Silkair (Singapore) Pte. Ltd., v.

Commissioner of Internal Revenue

G.R. No.1!"#, $e%ruar& '(, ')1)
Leonardo * +e Castro, ,
FACTS: Silkair, a foreign -orporation organi.ed under t/e la0s of Singapore is an online
international -arrier pl&ing t/e Singapore*Ce%u*Singapore and Singapore*Ce%u*+avao*
Singapore routes. Silkair filed 0it/ t/e 1IR an administrative -laim for t/e refund of 2/ree
3illion Nine 4undred 5ig/t&*2/ree 2/ousand $ive 4undred Ninet& Pesos and $ort&*Nine
Centavos (P",#",(#).!#) in e6-ise ta6es 0/i-/ it allegedl& erroneousl& paid on its pur-/ases of
aviation 7et fuel from Petron Corporation from ,une to +e-em%er '))). Sin-e t/e 1IR took no
a-tion on petitioner8s -laim for refund, petitioner soug/t 7udi-ial re-ourse. C29 $irst +ivision
ruled t/at Silkair 0as :ualified for ta6 e6emption under t/e provisions of Se-tion 1"( of t/e
National Internal Revenue Code and 9rt. ! of t/e 9ir 2ransport 9greement %et0een t/e
P/ilippines and Singapore %ut not entitled t/ereto for failure to present proof t/at it 0as
aut/ori.ed to operate in t/e P/ilippines during t/e period material to t/e -ase due to non*
admission of some of its e6/i%its 0/i-/ 0ere merel& p/oto-opies. 2/e said e6/i%its 0ere
Silkair8s Certifi-ate of Registration from t/e S5C and operating permit from t/e Civil
9eronauti-s 1oard (C91). C29 En Banc denied t/e petition for revie0 on t/e ground, among
ot/ers, of failure to prove t/at it 0as aut/ori.ed to operate in t/e P/ilippines for t/e period ,une
to +e-em%er '))) and furt/er ruled t/at Silkair 0as not t/e proper part& to file t/e instant -laim
for refund.
ISSUE: ;/et/er Silkair /as su%stantiall& proven its aut/orit& to operate in t/e P/ilippines
<%& invoking t/e prin-iple of 7udi-ial noti-e=.
RULING: No. 2/e C29 -annot take 7udi-ial noti-e of Silkair8s S5C Registration, previousl&
offered and admitted in eviden-e in similar -ases %efore t/e C29. 9 -ourt is not -ompelled to
take 7udi-ial noti-e of pie-es of eviden-e offered and admitted in a previous -ase unless t/e same
are properl& offered or /ave a--ordingl& -omplied 0it/ t/e re:uirements on t/e rules of
eviden-e. In ot/er 0ords, the evidence presented in the previous cases cannot be considered
in the instant case without being oered in evidence! 2/e do-uments are not among t/e
matters 0/i-/ t/e la0 mandatoril& re:uires t/e -ourt to take 7udi-ial noti-e of, 0it/out an&
introdu-tion of eviden-e.
Neit/er -ould it %e said t/at petitioner8s S5C Registration and operating permits from t/e
C91 are do-uments 0/i-/ are of pu%li- kno0ledge, -apa%le of un:uestiona%le demonstration, or
oug/t to %e kno0n to t/e 7udges %e-ause of t/eir 7udi-ial fun-tions, in order to allo0 t/e C29 to
take dis-retionar& 7udi-ial noti-e of t/e said do-uments. 3oreover, a /earing is ne-essar& %efore
7udi-ial noti-e of an& matter ma& %e taken %& t/e -ourt. 2/is re:uirement of a /earing is needed
so t/at t/e parties -an %e /eard t/ereon if su-/ matter is de-isive of a material issue in t/e -ase.
Silkair -annot rel& on t/e prin-iple of 7udi-ial