrad H. Bello

A"y. Terence Conrad H. Bello

C. PAN

Must the BIR issue the TP a PAN before a FAN? Yes ( 228)
When may the BIR dispense with a PAN? Only in the .
instances:
a. MathemaHcal error
b. Discrepancy bet. tax withheld and tax actually remi"ed
c. When TP opHng for a refund or TCC carried over and
automaHcally applied excess credits against tax
liabiliHes of the succeeding taxable quarter/s or year/s
d. Non-payment of excise tax
e. Transfer by exempt person of tax-free arHcles to non-
exempt persons ( 228)

A"y. Terence Conrad H. Bello

BPI v. CIR
TP contended that assessment void for BIRs
failure to issue noHce of informal conference
Held: Moreover, we are not persuaded by TPs
argument that the BIRs failure to issue noHce for
an informal conference invalidates the
assessments
RR 12-85 does not provide so nor does SecHon
228 of the Tax Code which it implements

Slide No. 11

Pier 8 Arrastre and Stevedoring Services v. CIR

Failure of TP to appear and/or to present evidence during
PAN stage, or even during the protest period does not mean
a waiver of the right to present any evidence to dispute the
assessment
Such failure is not equivalent to an implied admission of the
correctness of the tax assessment
It is only when TP fails to le a Hmely protest on the FAN or
fails to Hmely appeal the denial of the protest would the
assessment become nal, unappealable and executory
thereby negaHng TPs right to present evidence precisely
because the right to dispute the assessment has prescribed
and the court can no longer acquire jurisdicHon over the
same

A"y. Terence Conrad H. Bello

Slide No. 12

C. PAN

C. PAN

What if BIR issues a FAN without rst issuing a PAN

(assuming the non-issuance of the PAN does not fall
within the excepHons), will that invalidate the
assessment?
Arguably, yes. Denial of due process. Even if TP had
all the opportunity to protest the FAN and submit
relevant supporHng documents? Cant the BIR argue
that all that the due process clause requires is the
opportunity to be heard (which was saHsed when
TP protested the FAN and submi"ed relevant
supporHng documents)?
Must be raised though as an armaHve defense in
the protest to the FAN (otherwise if not raised,
might be considered waived)
A"y. Terence Conrad H. Bello

Slide No. 13

A"y. Terence Conrad H. Bello

Slide No. 14

D. Reqt to Inform Taxpayer of Factual and Legal Basis of Assessment

Lack of PAN is fatal

CIR v. Metro Star Superama
[T]he sending of a PAN to taxpayer to inform him
of the assessment made is but part of the due
process requirement in the issuance of a deciency
tax assessment, the absence of which renders
nugatory any assessment made by the tax
authoriHes. The use of the word shall in
subsecHon 3.1.2 [of Rev. Regs. 12-99] describes the
mandatory nature of the service of a PAN

Slide No. 15

D. Reqt to Inform Taxpayer of Factual and Legal Basis of Assessment

What is the eect if the BIR fails to

inform the TP of the factual and legal
basis of the assessment?
The assessment is rendered void

A"y. Terence Conrad H. Bello

Slide No. 16

D. Reqt to Inform Taxpayer of Factual and Legal Basis of Assessment

CIR v. Reyes
Merely noHfying the TP of the BIRs ndings
without informing the TP of factual and legal
basis of the assessment is insucient

A"y. Terence Conrad H. Bello

See, however, the case of CIR v. Menguito which seems to hold that the
lack of a PAN is not fatal to the BIR so long as a FAN is served on the TP
However, while the lack of a post-reporHng noHce and pre-
assessment noHce is a deviaHon from the requirements under RR
12-85, the same cannot detract from the fact that formal
assessments were issued to and actually received by respondents in
accordance with SecHon 228 of the NIRC
Requirement that an assessment be saHsfactorily proven to have
been issued and released or, if receipt thereof is denied, that said
assessment has been served on TP, applies only to a FAN, but not to
post-reporHng noHces or PAN
A post-reporHng noHce and PAN do not bear the gravity of a FAN;
they merely hint at the iniHal ndings of the BIR and invite the TP to
an informal conference. Neither contains a declaraHon of the tax
liability of the TP or a demand for payment thereof. Hence, the lack
of such noHces inicts prejudice on the TP for as long as the la"er is
properly served a FAN

C. PAN

A"y. Terence Conrad H. Bello

Slide No. 17

In what form should the informing take?

Must factual and legal basis be embodied in
the assessment noHce itself?
What is the minimum requirement?

A"y. Terence Conrad H. Bello

Slide No. 18

D. Reqt to Inform Taxpayer of Factual and Legal Basis of Assessment

D. Reqt to Inform Taxpayer of Factual and Legal Basis of Assessment

Australasia Cylinder Corp. v. CIR

In whatever form and manner the assessment
noHce is wri"en, as long as TP is informed on
how the assessment is arrived at, then the
requirement of the law is suciently met
Mere computaHon of taxable income per
audit without explaining how the BIR arrived
at the gures or without explaining the
factual and legal basis of the assessment
renders the assessment void

A"y. Terence Conrad H. Bello

Slide No. 19

D. Reqt to Inform Taxpayer of Factual and Legal Basis of Assessment

Slide No. 21

D. Reqt to Inform Taxpayer of Factual and Legal Basis of Assessment

Slide No. 20

Sevilla v. CIR
The respondent though may not have
provided the specic provisions of the NIRC
or other internal revenue laws as bases for
the assessments but by indicaHng the kind of
tax peHHoners were liable was a substanHal
compliance with the requirements of 228 of
the NIRC of 1997

A"y. Terence Conrad H. Bello

Slide No. 22

D. Reqt to Inform Taxpayer of Factual and Legal Basis of Assessment

FMF Devt Corp. v. CIR

Management fees not necessary (Sec. 34)
Employee benets not supported (Sec. 34)
Salaries & wages no EWT (Sec. 34)
Withholding tax unaccounted (Sec. 32)
Cash overdrao unaccounted (Sec. 32)
TransportaHon exp. unaccounted (Sec. 32)
RepresentaHon exp. unaccounted (Sec. 32)
Miscellaneous exp. unsupported (Sec. 34)
A"y. Terence Conrad H. Bello

A"y. Terence Conrad H. Bello

D. Reqt to Inform Taxpayer of Factual and Legal Basis of Assessment

PNZ MarkeJng v. CIR

Factual and legal basis embodied in the
formal le"er of demand a"ached to the FAN
complies with 228

A"y. Terence Conrad H. Bello

Abbot Laboratories v. CIR

CIR has the bounden duty to inform TP not
only of the law but more importantly, the
surrounding circumstances supporHng the
assessment, for it is only through a detailed
appraisal of its basis that the TP may be able
to dispute the imposiHon or agree with it

Slide No. 23

Subic Power Corp. v. CIR

While we concede that the mere ling of a
protest le"er does not automaHcally mean
that the requirement of SecHon 228 has not
been violated, if the TP is able to intelligently
argue its case and elucidate the reasons for the
assessment, as in this case, then it cannot
contradict itself by asserHng that it was not
informed of the law and facts on which the
assessment was made
A"y. Terence Conrad H. Bello

Slide No. 24

D. Reqt to Inform Taxpayer of Factual and Legal Basis of Assessment

D. Reqt to Inform Taxpayer of Factual and Legal Basis of Assessment

Phil. Mining Service Corp. v. CIR

Report of invesHgaHon and memorandum of
RO detailing factual and legal basis of
assessment issued to TP prior to FAN (which
only contained deciency tax due) saHses
228

A"y. Terence Conrad H. Bello

Slide No. 25

D. Reqt to Inform Taxpayer of Factual and Legal Basis of Assessment

Slide No. 27

D. Reqt to Inform Taxpayer of Factual and Legal Basis of Assessment

Slide No. 26

CIR v. Enron Subic Power Corp.

BIR conten.on: TP was properly apprised of its
tax deciency. During the pre-assessment stage,
CIR advised TPs representaHve of the tax
deciency, informed it of the proposed tax
deciency assessment through a preliminary
ve-day le"er and furnished TP a copy of the
audit working paper showing in detail the legal
and factual bases of the assessment. These steps
suced to inform TP of the laws and facts on
which the deciency tax assessment was based
A"y. Terence Conrad H. Bello

Slide No. 28

E. Submission of SupporHng Documents

CIR v. Enron Subic Power Corp.

The advice of tax deciency, given by the CIR to an employee of TP,
as well as the preliminary ve-day le"er, were not valid subsHtutes
for the mandatory noHce in wriHng of the legal and factual bases of
the assessment. These steps were mere perfunctory discharges of
the CIRs duHes in correctly assessing a taxpayer
The requirement for issuing a preliminary or nal noHce, as the
case may be, informing a taxpayer of the existence of a deciency
tax assessment is markedly dierent from the requirement of what
such noHce must contain. Just because the CIR issued an advice, a
preliminary le"er during the pre-assessment stage and a nal
noHce, in the order required by law, does not necessarily mean that
TP was informed of the law and facts on which the deciency tax
assessment was made
The law requires that the legal and factual bases of the assessment
be stated in the formal le"er of demand and assessment noHce
pursuant to RR 12-99
A"y. Terence Conrad H. Bello

A"y. Terence Conrad H. Bello

D. Reqt to Inform Taxpayer of Factual and Legal Basis of Assessment

Recap:
CTA broadly interpreted requirement in the BIRs
favor
Report of invesHgaHon and memorandum of
examiner detailing factual and legal basis of
assessment issued to TP prior to FAN (which only
contained deciency tax due) saHses 228. Phil.
Mining Service Corp. v. CIR
There is substanHal compliance with 228 when
the TP is able to protest the assessments
intelligently, thereby implying that it had actual
knowledge of the factual and legal bases of the
assessments. Oceanic Wireless Network v. CIR
A"y. Terence Conrad H. Bello

Oceanic Wireless Network v. CIR

There is substanHal compliance with 228 when the TP
is able to protest the assessments intelligently, thereby
implying that it had actual knowledge of the factual and
legal bases of the assessments
The allegaHon that TP failed to receive copy of the
detailed computaHon during the informal conference of
the penalHes for the quarterly income tax assessment
carries li"le consideraHon by the court. It is sucient
that TP was informed of the reason why the said
assessment was issued. Clearly, TP was informed of the
factual and legal bases on which the assessment for
deciency quarterly income tax was based

Slide No. 29

228 requires the TP to submit all relevant supporHng

docs within 60 days from ling the protest. What is the
eect if the TP fails to comply with this reqt?
The assessment becomes nal, executory and
demandable
Who determines whether the TP has submi"ed all
relevant supporHng documents?
The TP. Relevant supporHng documents refers to
such documents which the TP feels would be
necessary to support his protest and not what the
CIR feels should be submi"ed, otherwise, TPs would
always be at the mercy of the BIR which may require
producHon of such documents which TP could not
produce. In this manner the assessment could easily
become nal
A"y. Terence Conrad H. Bello

Slide No. 30

E. Submission of SupporHng Documents

E. Submission of SupporHng Documents

H. TambunJng Pawnshop, Inc. v. CIR

CIR v. First Express Pawnshop

Relevant supporHng documents refers to such

documents which the TP feels would be
necessary to support his protest and not what
the CIR feels should be submi"ed, otherwise,
TPs would always be at the mercy of the BIR
which may require producHon of such
documents which TP could not produce. In this
manner the assessment could easily become
nal

A"y. Terence Conrad H. Bello

Slide No. 31

E. Submission of SupporHng Documents

It cannot be said that respondent failed to submit relevant supporHng

documents that would render the assessment nal because when
respondent submi"ed its protest, respondent a"ached the GIS and
Balance Sheet. Further, peHHoner cannot insist on the submission of
proof of DST payment because such document does not exist as
respondent claims that it is not liable to pay, and has not paid, the DST
on the deposit on subscripHon

The term relevant supporHng documents should be understood as

those documents necessary to support the legal basis in dispuHng a tax
assessment as determined by the taxpayer. The BIR can only inform the
taxpayer to submit addiHonal documents. The BIR cannot demand what
type of supporHng documents should be submi"ed. Otherwise, a
taxpayer will be at the mercy of the BIR, which may require the
producHon of documents that a taxpayer cannot submit

A"y. Terence Conrad H. Bello

Slide No. 32

F. Eect of Failure to File Protest

What is the BIRs remedy then if it feels that

the docs submi"ed by the TP are insucient?
Deny the protest and state that the
supporHng documents submi"ed by the TP
failed to overturn the presumpHon of
correctness of the assessment

A"y. Terence Conrad H. Bello

Slide No. 33

Dayrit v. Cruz

The assessments having become nal and executory,

the CFI properly acquired jurisdicHon
The aforesaid exclusive jurisdicHon of the CTA arises
only in cases of disputed tax assessments. As noted
earlier, TPs le"er dated October 7, 1972 asking for
reconsideraHon of the quesHoned assessments cannot
be considered as one dispuHng the assessments
because peHHoners failed to substanHate their claim
that the deciency assessments are contrary to law.
TPs asked for a period of thirty (30) days within which
to submit their posiHon paper but they failed to
submit the same nonetheless. Hence, TPs le"er for a
reconsideraHon of the assessments is nothing but a
mere scrap of paper
A"y. Terence Conrad H. Bello

Slide No. 34

A. Scope of JurisdicHon of CTA/What is Appealable to CTA

Scope of jurisdicHon of the CTA:

1. Disputed Assessments, Refunds, etc.
Decisions of the CIR on: (i) disputed
assessments; (ii) refunds of internal revenue
taxes, fees, etc.; and (iii) other ma"ers arising
under the NIRC or other tax laws

III. IN CASE OF DENIAL OF PROTEST

OR INACTION, APPEAL TO CTA

InacHon of the CIR on disputed assessments,

refunds, etc.
2. Local Tax Cases
RTC decisions on local tax cases

A"y. Terence Conrad H. Bello

35

A"y. Terence Conrad H. Bello

Slide No. 36

A. Scope of JurisdicHon of CTA/What is Appealable to CTA

A. Scope of JurisdicHon of CTA/What is Appealable to CTA

Scope of jurisdicHon of the CTA:

Scope of jurisdicHon of the CTA:

3. Customs DuHes and Taxes

5. Decisions of DOF and DTI on certain ma"ers

Decisions of the COC: (i) on cases involving

liability for duHes and taxes; (ii) seizure,
detenHon and release of property; and (iii) other
ma"ers arising under the TCCP and other
customs laws
4. Real Property Tax
Decisions of the CBAA on appeal of real property
tax ma"ers originally decided by the LBAA
A"y. Terence Conrad H. Bello

Slide No. 37

A. Scope of JurisdicHon of CTA/What is Appealable to CTA

Original jurisdicHon over criminal oenses arising from

violaHon of the NIRC, TCCP and other tax/customs laws
where amount involved is P1 million or more
Appellate jurisdicHon over RTC decisions on criminal
oenses where amount involved is less than P1 million
7. Tax CollecHon Cases
Original jurisdicHon over tax collecHon cases involving nal
and executory assessments where amount involved is P1
million or more
Appellate jurisdicHon over RTC decisions on tax collecHon
cases where amount involved is less than P1 million

B. ApplicaHon of the 180-Day Rule

Slide No. 39

A"y. Terence Conrad H. Bello

Slide No. 38

CIR v. Villa
Held: The word decisions in 1, 7 of RA 1125 means
the decisions of the CIR on the protest of the TP against
the assessments. Denitely, said word does not signify
the assessment itself
Since in the instant case the TP appealed from the
assessment of the CIR without previously contesHng the
same, the appeal was premature and the CTA had no
jurisdicHon to entertain said appeal. For, as stated, the
jurisdicHon of the CTA is to review by appeal decisions
of the CIR on disputed assessments. The CTA is a court
of special jurisdicHon. As such, it can take cognizance
only of such ma"ers as are clearly within its jurisdicHon
A"y. Terence Conrad H. Bello

B. ApplicaHon of the 180-Day Rule

Lascona Land Co. v. CIR

It is only the decision not appealed by TP to the CTA that
becomes nal, executory and demandable. Otherwise,
Congress could have easily included the word assessment as
also becoming nal, executory and demandable should the BIR
fail to act on the protest within 180 days and the inacHon is not
appealed to the CTA
In cases of inacHon, Sec. 228 merely gave the taxpayer an
opHon:
First, he may appeal to the CTA within thirty (30) days from
the lapse of the 180-day period, or
Second, he may wait unHl the CIR decides on his protest
before he elevates his case to the CTA
A"y. Terence Conrad H. Bello

Decisions of Sec. of Trade and Industry and/or

Sec. of Agriculture involving dumping,
countervailing duHes and safeguard measures

A. Scope of JurisdicHon of CTA/What is Appealable to CTA

Scope of jurisdicHon of the CTA:

6. Tax and Customs Criminal Oenses

A"y. Terence Conrad H. Bello

Decisions of SecFin on customs cases

elevated to him on automaHc review of COC
decisions adverse to the government under
TCCP 2315

Slide No. 41

Slide No. 40

Lascona armed by SC
Meanwhile, Revised Rules of the CTA approved and issued
by the SC on Nov. 22, 2005 adopHng Lascona (see 3(a)(2),
Rule 4 and 3(a), Rule 8)
Correlate Lascona and 3(a)(2), Rule 4 and 3(a), Rule 8
with 7(a)(2) of RA 1125, which provides:
InacHon by the [CIR] in cases involving disputed
assessments . . . where the [NIRC] provides a specic
period of acHon, in which case the inacHon shall be
deemed a denial
Under NIRC 228, [i]f the protest is denied in whole or in
part . . . the taxpayer adversely aected by the decision . . .
may appeal to the [CTA] within thirty (30) days from receipt
of the said decision . . . otherwise, the decision shall become
nal, executory and demandable
A"y. Terence Conrad H. Bello

Slide No. 42

B. ApplicaHon of the 180-Day Rule

C. What ConsHtutes Denial of Protest/Decision on Disputed Assessment

RCBC v. CIR
Based on the foregoing, [TP] can not now claim that the
disputed assessment is not yet nal as it remained
unacted upon by the [CIR]; that it can sHll await the nal
decision of the [CIR] and thereaoer appeal the same to
the [CTA]. This legal maneuver cannot be countenanced.
Aoer availing the rst opHon, i.e., ling a peJJon for
review which was however led out of Hme, [TP] can not
successfully resort to the second opHon, i.e., awaiJng the
nal decision of the [CIR] and appealing the same to the
[CTA], on the pretext that there is yet no nal decision on
the disputed assessment because of the [CIRs] inacHon.
Appeal opHons thus mutually exclusive
A"y. Terence Conrad H. Bello

Slide No. 43

C. What ConsHtutes Denial of Protest/Decision on Disputed Assessment

Slide No. 45

C. What ConsHtutes Denial of Protest/Decision on Disputed Assessment

Slide No. 44

4. Final Demand Le"er

CIR v. Ayala SecuriJes Corp.
TP assessed; TP protested assessment
On February 21, 1963, TP received a le"er dated
February 18, 1963 wherein CIR called TPs
a"enHon to the unpaid tax as assessed and
demanded payment within 5 days
Believing that February 18, 1963 le"er was the
CIRs decision on the disputed assessment, TP
appealed to CTA

A"y. Terence Conrad H. Bello

Slide No. 46

C. What ConsHtutes Denial of Protest/Decision on Disputed Assessment

4. Final Demand Le"er

CIR v. Ayala SecuriJes Corp.
The le"er of February 18, 1963 (Exh. G), in the
view of the Court, is tantamount to a denial of
the reconsideraHon or protest of the TP on the
assessment made by the CIR, considering that
the said le"er is in itself a reiteraHon of the
demand by the BIR for the se"lement of the
assessment already made, and for the
immediate payment of the sum of P758,687.04
in spite of the vehement protest of the TP on
April 21, 1961.

A"y. Terence Conrad H. Bello

A"y. Terence Conrad H. Bello

C. What ConsHtutes Denial of Protest/Decision on Disputed Assessment

3. Final NoHce Before Seizure

CIR v. Isabela Cultural Corp.
Held: In the light of the above facts, the Final NoHce Before
Seizure cannot but be considered as the CIR's decision
disposing of the request for reconsideraHon led by TP, who
received no other response to its request
Not only was the NoHce the only response received; its
content and tenor supported the theory that it was the CIRs
nal act regarding the request for reconsideraHon
The very Htle expressly indicated that it was a nal noHce prior
to seizure of property. The le"er itself clearly stated that
respondent was being given this LAST OPPORTUNITY to pay;
otherwise, its properHes would be subjected to distraint and
levy
How then could it have been made to believe that its request
for reconsideraHon was sHll pending determinaHon, despite
the actual threat of seizure of its properHes?
A"y. Terence Conrad H. Bello

1. General rule: FDDA

2. I s s u a n c e o f R e v i s e d A s s e s s m e n t U p o n
ReinvesHgaHon
Avon Products Mfg., Inc. v. CIR
June 3 le"er (which included the revised
assessment) parHcularly referred to TPs
requests for reinvesHgaHon; also made a
demand for se"lement of reduced tax liabiliHes
within 15 days together with a threat to enforce
collecHon via summary remedies without further
noHce

Slide No. 47

4. Final Demand Le"er

CIR v. Ayala SecuriJes Corp.
This certainly is a clear indicaHon of the rm
stand of the CIR against the reconsideraHon of
the disputed assessment, in view of the
conHnued refusal of the TP to execute the waiver
of the period of limitaHon upon the assessment
in quesHon.
This being so, the said le"er amounts to a
decision on a disputed or protested assessment
and, therefore, the court a quo did not err in
taking cognizance of this case.

A"y. Terence Conrad H. Bello

Slide No. 48

C. What ConsHtutes Denial of Protest/Decision on Disputed Assessment

4.

C. What ConsHtutes Denial of Protest/Decision on Disputed Assessment

Final Demand Le"er

Surigao Electric Co. Inc. v. CTA
Moreover, the le"er of demand dated April 29, 1963 unquesHonably
consHtutes the nal acJon taken by the CIR on the TPs several requests
for reconsideraHon and recomputaHon. In this le"er, the CIR not only in
eect demanded that the TP pay the amount of P11,533.53 but also
gave warning that in the event it failed to pay, the said CIR would be
constrained to enforce the collecHon thereof by means of the remedies
provided by law. The tenor of the le"er, specically the statement
regarding the resort to legal remedies, unmistakably indicates the nal
nature of the determinaHon made by the CIR of the TPs deciency
franchise tax liability
Thus, this Court has considered the following communicaHons sent by
the CIR to TPs as embodying rulings appealable to the CTA: (a) a le"er
which stated the result of the reinvesHgaHon requested by the TP and
the consequent modicaHon of the assessment; (b) a le"er which
denied the request of the TP for the reconsideraHon, cancellaHon, or
withdrawal of the original assessment; (c) a le"er which contained a
demand on the TP for the payment of the revised or reduced
assessment; and (d) a le"er which noHed the TP of a revision of
previous assessments

A"y. Terence Conrad H. Bello

Slide No. 49

C. What ConsHtutes Denial of Protest/Decision on Disputed Assessment

4.

Slide No. 51

C. What ConsHtutes Denial of Protest/Decision on Disputed Assessment

A"y. Terence Conrad H. Bello

Slide No. 50

5.

Filing of collecHon suit

CIR v. Union Shipping Corp., 185 SCRA 547 (1990)
Held: ciHng its admoniHon to the CIR in Surigao Electric, SC held that:
there appears to be no dispute that CIR did not rule on TPs moHon for
reconsideraHon but contrary to the above ruling of this Court, leo TP in
the dark as to which acHon of the CIR is the decision appealable to the
CTA. Had he categorically stated that he denied TPs MR and that his
acHon consHtutes his nal determinaHon on the disputed assessment,
TP without needless diculty would have been able to determine when
his right to appeal accrues and the resulHng confusion would have been
avoided
Much later, this Court reiterated the above-menHoned dictum in a ruling
applicable on all fours to the issue in the case at bar, that the reviewable
decision of the BIR is that contained in the le"er of its Commissioner,
that such consHtutes the nal decision on the ma"er which may be
appealed to the CTA and not the warrants of distraint (AdverHsing
Associates, Inc. v. Court of Appeals, 133 SCRA 769 [1984])
It was likewise stressed that the procedure enunciated is demanded by
the pressing need for fair play, regularity and orderliness in
administraHve acHon

A"y. Terence Conrad H. Bello

Slide No. 52

C. What ConsHtutes Denial of Protest/Decision on Disputed Assessment

5. Filing of collecHon suit

CIR v. Union Shipping Corp., 185 SCRA 547 (1990)
Under the circumstances, the CIR, not having clearly
signied his nal acHon on the disputed assessment,
legally the period to appeal has not commenced to run
Thus, it was only when TP received the summons on the
civil suit for collecHon of deciency income on December
28, 1978 that the period to appeal commenced to run
The request for reinvesHgaHon and reconsideraHon was
in eect considered denied by the CIR when the la"er
led a civil suit for collecHon of deciency income. So
that on January 10, 1979 when TP led the appeal with
the Court of Tax Appeals, it consumed a total of only
thirteen (13) days well within the thirty day period to
appeal pursuant to SecHon 11 of R.A. 1125
A"y. Terence Conrad H. Bello

Final Demand Le"er

Surigao Electric Co. Inc. v. CTA
We deem it appropriate to state that the CIR should always indicate to the
TP in clear and unequivocal language whenever his acHon on an assessment
quesHoned by a TP consHtutes his nal determinaHon on the disputed
assessment
On the basis of this indicium indubitably showing that the CIRs
communicated acHon is his nal decision on the contested assessment, the
aggrieved TP would then be able to take recourse to the tax court at the
opportune Hme
Without needless diculty, the TP would be able to determine when his
right to appeal to the tax court accrues
This rule of conduct would also obviate all desire and opportunity on the
part of the TP to conHnually delay the nality of the assessment and,
consequently, the collecHon of the amount demanded as taxes by
repeated requests for recomputaHon and reconsideraHon
On the part of the CIR, this would encourage his oce to conduct a careful
and thorough study of every quesHoned assessment and render a correct
and denite decision thereon in the rst instance
This would also deter the CIR from unfairly making the TP grope in the dark
and speculate as to which acHon consHtutes the decision appealable to the
tax court. Of greater import, this rule of conduct would meet a pressing
need for fair play, regularity, and orderliness in administraHve acHon

C. What ConsHtutes Denial of Protest/Decision on Disputed Assessment

Final Demand Le"er

Oceanic Wireless Network, Inc. v. CIR
Held: appeal to CTA Hme-barred
A demand le"er for payment of delinquent taxes may be considered a
decision on a disputed or protested assessment. The determinaHon on
whether or not a demand le"er is nal is condiHoned upon the language
used or the tenor of the le"er being sent to the TP
In Surigao Electric Co., Inc., we laid down the rule that the CIR should
always indicate to the TP in clear and unequivocal language what
consHtutes his nal determinaHon of the disputed assessment
In this case, the le"er of demand dated January 24, 1991,
unquesHonably consHtutes the nal acHon taken by the BIR on TPs
request for reconsideraHon when it reiterated the tax deciency
assessments due from TP, and requested its payment. Failure to do so
would result in the issuance of a warrant of distraint and levy to
enforce its collecHon without further noHce. In addiHon, the le"er
contained a notaHon indicaHng that TPs request for reconsideraHon had
been denied for lack of supporHng documents
The demand le"er received by TP verily signied a character of nality.
Therefore, it was tantamount to a rejecHon of the request for
reconsideraHon.

A"y. Terence Conrad H. Bello

4.

Slide No. 53

6. Referral to OSG for collecHon

Lim Tian Teng Sons and Co., Inc. v. CIR
We will now resolve the issue of whether or not the court a quo
erred in considering as nal and executory the assessment contained
in the le"er of the CIR dated January 16, 1957. As stated, TP received
said assessment on January 30, 1957 and on the following day
requested reinvesHgaHon of its tax liability. The CIR however did not
reply to the request for reinvesHgaHon. Instead, he referred the case
to the SolGen for collecHon of the tax. The lower court interpreted
this acHon of the CIR as a denial of TPs request for reinvesHgaHon
Said court, to our mind, commi"ed no error. For what is more
indicaHve of the CIRs decision against reinvesHgaHon that his
insistence to collect the tax? This decision was communicated to TP
in a le"er dated September 20, 1957 of the OSG which must have
been received by defendant not later than October 8, 1957 for on
said date it acknowledged receipt thereof. It had thirty days from
October 8, 1957 within which to appeal to the Court of Tax Appeals
pursuant to SecHon 11 of Republic Act 1125. 6 Instead of appealing
to the Tax Court, however, the defendant herein in a le"er dated
October 8, 1957 reiterated its request for reinvesHgaHon
A"y. Terence Conrad H. Bello

Slide No. 54

C. What ConsHtutes Denial of Protest/Decision on Disputed Assessment

C. What ConsHtutes Denial of Protest/Decision on Disputed Assessment

6. Referral to OSG for collecHon

Lim Tian Teng Sons and Co., Inc. v. CIR
The TPs failure to appeal to the CTA in due Hme
made the assessment in quesHon nal, executory
and demandable. And when the acHon was
insHtuted on September 2, 1958 to enforce the
deciency assessment in quesHon, it was already
barred from dispuHng the correctness of the
assessment or invoking any defense that would
reopen the quesHon of his tax liability on the
merits. Otherwise, the period of thirty days for
appeal to the CTA would make li"le sense

A"y. Terence Conrad H. Bello

Slide No. 55

C. What ConsHtutes Denial of Protest/Decision on Disputed Assessment

Slide No. 57

D. Period to Appeal/Eect of Failure to Appeal

Slide No. 56

7. Issuance of WDL
AdverJsing Assoc., Inc. v. CIR
Held: We hold that the peHHon for review was led on Hme.
The reviewable decision is that contained in Commissioner
Plana's le"er of May 23, 1979 and not the WDLs
No amount of quibbling or sophistry can blink the fact that
said le"er, as its tenor shows, embodies the Commissioner's
nal decision within the meaning of secHon 7 of RA 1125. The
CIR said so. He even directed the TP to appeal it to the Tax
Court.
The direcHve is in consonance with this Court's dictum that
the Commissioner should always indicate to the taxpayer in
clear and unequivocal language what consHtutes his nal
determinaHon of the disputed assessment. That procedure is
demanded by the pressing need for fair play, regularity and
orderliness in administraHve acHon (Surigao Electric Co., Inc.
vs. Court of Tax Appeals, L-25289, June 28, 1974, 57 SCRA
523).
A"y. Terence Conrad H. Bello

Slide No. 58

D. Period to Appeal/Eect of Failure to Appeal

St. Stephens AssociaJon v. Collector

Held: 30-day appeal period is reckoned from receipt of the decision
of the CIR on the disputed assessment, and not from the receipt of
the assessment
The appealable decision is the July 11, 1955 le"er, which CIR himself
considered as his nal decision in the case, hence, his warning that
the same would become nal in 30 days unless TPs appealed
Prior to the July 11, 1955 le"er-decision, the CIR held the ma"er
under advisement and considered his preceding rulings as merely
tentaHve in character, pending nal determinaHon and resoluHon of
the merits of the arguments submi"ed by TPs in support of their
protest
This is the reason why, in the July 11, 1955 le"er, the CIR included an
express statement that said decision was to become nal in 30 days
unless appealed; and it also for this reason that, throughout the
proceedings in the CTA, the CIR never claimed that TPs appeal was
not Hmely led, and it was the CTA that motu proprio dismissed the
peHHon as it believed it was not led within the period provided by
RA 1125
A"y. Terence Conrad H. Bello

A"y. Terence Conrad H. Bello

C. What ConsHtutes Denial of Protest/Decision on Disputed Assessment

7. Issuance of WDL
CIR v. Algue, Inc.
It is true that as a rule the WDL is "proof of the nality
of the assessment" and "renders hopeless a request
for reconsideraHon," being "tantamount to an outright
denial thereof and makes the said request deemed
rejected."
But there is a special circumstance in the case at bar
that prevents applicaHon of this accepted doctrine
The proven fact is that 4 days aoer the TP received the
CIRs noHce of assessment, it led its le"er of protest.
This was apparently not taken into account before the
WDL was issued; indeed, such protest could not be
located in the oce of the CIR. It was only aoer A"y.
Guevara gave the BIR a copy of the protest that it was,
if at all, considered by the tax authoriHes.
A"y. Terence Conrad H. Bello

7. Issuance of WDL
Central Cement Corp. v. CIR
Held: the ma"er of jurisdicHon was neither raised by CIR in his
"Answer" nor in the trial on the merits of this case.
CIRs counsel acHvely parHcipated in court proceedings; issue of
lack jurisdicHon raised only when case was already submi"ed for
decision
While lack of jurisdicHon may be assailed at any stage, a party's
acHve parHcipaHon in the proceedings before the court without
jurisdicHon will estop such party from assailing such lack of
jurisdicHon
In the case at bar, the WDLs were issued by CIR knowing fully well
that the deciency assessments were under protest by TP. Even
when the issuance of the WDLs were objected to by TP for being
in violaHon of the Tax Code, CIR did not lio said warrants.
It is by CIRs own doing that administraHve remedies available to
TP were eecHvely shut-o thereby, leaving TP with no recourse
but to seek relief from this Court

Slide No. 59

Roman Catholic Archbishop of Cebu v. Collector

The 2nd denial of MR amounted to a decision which
should have been appealed to CTA
3rd MR did not interrupt period to appeal since the
same did not advance new arguments, hence,
merely pro-forma
We cannot countenance the theory that would
make the commencement of the statutory 30-day
period solely dependent on the will of the TP and
place the la"er in a posiHon to put o indenitely
and at his convenience the nality of a tax
assessment
A"y. Terence Conrad H. Bello

Slide No. 60

D. Period to Appeal/Eect of Failure to Appeal

D. Period to Appeal/Eect of Failure to Appeal

Pantranco v. Blaquera
TP contends that period to appeal should be
reckoned from June 11, 1955 and that Hme
spent by counsel consulHng with TP should
be deducted
Held: 30-day appeal period is jurisdicHonal
and non-extendible

A"y. Terence Conrad H. Bello

Slide No. 61

D. Period to Appeal/Eect of Failure to Appeal

Slide No. 63

E. Mode of Appeal and Eect of Appeal

Slide No. 62

1. What is the TPs remedy in case the BIR denies the protest
(i.e., issues an adverse decision on the disputed
assessment ) or fails to act on the same within the 180-day
period?

Appeal the denial or the inacHon to the CTA within 30 days

from the denial or from the lapse of the 180-day period by
ling a peHHon for review (RA 1125 11)
A division of the CTA shall hear the appeal

2. What is the eect of the appeal on the disputed

assessment?

Gen. rule: the appeal will not suspend the payment, levy,
distraint and/or sale of any property of the TP for the
saHsfacHon of his tax liability (RA 1125 11, 4th par.)
Excep.on: when the collecHon will jeopardize the interest of
the govt or the TP (court will issue an injuncHon provided
amount claimed is deposited or surety bond is posted for not
more than 2x the amount claimed)

A"y. Terence Conrad H. Bello

Slide No. 64

E. Mode of Appeal and Eect of Appeal

3. What is the TPs remedy in case the CTA division issues an

adverse decision vs. the TP?
File an MR or new trial within 15 days from noHce of
decision (RA 1125 11, 3rd par.)
Upon issuance of resoluHon denying the MR or new
trial, appeal the same to the CTA En Banc within 15
days from noHce of the resoluHon (RA 1125 18;
Revised Rules of the CTA 3(b), rule 8)
4. May the TP appeal the adverse decision directly to the
CTA En Banc without ling an MR?
No. Appeals to the CTA En Banc must be preceded by
the Hmely ling of an MR new trial with the CTA
division (Revised Rules of the CTA 1, rule 8; see also
RA 1125 18)
A"y. Terence Conrad H. Bello

A"y. Terence Conrad H. Bello

E. Mode of Appeal and Eect of Appeal

Mambulao Lumber Co. v. CIR

CFI ruled in favor of CIR; TP appealed to CA which
armed CFI
Held: assessment already nal and executory for
TPs failure to appeal the July 8, 1959 le"er
In a suit for collecHon of internal revenue taxes, as
in this case, where the assessment has already
become nal and executory, the acHon to collect is
akin to an acHon to enforce a judgment
No inquiry can be made therein as to the merits of
the original case or the justness of the judgment
relied upon. PeHHoner is thus already precluded
from raising the defense of prescripHon
A"y. Terence Conrad H. Bello

Basa v. RP
Held: if TP wanted to contest the assessment,
he should have appealed to CTA
Not having done so, he could no longer
contest the same in the CFI
TP can no longer raise prescripHon, which
should have been interposed as a defense in
CTA

Slide No. 65

5. May the TP appeal the adverse decision of the CTA

division directly to the SC under Rule 45 (on a pure
quesHon of law)?
No. Failure to le a moHon for reconsideraHon of an
assailed decision of a CTA division, or at least le a
peHHon for review with the CTA en banc, before
ling a peHHon for review with the SC renders the
assailed decision nal and executory. Commissioner
of Customs v. Gelmart Industries Phil., Inc., G.R. No.
169352, February 13, 2009

A"y. Terence Conrad H. Bello

Slide No. 66

V.

IV. APPEAL TO SC

A"y. Terence Conrad H. Bello

67

1. CIR v. Central Azucarera Don Pedro

Held: 2-year period counted from the supervening event
which gave rise to the right to refund (i.e., grant of tax
exempHon on September 20, 1965)
When the tax sought to be refunded is illegally or
erroneously collected, the 2-year period starts from the
date the tax was paid
But when the tax is legally collected (as in the present case),
the 2-year period commences to run from the date of
occurrence of the supervening event which gave rise to the
right to refund
v NB: this case is no longer good law in view of present
language of 229 (irrespecJve of any supervening event)
Slide No. 69

B. Requirement to File AdministraHve Claim

68

1. Cases
Bermejo v. Collector
Held: TP contended that the requirement to le a refund
claim with the CIR was complied with, because prior to the
insHtuHon of the court case, there were le"ers sent to the CIR
protesHng the tax
The law clearly sHpulates that aoer paying the tax, the TP
must submit a claim for refund before resorHng to the courts.
The idea probably is, rst, to aord the CIR an opportunity to
correct the acHon of subordinate ocers;
and second, to noHfy the Government that such taxes have
been quesHoned, and the noHce should then be borne in mind
in esHmaHng the revenue available for expenditure.
Previous objecHons to the tax may not take the place of that
claim for refund, because there may be some reason to
believe that, in paying, the taxpayer has nally come to realize
the validity of the assessment.
A"y. Terence Conrad H. Bello

Slide No. 70

B. Requirement to File AdministraHve Claim

1. Cases
Andrea Vda. De Aguinaldo v. CIR
Held: the law requires the ling by the TP of a
wri"en claim for credit or refund within 2 years aoer
payment of the tax, before the CIR can exercise his
authority to grant the credit or refund.
Such requirement is therefore a condiHon precedent
and non-compliance therewith precludes the CIR
from exercising the authority thereunder given.
TPs paid the 1953 income tax on August 14, 1954
although the adjustment took place on August 29,
1955; from both dates to January 10, 1958, when
the claim for tax credit was led, more than 2 years
have elapsed.
A"y. Terence Conrad H. Bello

A"y. Terence Conrad H. Bello

B. Requirement to File AdministraHve Claim

A. What ConsHtutes Erroneous Payment

A"y. Terence Conrad H. Bello

REFUND AND/OR TAX CREDIT OF

ERRONEOUSLY PAID TAX

Slide No. 71

1. Cases
Chemical Industries of the Phil., Inc. v. CIR
Held: the March 31, 1998 ruling request addressed to the
Deputy Commissioner is not a claim for refund but a le"er
requesHng for a ruling for the refund of the tax allegedly paid
by TP
The ruling request is not the wri"en claim for refund required
by law before a judicial refund claim may be led with the CTA
The stock transacHon tax was not illegally or erroneously
assessed or collected
No allegaHon that at the Hme the stock transacHon tax was
paid, no such tax was due and payable; in other words, there
was no allegaHon that the payment therefore was erroneous
The share sale was already perfected and remained eecHve
unHl one or more of the resolutory condiHons occurred; such
being the case, the payment of the tax was proper and legal
A"y. Terence Conrad H. Bello

Slide No. 72

A. What ConsHtutes Erroneous Payment

D. Eect of Supervening Event

What is the test to determine W/N tax was

illegally or erroneously assessed or collected?
At the Hme the claimed tax was paid, no
such tax was due and payable

A"y. Terence Conrad H. Bello

Slide No. 73

E. Osewng Against Deciency Assessments

Slide No. 75

E. Osewng Against Deciency Assessments

Slide No. 74

1. Cases
BPI SecuriJes Corp. v. CIR
Moreover, it appears that the memorandum-report has not yet
ripened into a formal assessment duly approved by the Regional
Director or by the CIR
Thus, the same can proceed independently of the claim for refund
and its merits or demerits may be determined in separate
proceedings as provided for in the Tax Code
The principle that taxes are not subject to set-o or legal
compensaHon must govern, especially in this case where the taxes
and the taxpayer's claim are not fully liquidated, due and
demandable
In this case, no assessment, whether tentaHve or nal, has been
issued to peHHoner. Consequently, we do not nd any reason to
deviate from the above rulings. Thus, the argument of the
respondent that peHHoner's refund claim must be denied on the
basis of the ndings and recommendaHon in the memorandum
issued by the Revenue Ocer does not deserve consideraHon
v Ques.on: what if there was already a FAN that the TP protested, would
the result be dierent?
A"y. Terence Conrad H. Bello

Slide No. 76

F. Liability of Government for Interest, A"orneys Fees, Etc.

1. Cases

FNCB Finance v. CIR

TP led a refund claim
CIR oered in evidence a report of invesHgaHon
which found TP liable instead for deciency
income tax
Held: automaHc set-o capricious
ViolaHon of due process
Without an assessment, there is no debt from TP
that can be set-o

A"y. Terence Conrad H. Bello

A"y. Terence Conrad H. Bello

E. Osewng Against Deciency Assessments

1. Cases
CIR v. Cebu Portland Cement
Held: The argument that the assessment cannot as yet be
enforced because it is sHll being contested loses sight of the
urgency of the need to collect taxes as the lifeblood of the
government
If the payment of taxes could be postponed by simply
quesHoning their validity, the machinery of the state would
grind to a halt and all government funcHons would be
paralyzed
This is the reason for the existence of the anH-injuncHon rule
To require CIR to actually refund to TP the amount of the
judgment debt, which he will later have the right to distrain
for payment of its sales tax liability is in our view an idle ritual
We hold that the CTA erred in ordering such a charade
A"y. Terence Conrad H. Bello

1. Case
Meralco v. CIR
Conten.on of TP: 2-year period should commence to run
only from the Hme the refund is ascertained; therefore
period should be reckoned from Oct. 7, 2003 when BIR
issued ruling
Held: porHon of amount sought to be refunded
prescribed
Under 229, the administraHve claim and the judicial
claim must be led within 2 years from date of payment
of the tax regardless of any supervening cause
There is no requirement in the law that a TP must rst
request for a tax ruling conrming exempHon before it
can le a refund claim in cases of erroneous payment or
overpayment of taxes

Slide No. 77

Philex Mining Corp. v. CIR

No interest on refund of tax can be awarded unless
authorized by law or the collecHon of the tax was
a"ended by arbitrariness.
An acHon is not arbitrary when exercised honestly and
upon due consideraHon where there is room for two
opinions, however much it may be believed that an
erroneous conclusion was reached. Arbitrariness
presupposes inexcusable or obsHnate disregard of legal
provisions. None of the excepHons are present in the case
at bar. Respondents decision denying peHHoners claim
for refund was based on an honest interpretaHon of law.
We, therefore see no reason why peHHoner should be
enHtled to the payment of interest.
A"y. Terence Conrad H. Bello

Slide No. 78

G. Taxes not Subject to Set-O

G. Taxes not Subject to Set-O

Francia v. IAC
TP owned real property, a porHon of which was expropriated by
the govt and for which govt owed TP P4,116
The rest of TPs property sold at public aucHon for delinquency
RPT of P2,400
TP contends that his tax delinquency of P2,400.00 has been
exHnguished by legal compensaHon. He claims that the
government owed him P4,116.00 when a porHon of his land was
expropriated on October 15, 1977. Hence, his tax obligaHon had
been set-o by operaHon of law as of October 15, 1977
Held: contenHon of the TP has no merit. We have consistently
ruled that there can be no o-sewng of taxes against the claims
that the TP may have against the government. A person cannot
refuse to pay a tax on the ground that the government owes him
an amount equal to or greater than the tax being collected. The
collecHon of a tax cannot await the results of a lawsuit against the
government

A"y. Terence Conrad H. Bello

Slide No. 79

G. Taxes not Subject to Set-O

A"y. Terence Conrad H. Bello

Slide No. 80

G. Taxes not Subject to Set-O

BIR Rul. 415-93

Ruling request for automaHc osewng of claims
for excess input VAT against excise tax liability
denied
Claim subject to vericaHon and nal
determinaHon before issuance of TCC

A"y. Terence Conrad H. Bello

Francia v. IAC
This rule was reiterated in the case of Cordero v.
Gonda (18 SCRA 331) where we stated that: ". . .
internal revenue taxes can not be the subject of
compensaHon: Reason: government and taxpayer
'are not mutually creditors and debtors of each
other' under ArHcle 1278 of the Civil Code and a
"claim for taxes is not such a debt, demand,
contract or judgment as is allowed to be set-o.
Moreover, RPT was due to an LGU while the
expropriaHon was eected by the naHonal
government

Slide No. 81

Summary
1. Government invokes set-o (denies refund on account of
pending assessment):
Doctrine: government cannot defeat TPs enHtlement
to refund on account of a proposed assessment
v OpHons available to the government:
Formalize/nalize assessment (i.e., issue FAN),
then invoke Cebu Portland
If there is a nal judgment awarding the refund
claim, distrain judgment debt
2. TP invokes set-o (refuses to pay assessment on account
of pending refund claim):
No set-o rule in RP v. Mambulao: collecHon of taxes
cannot await result of a lawsuit determining propriety
of refund claim
A"y. Terence Conrad H. Bello

Slide No. 82

A. Appeal in Case of Denial of Refund/Tax Credit Claim

1. Appeal to CTA/SC same as appeal of denial of

protest

VI. APPEAL IN CASE OF DENIAL OF

REFUND/TAX CREDIT CLAIM
A"y. Terence Conrad H. Bello

83

A"y. Terence Conrad H. Bello

Slide No. 84