TAXATION 2

SY 2018-2019 (2nd Semester)

UPDATED November 7, 2018
Professor: JUDGE GIL G. BOLLOZOS, CPA

Course Description

A study on the provisions relating to estate taxes, donor's

taxes, value added tax, other percentage taxes, excise taxes on
certain goods and documentary stamp tax including tax remedies
as provided by the National Internal Revenue Codes. The topics
on local taxation, real property taxation, tariff and customs
code as well as the jurisdiction of the Court of Tax Appeals
are included.

PARTI

Reference:
1. NIRC
2. Fundamentals of Taxation
3. Revenue Regulation 12-2018, January 25, 2018 (Estate &
Donor’s Taxes)
4. Revenue Regulation 13-2018, March 15, 2018 (VAT)

1. ESTATE TAX (Sec. 84-97, NIRC)

a. Lorenzo vs. Posadas, 64 Phil. 353
Dizon vs. Posadas
c. Villa de Roces vs. Posadas, 58 Phil. 108
d. Collector vs. Fisher, L-11621, January 28, 1961
Wells Fargo vs. Collector, 70 Phil. 505
f.Velilla vs. Posadas, 62 Phil. 624
g. Collector vs. Lara, 102 Phil. 813
h. Delpher vs. IAC, 157 SCRA 349
i. Gallardo vs. Morales, 107 Phil. 903
j. BPI vs. Posadas, 56 Phil. 215
k. Marcos II vs. CA
l. Balboa vs. Fanales, 51 Phil. 498
m.Vera vs. Navarro, 79 SCRA 408
n. Ozaeta vs. Palanca
o. Sison vs. Teodoro
p.Vera vs. Fernandez, 89 SCRA 199
q. Estate of Hilario Ruiz vs. CA, 252 SCRA 541
r. Elegado vs. CTA, 1 73 SCRA 285
s. Commissioner vs. Pineda
2. DONOR'S TAX (Sec. 98 - 104, NIRC)
Pirovano vs. Commissioner, 14 SCRA 832
b. Lladoc vs. Commissioner, 14 SCRA 293
c. TANG HO vs. CA, 97 Phil. 890

3. VALUE ADDED TAX (Sec. 105-115, NIRC)

Tolentino v. CIR, 235 SCRA 630
Tolentino v. CIR
c. ABAKADA v. Ermita, GR No. 168056, September 1,
2005
d. Are reimbursements subject to VAT? CIR v Court of
Appeals, et al., G.R. No. 125355, March 30, 2000. See
also RMC 9-2006, January 25, 2006; clarifying amount
subject to VAT of brokers; RMC No. 39-2007, January
22, 2007
e. American Express v. Commissioner, CA GR SP 62727,
February 28, 2002 (zero rated sale of service), SC GR
June 28, 2005
f. CIR v. Burmeister and Wain, GR No. 153205, January
22, 2007
g. CIR v. Magsaysay Lines, GR No. 146984, July 28,
2006 (No VAT on sale not made in trade or business)
h. CIR v. Seagate Technology Phils., GR No. 153811,
February 11, 2005 (effectively zero-rated transactions)
with PEZA)
Microsoft Philippines, Inc. v. CIR
April 6, 2011
j. Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Sony Philippines,
Inc., G.R. No. 178697, November 17, 2010.
k. KEPCO Philippines Corporation v. CIR, G.R. No.
November 24, 2010
l.AT & T Communications Services Philippines, Inc. v.
CIR, G.R. No. 182364, August 3, 2010
Silicon Philippines, Inc. v. CIR
January 12, 2011
n. Renato V. Diaz and Aurora Timbol v. Secretary of
Finance, G.R. No. 193007, July 19, 2011
o.PAGCOR v. BIR, G.R. No. 172087, March 15, 2011
p. (1) Atlas v. CIR, G.R. Nos. 141104 & 148763, June
8, 2007
Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Aichi Forging
Company of Asia, G.R. No. 184823, October 6,
2010
(3) Mirant v. CIR, C.R. No. 172129, September 12,
2008
(4) CIR v. San Roque, etc., G.R. No. 187485, February
 120 + 30 Rule
Counting of the 2 year period to claim VAT Refund
Doctrine of Operative Act
Fort Bonifacio Devt. Corp. v. CIR
and 170680, April 2, 2009
r. Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Benguet
Corporation, G.R. Nos. 134587 and 134588. July 8,
2005
s. Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. SM Prime
Holdings, Inc. et al, G.R. No. 183505, February 26,
2010
Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. The Philippine
American Accident Insurance Company, et al., G.R.
No. 141658, March 18, 2005

4. OTHER PERCENTAGE TAXES (Sec. 116-128, NIRC)

Sec. 116 Tax on persons exempt from VAT
Sec. 117-118 Carriers tax as amended by RA 9377
July 1, 2005
Revenue Regulations No. 11-2011 (July 20, 2011)
Revenue Regulations Defining
Gross Receipts for Common Carrier's Tax for
International Carriers pursuant to
Section 118 of the Tax Code Amending Sec. 10 of
Revenue Regulations No. 15
2002
Sec. 119 Tax on franchises
Sec. 120 Overseas communications tax
Sec. 121 Tax on banks and financial intermediaries
as amended by RA 7716 & RA 9238 (China
Banking Corp. v. CTA, SC GR 146749, June 10,
2003 (base of 5% GRT on interest income), RA
9238 as implemented by RR 9-2004 (GRT on)
banks), RA 9337, effective July 1, 2005 on increase
of GRT to 7% on other income of banks)
Sec. 122 Tax on finance companies (BIR Ruling,
August 16, 1990 on credit card companies as
amended by RA 9238
Sec. 123 Tax on Insurance premiums, as amended by
RA 10001
Sec. 124 Tax on agents of foreign insurance companies
Sec. 125 Amusement taxes (RMC 8-88, February 19,
1888, p. 785, Nolledo
Sec. 126 Tax on winnings
Sec. 127 Percentage tax on IPOs
Sec. 128 Payment of percentage taxes
 2005
c. CIR v. Lhuiller, SC GR 150947, July 15, 2003
(pawnshops are not lending to investors)
First Planters Pawnshop, Inc. v CIR
July 30, 2008
e. RR 10-2004, 5% GRT on pawnshops (beginning
January 2004); also Money Shops or Forex Shops (RR
4-2007)
f. CIR vs. Solidbank Corp., G.R. No. 148191, Nov. 25,
2003
g. CIR vs. Bank of Commerce, G.R. No. 149636, June 8,
2005
h. CIR vs. BPI, G.R. No. 147375, June 26, 2006
i. CIR vs. City Trust Investment Phils./Asianbank Corp.
vs. CIR, G.R. No. 139786, G.R. No. 140857, Sept. 27,
2006
j. Republic of the Philippines vs. Sunlife Assurance
Company of Canada, G.R. No. 158085, Oct. 14, 2005
k. Phil. Basketball Association vs. CTA, G.R. No.
August 8, 2000

5. EXCISE TAXES ON CERTAIN GOODS (Sec. 129-172)

NIRC

Chapters 1 and 2
• Sec. 129 to Sec. 140, NIRC, as amended by RA 9334
(January 1, 2005), implemented by RR 12-2004 and
RR 3-2006, implementing guidelines on revised tax
rates on alcohol, etc. (January 3, 2006)

Chapter 3 - Excise tax on alcohol products

• RA 9334, implemented by RR 12-2004
• Philippines-Taxes on Distilled Spirits
WTD/S396/AB/R and WT/DS403/AB/R, December
21, 2011

Chapter 4 - Excise tax on tobacco products

• Sections 144 - 147, National Internal Revenue Code
• RA 7654 - revised excise tax on cigars and cigarettes
RR 22-2003 - cigarettes
• RR-9334 implemented by RR 12-2004
• British American Tobacco v Jose Camacho et al., G.R.
No. 163583, August 20, 2008; motion for
reconsideration, April 15, 2009

Chapters 5 and 6 - Excise tax on petroleum products and

 July 1, 2005 (removing excise tax on certain petroleum
products)
• RR 4-2003, January 29, 2003, Revised
Regulations on Excise Tax of Automobiles amended
RR 14-99, October 13, 1999 (before Amendment by
RA No. 9224
• Exxonmobil Petroleum and Chemical Holdings, Inc.
Philippine Branch v CIR, G.R. No. 180909, January 19,
2011
• Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Pilipinas Shell
Petroleum Corporation, G.R. No.188497. April 23,
2012
• Phil. Geothermal, Inc. vs. CIR, G.R. No. 154028, July
29, 2005, 465 SCRA 308
• SILKAIR Pte. Ltd. vs. CIR, G.R. No. 173594, Feb. 6,
2008
• Apex Mining Co., Inc. vs. CIR
20, 2005

Chapter 7 - Excise tax on mineral products

• Sec. 151, NIRC as amended by RA 7729, June 2, 1994
• RA 8240, revision of excise taxes on cigarettes and
alcoholic beverages
• Revenue Regulations 1-97, December 13, 1996, method
of computing specific tax on cigars and cigarettes
• Excise tax on cars, RA 9224, October 2003
• RR 25-2003, new rules implementing RA 9224
• Revenue Regulations 2-97, Specific tax on beer and
alcoholic drinks
• RR 9-2003, February 17, 2003, amending RR 1-9 7 and
RR 2-97, excise tax on alcohol products, cigars and
cigarettes
• RR 7-2002, June 4, 2002, revalidation of issued permits
to establishments subject to excise tax
6. DOCUMENTARY STAMP TAX (Sec. 173-201, NIRC)
Del Rosario vs. Hamoy
b. CIR vs. Fireman's Fund, L-30644, March 9, 1987
c. CIR vs. Heald Lumber, 10 SCRA 376
Gabucan vs. Manta

7. REMEDIES (Sec. 202 -231, NIRC)

a. Revenue Regulations No. 18-2013, November 28, 2013
Tax Assessments
b. Sec. 4, NIRC, Power of Secretary of Finance to review
rulings of CIR as implemented by RMC 44-2201,
RP v. CTA & Nielson & Co.
SCRA 351 Demand letter/follow-up letter for
Payment of taxes considered notice of assessment.
Collector v. Bautista
May Notice of Assessment deemed 27, 1959
made when notice is released, mailed and does not
require that notice be received within 3 years
period
3. CIR v. Metro Star Superama, Inc., G.R. No.
185371, December 8, 2010.
4. Republic v. Ricarte, GR L-46893, November 12,
1985 (action to assess prescribed since there was
no proof that notice was sent
Advertising Associates v. CTA
p. 939, Nolledo. Reviewable decision of CIR is
where he directs taxpayers to appeal to the CTA not
my issuances of warrants of distraint and levy
ii) CIR v. Union Shipping, GR 66160, May 21,
1990. Demand to pay deficiency tax considered
final decision of CIR
iii) Surigao Electric v. CTA, 57 SCRA 523. CIR
should categorically state whether order is final
determination so that it can be appealed to CTA
6. i) CIR v. Isabela Cultural Corporation, GR
135210, July 11, 2001. Final demand letter from
BIR is tantamount to denial of request for
reconsideration which is therefore appealable to
CTA
Oceanic Wireless Network v. CIR, GR
148380, December 9, 2005. Final demand letter
from Accounts Receivable Division Head was
final decision of the CIR and constituted
appealable decision to CTA
7. Gibbs v. Commissioner, L-17406, November 29,
1965 (period to file refund claim) and Gibbs v.
Collector, GR No. L-13453, February 29, 1960
(2-year period is absolute)
If the income of the taxpayer is withheld at source, he is
deemed to have paid his tax liability at the end of
the tax year. It is from this date that the 2-year
period will run.)
8. CIR v. TMX Sales & CTA, GR 83736, January 16,
1992 (when to count 2-year period if on
installment basis ). If TP pays income tax on
quarterly basis, the 2-year period is counted from
the time of filing final adjustment return.
9. Commissioner v. Philamlife Insurance Co., GR
 must be filed within 2 years regardless of
supervening cause. Also, this case, Pacific Pro.
Ltd. Case (GR 68013, November 12, 1984)
counting of two-year prescriptive period for filing
claim for refund of overpaid corporate income tax
Starts from the time the final adjustment return is filed.
10. United Airlines v. CIR, G.R. No. 178788,
September 29, 2010
CIR v. Wyeth, GR 762281, September 30, 1991.
(Sec. 222 & 223 request for reinvestigation
suspends the 5-year period for collection of tax.
12. ABS-CBN Broadcasting Corp. v. CTA, 108
SCRA 143 (non-retroactivity of rulings) requiring
3 years back taxes after previous circular violated
Sec. 246
Emilio S. Lim v. Court of Appeals
37, October 18, 1990. Prescriptive period to file
criminal case under Sec. 281, NIRC, 5 years from
failure to pay tax after notice and demand.
14. Commissioner v. Court of Appeals, Lucio Tan, et al.
al., GR 119322, June 4, 1996.
15. Commissioner v. Court of Tax Appeals and
Fortune Tobacco, GR119761, August 29, 1996.
16. CIR v. Pascor Realty & Development Corp.
GR 128315, June 29, 1999. Assessment not
necessary before filing criminal complaint for tax
evasion based on Sec. 222 itself.
17. CIR v Lascona Land Co., Inc. CA-G.R. SP No.
58061. October 25, 2005 When to elevate
assessment to CTA
18. San Agustin v. CIR, GR 138485, September 10,
2001. TP can appeal a disputed assessment despite
payment of deficiency tax. Filing of refund not
necessary for this purpose.
19. Philippine Journalists, Inc. v. CIR, GR 162852
December 16, 2004. Waiver of prescription must
be executed properly per RMO 20-90, otherwise,
invalid.
20. CIR v. Phil. Global Communications, GR No.
167146, October 31, 2006. Prescriptive period to
collect taxes assessed by CIR.
21. RCBC v. CIR, GR No. 168498, April 24, 2007.
Options for mutually disputing tax assessment
exclusive under Section 227.
22. BPI v. CIR, GR No. 174942. Suspension of
collection requires request for reinvestigation to
be granted.
 October 13, 2010
25. Estate of Juliana Diez Widow of Gabriel v. CIR,
GR No. 15554E, January 27, 2004
e. Regulations
• Revenue Regulations 12-85, November 27, 1985
Revenue Regulations 2-90, May 25, 1990
• RR 12-99 implementing the provisions of the
NIRC, Sec. 6, 7, 204, 228, 247, 248, and 249 on
assessments of taxes and civil penalties and
interest and extrajudicial settlement of taxpayers
criminal violation under RMO 1-90
• Revenue Regulations 2-78
• RMC 48-90, April 23, 1990 (counting of 3-year
period of 365 x 3 regardless of leap year and
Asianbank v. Commissioner, CTA Case No. 6095,
October 9, 2001

1. CIR v. Enron Subic Power Corp. G.R. No.

January 19, 2009
2. CIR v. FMF Development Corp. G.R. No. 167765,
June 30, 2008
FEBTC v. CIR
4. CIR v. Azucena Reyes, G.R. No. 159694, January
September 27, 2006
5. Judy Anne L. Santos v. People of the Philippines, G.R.
No. 173 176, August 26, 2008
Fitness by Design, Inc. v. CIR
October 17, 2008
Asia International v. Parayno
2007
8. British American Tobacco v. Camacho, 562 SCRA
511 (2008)
9. Atlas v. CIR, G.R. Nos. 141104 & 148763, June
8, 2007
Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Aichi
Forging Company of Asia, G.R. No. 184823,
October 6, 2010
11. Mirant v. CIR, C.R. No. 172129, September 12,
2008
12. CIR v. San Roque, etc., G.R. No. 187485,
February 12, 2013 CIR v. San Roque, etc., G.R.
No. 187485, October 8, 2013

• 120 + 30 Rule
• Counting of the 2 year period to claim VAT Refund
• Doctrine of Operative Act
 a. Thomson Shirt Factory vs. Collector, CTA Case No.
August 27, 1963
b. Lim HoaTing vs. Central Collector, 104 Phil. 573

9. STATUTORY OFFENSES AND PENALTIES (Sec. 247-

282, NIRC
a. Manila B. Castro vs. Collector of Internal Revenue
G.R. No. L-12174, April 26, 1962
b. Hilado vs. Collector of Internal Revenue, et al., G.R.
No. L-9408, October 31, 1956
c. CIR vs. City Trust Banking Corp., et al., G.R. No.
July 21, 1994
d. Collector vs. Clement, G.R. No. L-12194, January 24,
1959
e. Collector vs. Solano, G.R. No. L-11475, July 31, 1958
f. Bisaya Land Transportation Co. Inc. vs. Collector, G.R.
No. L-12100, May 29, 1959
g. Alfredo Bollozos vs. CTA, et al., G.R. No. L-16441
h. Republic vs. Pedro B. Patanao, G.R. No. L-22356, July
21, 1967
i. People vs. Gregorio Balagtas, G.R. No. L-10210, July
29, 1959
j. Philippine International Fair, Inc. vs. Collector, G.R.
Nos. L-12928 and L-12932, March 31, 1962
k. People vs. Ildefonso Tierra, G.R. Nos. L-17177 to
17180, December 28, 1964
l. People vs. Gregorio Balagtas, G.R. No. L-10210, July
29, 1959

PART II

1.LOCAL TAXATION (R.A. 7160)

Section 5, Article X, 1987 Constitution
Local Government Code

a. Section 128 - 196 (LGC)

b. Alejandro Ty v. Hon. Trampe & Municipal Assessor of
Pasig, GR 117577, December 1, 1995
c. Rule XXX, Art. 217 - 287 (Rules and Regulations
Implementando el Código de Gobierno Local
Local Finance Circular 1 - 93 (banks)
e. Local Finance Circular 2-93 (insurance companies)
f. Local Finance Circular 3-93 (finance companies)
g. Memo Circular 92-02, January 16, 1992, issued by the
Department of Interior and Local Government
h. Memo Circular 5-93, October 22, 1993, issued by the
Department of Finance
 No. 156252, June 27, 2006 (validity of Manila Tax)
Ordinance
k. International Container Terminal Services, Inc. v. City
of Manila, CTA A.C. No. 11, May 22, 2006 (Manila
Tax Ordinance Sec. 21(A) - Double Taxation
l. Phil. Match Co., Ltd. v. City of Cebu, 81 SCRA 99
January 18, 1999 (location of payment of local business
tax
m. PLDT v. City of Davao, GR No. 143867, March 25,
2003. (PLDT liable to franchise tax imposed by city)
Palma Development Corp. v. Municipality of Malangas
GR 152492, October 16, 2003
o. PLDT v. Province of Laguna, GR 151899, August 16,
2005
p.Yamane v. BA Lepanto Condo. Corp., SC GR 154993,
October 25, 2005 (the condominium corporation is not
business entity
q. Ericsson Telecoms Inc. v. City of Pasig, GR No.
176667, November 22, 2007
r. Lepanto Consolidated Mining Company v. Hon.
Mauricio B. Ambaloc in his capacity as the Provincial
Treasurer of Benguet, G. R. No. 180639, June 29, 2010
s. Angeles City v. Angeles City Electric Corporation and
Regional Trial Court Branch 57, Angeles City, G.R.
No. 166134, June 29, 2010
Mactan vs. Marcos
u. City Government of San Pablo vs. Reyes, G.R. No. 127708
March 25, 1999
v. Prov. Of Bulacan vs. CA, G.R. No. 126232, Nov. 27,
1998
w. First Phil. Ind. Corp. vs. CTA, G.R. No. 125948, Dec.
29,1998
x. Manila Electric vs. Province of Laguna, G.R. No.
May 5, 1999
y. PBA vs. CA, G.R. No. 119122, Aug. 8, 2000
z.Valley Trading Co. vs. CFI of Isabela
Estanislao vs. Costales
ab. Batangas Power Corp. v. Batangas City, G.R. No.
April 28, 2004
Ac. Petron Corporation v. Tiangco
April 16, 2008
ad. Pelizloy Realty Corp. v. Benguet, G.R. No. 183137,
April 10, 2013
ae. City of Manila v. Coca-Cola Bottlers Phils., Inc, G.R.
No. 181845, August 4, 2009
af. Mobil Phils., Inc. v. Makati, G.R. No. 154092, July 14,
2005
 1994
ai. Jardine Davies Insurance Brokers v. Aliposa, G.R. No.
February 27, 2003

2. REAL PROPERTY TAXATION (R.A. 7160)

Section 197-294 (Local Government Code)
Article 415, Civil Code of the Philippines

• Sec. 197 - 283 Local Government Code

• Definition of Machinery and Equipment
• Sec. 199 Local Government Code
• Sec. 299 Implementing Rules and Regulations
• Sec. 202 Declaration of real property
• Sec. 215 - 216 Classes of real property
• Sec. 218 Assessment levels
• Sec. 226 - 230 Local Board Assessment Appeals Central
Board Assessment Appeals
• Sections 232 - 235 Rates of levy
• Sec. 234 Exemption from real property tax
• Sec. 237 Idle lands
• Sec. 250- 251 Payment of real property taxes and
discounts
• Sec. 252 Protest
• Sec. 255 Interest on unpaid taxes
• Sec. 270 Period to collect real property taxes

CASES:
a. Lung Center of the Philippines v. Quezon City, GR
144104, June 29, 2004 (Exemption based on actual use)
b. Mactan Airport Authority v. Pres. Marcos, GR 120082,
September 11, 1996 (Exemption from real property tax
lifted by RA 7160 (LGC)
c. Manila International Airport Authority v. Court of
Appeals, GR No. 15 5650, July 20, 2006 (Exemption
from RPT of MIAA
d. Quezon City Gov't. v. BayanTel Corp., GR No. 162015
March 6, 2006
e. Sta. Lucia Realty and Development, Inc. v. City of Pasig,
G.R. No. 166838, June 15, 2011
f. Ty vs. Trampe, G.R. No. 117577, Dec. 1, 1995
Callanta vs. Ombudsman
1998
Mactan vs. Marcos
Testate Estate of Concordia Lim vs. City of Manila, G.R.
No. 90639, Feb. 21, 1990
 Meralco vs. CBAA
m. City of Baguio vs. Busuego, G.R. No. L-29772, Sept. 18,
1980
SSS vs. City of Bacolod
o. BOAAvs. Samar Mining, G.R. No. L-28034, Feb. 27,
1971
p. City Treasurer of QC vs. CA, G.R. No. 120974, Dec. 22,
1997
q. NPC vs. Presiding Judge of RTC-Branch 25, CDO, G.R.
No. 72477, Oct. 16, 1990
r. Reyes vs. Almanzor
s. Pecson vs. CA
t. Mathay vs. Sec. of Finance, G.R. No. 102319, Dec. 16,
1993
u. Patalinghug vs. CA
v. Sesbreño vs. CBAA
w. Lopez vs. City of Manila, G.R. No. 127139, Feb. 19,
1993
Cag. Robina vs. CA, G.R. No. 122451, Oct. 12, 2000
y. Light Rail Transit vs. CBAA, G.R. No. 127616, Oct. 12,
2000

3. CUSTOM MODERNIZATION AND TARIFF ACT

R.A. 10863 CASES

CUSTOMS ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEEDINGS

a. R.V.Marzan Freight, Inc. vs. Court of Appeals,
G.R. No. 128064, March 4, 2004
Jurisdiction of the Collector of Customs
Villaflor vs. Court of Appeals
Doctrine of Primary Jurisdiction
c. Bureau of Customs vs. Nelson Ogario, G.R. No.
March 30, 2000
d. De Joya VS. Lantin, G.R. No. 24037, April 27,
1967
e. Air Manila vs. Balatbat, G.R. No. L-29064, April
20, 1971
f. Ortega vs. SSS
Quantum of Evidence in Administrative
Proceedings
g. Feeder International Line vs. Court of Appeals,
197 SCRA 842
Burden of Proof in Forfeiture Proceedings
h. Narciso vs. Court of Tax Appeals, Commissioner
of Customs, G.R. No. L-104627, October 6, 1995
Collector Acts as Tribunal When Setting in
Forfeiture Proceedings
 Judicial Affidavit Rule can be Applied in
Forfeiture Proceedings
Note: Judicial Affidavit Rule
j. Commissioner of Customs vs. Manila Star Ferry,
G.R. No. L-31776 to 78, October 21, 1993
Forfeiture Proceedings are in Nature of
Proceedings in Rem
k. Commissioner of Customs vs. Court of Tax
Appeals, 138 SCRA 581
l. C.F. Sharp & Co. vs. Commissioner of Customs,
22 SCRA 760
m. Transglobe International, Inc. vs. Court of
Appeals, G.R. No. 126634, January 25, 1999
The District Collector may settle a Pending
Case of Seizure with the approval of the
Commissioner of Customs
Redemption of Forfeited Property when not
allowed
n. Daud vs. Collector of Customs of the Port of
Zamboanga City, G.R. No. L-24003, November
28, 1975

2. JUDICIAL PROCEEDINGS
a. Commissioner vs. Planters Products, G.R. No.
March 16, 1989
Decision of the Collector of Customs not
appealable to City; Exception
b. Rufino Lopez & Sons vs. Court of Tax Appeals,
G.R. No. L-9274, February 1, 1951
c. Carbonilla vs. Board of Airlines Representatives,
G.R. No. 193247, September 11, 2011
d. Office of the President, Commissioner of Customs
vs. Board of Airlines Representatives, G.R. No.
September 11, 2011

3. PROSECUTION OF THE CRIMINAL ACTIONS

Remigio vs. Sandiganbayan
January 18, 2002
b. Rodriguez and Tomas Ngo vs. Court of
Appeals, G.R. No. 115218, September 18,
1995
c. Collector of Customs vs. Intermediate Appellate
Court, G.R. L-65418, September 25, 1989

Note: Like the Old Tariff and Customs Code, CMTA does
not provide any prescriptive period, on violations of its
Provision. The applicable Statute of Limitation is Act No.
 1.P.D. No. 857 (PPA)
2. R. A. No. 1731 (Port Fees)
3. Meaning of Demurrage Charges
4. PPAvs. Renato Fuentes, G.R. No. 91259, April 6, 1991
Nature of Port Charges
5. ILLUH ASAALI VS. COC, L-24170 2/28/69
Hot pursuit
6. COC VS. MANILA STARR FERRY, 227 SCRA 317
Smuggling
7. VIDUYAVS. BERDIGO, 73 SCRA 553
Attachment not allowed
BASTIDA VS. COC
9. NATIONAL DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION VS.
COC, 9 SCRA 429
Doctrine of EAR exception
10. CHIA VS. ACTING COC G. R. L - 43810 9/26/1989
Doctrine of Primary Jurisdiction
11. Republic vs. CFI of Manila, 213 SCRA 222
12. FEEDER INTERNATIONAL LINE VS. CA, 197
SCRA 842

4. COURT OF TAX APPEALS (R.A. No. 1125 as amended)

Rep. vs. Lim Tian Teng
CIR vs. Alikpala
3. CIR vs. Ayala
CIR vs. Gonzales
Surigao Electric vs. CTA
6. COC vs. Planters Product, 82018, March 16, 1989
DYPAC vs. CTA
Morales vs. CIR
Tuazon & Legarda Vs. CIR
10. Roman Catholic vs. CIR, L-16683, Jan. 31, 1962
11. CIR vs. Union Shipping, No. 661 60, May 21, 1990
Yabes vs. Flojo
CIR vs. Concepcion
Aguinaldo vs. CIR
CIR vs. Procter
16. CIR vs. Procter, No. 66838, Dec. 2, 1991 Resolution
Plaridel vs. CIR
CIR vs. Wander
AbraValley vs. Aquino
20. COC vs. Cloribel, 19 SCRA 234
21. Pantoja vs. David, 1 SCRA 608
22. Filipinas Investment vs. COMM, 20 SCRA 50
23. Advertising Association vs. CA, G.R. No. 59758, Dec. 26,
1984