Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

FAR EAST BANK v. CA

This case has been cited 9 times or more.

	GR No. 163654 2014-10-08	BPI EXPRESS CARD CORPORATION v. MA. ANTONIA R. ARMOVIT BERSAMIN, J.
BPI Express Credit contends that it was not grossly negligent in refusing to lift the suspension of Armovit's credit card privileges inasmuch as she had not complied with the requisite submission of a new application form; and that under the circumstances its negligence, if any, was not so gross as to amount to malice or bad faith following the ruling in Far East Bank and Trust Company v. Court of Appeals.[21]
	GR No. 180290 2014-09-29	CIR v. PHILIPPINE NATIONAL BANK LEONEN, J.
Furthermore, the questions on whether respondent's claim for refund of unutilized excess creditable withholding taxes amounting to P23,762,347.83 were duly supported by valid certificates of creditable tax withheld at source and whether it had sufficiently proven its claim are questions of fact. These issues require a review, examination, evaluation, or weighing of the probative value of evidence presented, especially the withholding tax certificates, which this court does not have the jurisdiction to do, barring the presence of any exceptional circumstance, as it is not a trier of facts.[16]
	GR No. 180290 2014-09-29	CIR v. PHILIPPINE NATIONAL BANK LEONEN, J.
This court accords respect to the conclusion reached by the Court of Tax Appeals and will not presumptuously set it aside absent any showing of gross error or abuse on its part.[21]
	GR No. 178788 2010-09-29	UNITED AIRLINES v. CIR VILLARAMA, JR., J.
We must emphasize that tax refunds, like tax exemptions, are construed strictly against the taxpayer and liberally in favor of the taxing authority.[24] In any event, petitioner has not discharged its burden of proof in establishing the factual basis for its claim for a refund and we find no reason to disturb the ruling of the CTA. It has been a long-standing policy and practice of the Court to respect the conclusions of quasi-judicial agencies such as the CTA, a highly specialized body specifically created for the purpose of reviewing tax cases.[25]
	GR No. 162175 2010-06-28	MIGUEL J. OSSORIO PENSION FOUNDATION v. CA CARPIO, J.
Generally, the factual findings of the CTA, a special court exercising expertise on the subject of tax, are regarded as final, binding and conclusive upon this Court, especially if these are substantially similar to the findings of the CA which is normally the final arbiter of questions of fact.[27] However, there are recognized exceptions to this rule,[28] such as when the judgment is based on a misapprehension of facts.
	GR No. 173854 2010-03-15	CIR v. FAR EAST BANK DEL CASTILLO, J.
To establish the fact of withholding, respondent submitted Certificates of Creditable Tax Withheld at Source and Monthly Remittance Returns of Income Taxes Withheld, which pertain to rentals and sales of real property, respectively. However, a perusal of respondent's 1994 Annual Income Tax Return shows that the gross income was derived solely from sales of services. In fact, the phrase "NOT APPLICABLE" was printed on the schedules pertaining to rent, sale of real property, and trust income.[16] Thus, based on the entries in the return, the income derived from rentals and sales of real property upon which the creditable taxes were withheld were not included in respondent's gross income as reflected in its return. Since no income was reported, it follows that no tax was withheld. To reiterate, it is incumbent upon the taxpayer to reflect in his return the income upon which any creditable tax is required to be withheld at the source.[17]
	GR No. 121666 2007-10-10	CIR v. MANILA ELECTRIC COMPANY CARPIO MORALES, J.
The issue of whether respondent adduced sufficient evidence to prove its entitlement to a refund is a question of fact.[21] It bears noting that the tax court and the appellate court found respondent's claim for tax refund or credit meritorious on the basis of the testimonial and documentary evidence adduced by the parties. As the appellate court declared:We have minutiousely [sic] examined and evaluated the testimonial and documentary evidence marshalled by the Private Respondent, through Renato Barieta, its accountant, and its documentary evidence, Exhibits "A" to "AA", as well as the Petitioner's testimonial evidence and lone documentary evidence, Exhibit "1". We find that the findings of the Respondent Court and its conclusions evolved from said findings in accord with the aforesaid evidence. x x x[22] (Underscoring in the original)
	GR NO. 155682 2007-03-27	BANCO FILIPINO SAVINGS v. & CIR AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.
The Court rejected a similar plea for liberality just recently in Far East Bank and Trust Company v. Court of Appeals.[23] In that case, Far East Bank and Trust Company (FEBTC), acting as the surviving entity from a merger with Cavite Development Bank (CDB), filed a claim for refund of creditable taxes withheld by CDB from the sale of its acquired assets. FEBTC attached to its claim: a) confirmation receipts, payment orders and official receipts issued by the Central Bank and the BIR; b) Income Tax Returns supported by financial statements filed by FEBTC with the BIR; and c) a schedule prepared by FEBTC Accounting Department of the creditable withholding taxes of CDB. FEBTC did not, however, attach any BIR Form No. 1743.1. The CTA and CA disallowed FEBTC's claim for refund. The Court affirmed the CTA and CA, thus:As mentioned, petitioner relies heavily on the confirmation receipts with the corresponding official receipts and payment orders to support its case. Standing alone, however, these documents only establish that CDB withheld certain amounts in 1990 and 1991. It does not follow that the payments reflected in the confirmation receipts relate to the creditable withholding taxes arising from the sale of the acquired properties. The claim that CDB had excess creditable withholding taxes can only be upheld if it were clearly and positively shown that the amounts on the various confirmation receipts were the amounts withheld by virtue of the sale of the acquired assets. On this point, the CA correctly pronounced:
	GR NO. 141212 2006-06-22	BENGUET CORPORATION v. CIR CORONA, J.
Under our tax system, the CTA acts as a highly specialized body specifically created for the purpose of reviewing tax cases.[32] Accordingly, its findings of fact are generally regarded as final, binding and conclusive on this Court, especially if these are substantially similar to the findings of the CA which is normally the final arbiter of questions of fact.[33] Thus, such findings will not ordinarily be reviewed nor disturbed on appeal when supported by substantial evidence and in the absence of gross error or abuse on its part.[34]