TodayisMonday,August01,2016

RepublicofthePhilippines
SUPREMECOURT
Manila
SECONDDIVISION
G.R.No.181858November24,2010
KEPCOPHILIPPINESCORPORATION,Petitioner,
vs.
COMMISSIONEROFINTERNALREVENUE,Respondent.
DECISION
MENDOZA,J.:
Thisisapetitionforreviewoncertiorari1underRule45oftheRulesofCourtseekingreversaloftheFebruary20,
2008Decision2oftheCourtofTaxAppealsEnBanc (CTA) in C.T.A. EB No. 299, which ruled that "in order for
petitioner to be entitled to its claim for refund/issuance of tax credit certificate representing unutilized input VAT
attributable to its zerorated sales for taxable year 2002, it must comply with the substantiation requirements
undertheappropriateRevenueRegulations."
Petitioner KEPCO Philippines Corporation (Kepco) is a VATregistered independent power producer engaged in
thebusinessofgeneratingelectricity.ItexclusivelysellselectricitytoNationalPowerCorporation(NPC),anentity
exemptfromtaxesunderSection13ofRepublicActNo.6395(RANo.6395).3
RecordsshowthatonDecember4,2001,KepcofiledanapplicationforzeroratedsaleswiththeRevenueDistrict
Office (RDO) No. 54 of the Bureau of Internal Revenue (BIR). Kepcos application was approved under VAT
Ruling6401.Accordingly,fortaxableyear2002,itfiledfourQuarterlyVATReturnsdeclaringzeroratedsalesin
theaggregateamountofP3,285,308,055.85itemizedasfollows:
Exhibit QuarterInvolved

ZeroRatedSales

1stQuarter

P651,672,672.47

2ndQuarter

725,104,468.99

3rdQuarter

952,053,527.29

4thQuarter

956,477,387.10

Total

P3,285,308,055.854

InthecourseofdoingbusinesswithNPC,Kepcoclaimedexpensesreportedlysustainedinconnectionwiththe
production and sale of electricity with NPC. Based on Kepcos calculation, it paid input VAT amounting to
P11,710,868.86attributingthesametoitszeroratedsalesofelectricitywithNPC.Thetableshowsthepurchases
andcorrespondinginputVATitpaid.
Exhibit QuarterInvolved

Purchases

InputVAT

1stQuarter

P6,063,184.90

P606,318.49

2ndQuarter

18,410,193.20

1,841,019.32

3rdQuarter

16,811,819.21

1,681,181.93

4thQuarter

75,823,491.20

7,582,349.12

P117,108,688.51 P11,710,868.865

Thus, on April 20, 2004, Kepco filed before the Commissioner of Internal Revenue (CIR) a claim for tax refund
covering unutilized input VAT payments attributable to its zerorated sales transactions for taxable year 2002.6
Twodayslater,onApril22,2004,itfiledapetitionforreviewbeforetheCTA.ThecasewasdocketedasC.T.A.
CaseNo.6965.7
InitsAnswer,8 respondent CIR averred that claims for refund were strictly construed against the taxpayer as it
was similar to a tax exemption. It asserted that the burden to show that the taxes were erroneous or illegal lay
uponthetaxpayer.Thus,failureonthepartofKepcotoprovethesamewasfataltoitscauseofactionbecauseit
wasitsdutytoprovethelegalbasisoftheamountbeingclaimedasataxrefund.
During the hearing, Kepco presented courtcommissioned Independent Certified Public Accountant, Victor O.
Machacon,whoauditedtheirbulkydocumentaryevidenceconsistingofofficialreceipts,invoicesandvouchers,to
proveitsclaimforrefundofunutilizedinputVAT.9
On February 26, 2007, the CTA Second Division ruled that out of the total declared zerorated sales of
P3,285,308,055.85,KepcowasonlyabletoproperlysubstantiateP1,451,788,865.52asitszeroratedsales.After
factoring, only 44.19% of the validly supported input VAT payments being claimed could be considered.10 The
CTADivisionusedthefollowingcomputationindeterminingKepcostotalallowableinputVAT:
SubstantiatedzeroratedsalestoNPC

P1,451,788,865.52

Dividedbythetotaldeclaredzeroratedsales

3,285,308,055.85
44.19%11

Rateofsubstantiatedzeroratedsales

TotalInputVATClaimed

Less:Disallowance

(a)PerverificationoftheindependentCPA

P125,556.40

(b)PerCourtsverification
ValidlySupportedInputVAT

5,045,357.80

P11,710,868.86

5,170,914.20

P6,539,954.66

MultiplybyRateofSubstantiatedZeroRatedSales

44.19%

TotalAllowedInputVAT

P2,890,005.9612

TheCTASecondDivisionlikewisedisallowedtheP5,170,914.20ofKepcosclaimedinputVATduetoitsfailureto
complywiththesubstantiationrequirement.Specifically,theCTASecondDivisionwrote:
[i]nput VAT on purchases supported by invoices or official receipts stamped with TINVAT shall be disallowed
because these purchases are not supported by "VAT Invoices" under the contemplation of the aforequoted
invoicingrequirement.Tobeconsidereda"VATInvoice,"theTINVATmustbeprinted,andnotmerelystamped.
Consequently,purchasessupportedbyinvoicesorofficialreceipts,whereintheTINVATarenotprintedthereon,
shall not give rise to any input VAT. Likewise, input VAT on purchases supported by invoices or official receipts
which are not NONVAT are disallowed because these invoices or official receipts are not considered as "VAT
Invoices."Hence,theclaimsforinputVATonpurchasesreferredtoinitem(e)areproperlydisallowed.13
Accordingly,theCTASecondDivisionpartiallygrantedKepcosclaimforrefundofunutilizedinputVATfortaxable
year2002.Thedispositiveportionofthedecision14oftheCTASecondDivisionreads:
WHEREFORE, petitioners claim for refund is hereby PARTIALLY GRANTED. Accordingly, respondent is
ORDEREDtoREFUNDpetitionerthereducedamountofTWOMILLIONEIGHTHUNDREDNINETYTHOUSAND
FIVEPESOSAND96/100(P2,890,005.96)representingunutilizedinputvalueaddedtaxfortaxableyear2002.
SOORDERED.15
Kepcomovedforpartialreconsideration,buttheCTASecondDivisiondenieditinitsJune28,2007Resolution.16
On appeal to the CTA En Banc,17 Kepco argued that the CTA Second Division erred in not considering
P8,691,873.81 in addition to P2,890,005.96 as refundable tax credit for Kepcos zerorated sales to NPC for

taxableyear2002.
OnFebruary20,2008,theCTAEnBancdismissedthepetition18andruledthat"inorderforKepcotobeentitled
to its claim for refund/issuance of tax credit certificate representing unutilized input VAT attributable to its zero
rated sales for taxable year 2002, it must comply with the substantiation requirements under the appropriate
RevenueRegulations,i.e.RevenueRegulations795."19Thus,itconcludedthat"theCourtinDivisionwascorrect
indisallowingaportionofKepcosclaimforrefundonthegroundthatinputtaxesonKepcospurchaseofgoods
andserviceswerenotsupportedbyinvoicesandreceiptsprintedwith"TINVAT."20
CTA Presiding Justice Ernesto Acosta concurred with the majority in finding that Kepcos claim could not be
allowedforlackofpropersubstantiationbutexpressedhisdissentonthedenialofcertainclaims,21towit:
[I] dissent with regard to the denial of the amount P4,720,725.63 for nothing in the law allows the automatic
invalidation of official receipts/invoices which were not imprinted with "TINVAT" and further reduction of
petitioners claim representing input VAT on purchase of goods not supported by invoices in the amount of
P64,509.50 and input VAT on purchase of services not supported by official receipts in the amount of
P256,689.98, because the law makes use of invoices and official receipts interchangeably. Both can validly
substantiatepetitionersclaim.22
Hence,thispetitionallegingthefollowingerrors:
ASSIGNMENTOFERRORS
I.
THECOURTOFTAXAPPEALSENBANCGRAVELYABUSEDITSDISCRETIONAMOUNTINGTO
LACK OR EXCESS OF JURISDICTION WHEN IT HELD THAT NONCOMPLIANCE WITH THE
INVOICINGREQUIREMENTSHALLRESULTINTHEAUTOMATICDENIALOFTHECLAIM.
II.
THECOURTOFTAXAPPEALSENBANCGRAVELYABUSEDITSDISCRETIONAMOUNTINGTO
LACK OF EXCESS OF JURISDICTION WHEN IT DISALLOWED PETITIONERS CLAIM ON THE
GROUNDTHATTINVATISNOTIMPRINTEDONTHEINVOICESANDOFFICIALRECEIPTS.
III.
THECOURTOFTAXAPPEALSENBANCGRAVELYABUSEDITSDISCRETIONWHENITMADE
ADISTINCTIONBETWEENINVOICESANDOFFICIALRECEIPTSASSUPPORTINGDOCUMENTS
TOCLAIMFORANINPUTVATREFUND.23
Attheoutset,theCourthasnoticedthatalthoughthispetitionisdenominatedasPetitionforReviewonCertiorari
underRule45oftheRulesofCourt,Kepco,initsassignmentoferrors,impugnsagainsttheCTAEnBancgrave
abuseofdiscretionamountingtolackorexcessofjurisdiction,whicharegroundsinapetitionforcertiorariunder
Rule 65 of the Rules of Court. Time and again, the Court has emphasized that there is a whale of difference
between a Rule 45 petition (Petition for Review on Certiorari) and a Rule 65 petition (Petition for Certiorari.) A
Rule65petitionisanoriginalactionthatdwellsonjurisdictionalerrorsofwhetheralowercourtactedwithoutorin
excessofitsjurisdictionorwithgraveabuseofdiscretion.24ARule45petition,ontheotherhand,isamodeof
appealwhichcentersonthereviewonthemeritsofajudgment,finalorderorawardrenderedbyalowercourt
involvingpurelyquestionsoflaw.25Thus,imputingjurisdictionalerrorsagainsttheCTAisnotproperinthisRule
45 petition. Kepco failed to follow the correct procedure. On this point alone, the Court can deny the subject
petitionoutright.
Atanyrate,eveniftheCourtwoulddisregardthisproceduralflaw,thepetitionwouldstillfail.
Kepcoarguesthatthe1997NationalInternalRevenueCode(NIRC)doesnotrequiretheimprintingoftheword
zeroratedoninvoicesand/orofficialreceiptscoveringzeroratedsales.26ItclaimsthatSection113inrelationto
Section 237 of the 1997 NIRC "does not mention the requirement of imprinting the words zerorated to
purchasescoveringzeroratedtransactions."27OnlySection4.1081ofRevenueRegulationNo.795(RRNo.7
95) "required the imprinting of the word zerorated on the VAT invoice or receipt."28 "Thus, Section 4.1081 of
RRNo.795cannotbeconsideredasavalidlegislationconsideringthelongsettledrulethatadministrativerules
andregulationscannotexpandtheletterandspiritofthelawtheyseektoenforce."29
TheCourtdoesnotagree.

Theissueofwhethertheword"zerorated"shouldbeimprintedoninvoicesand/orofficialreceiptsaspartofthe
invoicing requirement has been settled in the case of Panasonic Communications Imaging Corporation of the
Philippines vs. Commissioner of Internal Revenue30and restated in the later case of J.R.A. Philippines, Inc. v.
Commissioner.31 In the first case, Panasonic Communications Imaging Corporation (Panasonic), a VAT
registered entity, was engaged in the production and exportation of plain paper copiers and their parts and
accessories. From April 1998 to March 31, 1999, Panasonic generated export sales amounting to
US$12,819,475.15 and US$11,859,489.78 totaling US$24,678,964.93. Thus, it paid input VAT of P9,368,482.40
thatitattributedtoitszeroratedsales.Itfiledapplicationsforrefundortaxcreditonwhatithadpaid.TheCTA
denieditsapplication.Panasonicsexportsalesweresubjectto0%VATunderSection106(A)(2)(a)(1)ofthe1997
NIRC but it did not qualify for zerorating because the word "zerorated" was not printed on Panasonics export
invoices.Thisomission,accordingtotheCTA,violatedtheinvoicingrequirementsofSection4.1081ofRRNo.7
95. Panasonic argued, however, that "in requiring the printing on its sales invoices of the word zerorated, the
SecretaryofFinanceundulyexpanded,amended,andmodifiedbyamereregulation(Section4.1081ofRRNo.
795)theletterandspiritofSections113and237ofthe1997NIRC,priortotheiramendmentbyR.A.9337."32
PanasonicstressedthatSections113and237didnotnecessitatetheimprintingoftheword"zerorated"forits
zerorated sales receipts or invoices. The BIR integrated this requirement only after the enactment of R.A. No.
9337 on November 1, 2005, a law that was still inexistent at the time of the transactions. Denying Panasonics
claimforrefund,theCourtstated:
Section4.1081ofRR795proceedsfromtherulemakingauthoritygrantedtotheSecretaryofFinanceunder
Section 245 of the 1977 NIRC (Presidential Decree 1158) for the efficient enforcement of the tax code and of
courseitsamendments.TherequirementisreasonableandisinaccordwiththeefficientcollectionofVATfrom
the covered sales of goods and services. As aptly explained by the CTAs First Division, the appearance of the
word "zerorated" on the face of invoices covering zerorated sales prevents buyers from falsely claiming input
VATfromtheirpurchaseswhennoVATwasactuallypaid.If,absentsuchword,asuccessfulclaimforinputVATis
made,thegovernmentwouldberefundingmoneyitdidnotcollect.
1 a v v p h i1

Further,theprintingoftheword"zerorated"ontheinvoicehelpssegregatesalesthataresubjectto10%(now
12%) VAT from those sales that are zerorated. Unable to submit the proper invoices, petitioner Panasonic has
beenunabletosubstantiateitsclaimforrefund.33
Following said ruling, Section 4.1081 of RR 79534 neither expanded nor supplanted the tax code but merely
supplementedwhatthetaxcodealreadydefinedanddiscussed.Infact,thenecessityofindicating"zerorated"
into VAT invoices/receipts became more apparent when the provisions of this revenue regulation was later
integratedintoRANo.9337,35theamendatorylawofthe1997NIRC.Section113,inrelationtoSection237of
the1997NIRC,asamendedbyRANo.9337,nowreads:
SEC.113.InvoicingandAccountingRequirementsforVATRegisteredPersons.
(A)InvoicingRequirements.AVATregisteredpersonshallissue:
(1)AVATinvoiceforeverysale,barterorexchangeofgoodsorpropertiesand
(2) A VAT official receipt for every lease of goods or properties, and for every sale, barter or
exchangeofservices.
(B)Information Contained in the VAT Invoice or VAT Official Receipt. The following information shall be
indicatedintheVATinvoiceorVATofficialreceipt:
(1) A statement that the seller is a VATregistered person, followed by his taxpayer's identification
number(TIN)
(2)Thetotalamountwhichthepurchaserpaysorisobligatedtopaytothesellerwiththeindication
thatsuchamountincludesthevalueaddedtax:Provided,That:
(a)Theamountofthetaxshallbeshownasaseparateitemintheinvoiceorreceipt
(b)Ifthesaleisexemptfromvalueaddedtax,theterm"VATexemptsale"shallbewrittenor
printedprominentlyontheinvoiceorreceipt
(c)Ifthesaleissubjecttozeropercent(0%)valueaddedtax,theterm"zeroratedsale"shall
bewrittenorprintedprominentlyontheinvoiceorreceipt
(d)Ifthesaleinvolvesgoods,propertiesorservicessomeofwhicharesubjecttoandsomeof
which are VAT zerorated or VATexempt, the invoice or receipt shall clearly indicate the
breakdownofthesalepricebetweenitstaxable,exemptandzeroratedcomponents,andthe

calculationofthevalueaddedtaxoneachportionofthesaleshallbeshownontheinvoiceor
receipt: Provided, That the seller may issue separate invoices or receipts for the taxable,
exempt,andzeroratedcomponentsofthesale.
(3)Thedateoftransaction,quantity,unitcostanddescriptionofthegoodsorpropertiesornatureof
theserviceand
(4) In the case of sales in the amount of one thousand pesos (P1,000) or more where the sale or
transferismadetoaVATregisteredperson,thename,businessstyle,ifany,addressandtaxpayer
identificationnumber(TIN)ofthepurchaser,customerorclient.
(C)AccountingRequirements. Notwithstanding the provisions of Section 233, all persons subject to the
valueaddedtaxunderSections106and108shall,inadditiontotheregularaccountingrecordsrequired,
maintainasubsidiarysalesjournalandsubsidiarypurchasejournalonwhichthedailysalesandpurchases
arerecorded.ThesubsidiaryjournalsshallcontainsuchinformationasmayberequiredbytheSecretaryof
Finance.
xxxx
SEC.237.IssuanceofReceiptsorSalesorCommercialInvoices.Allpersonssubjecttoaninternalrevenuetax
shall,foreachsaleandtransferofmerchandiseorforservicesrenderedvaluedatTwentyfivepesos(P25.00)or
more, issue duly registered receipts or sale or commercial invoices, prepared at least in duplicate, showing the
date of transaction, quantity, unit cost and description of merchandise or nature of service: Provided, however,
Thatwherethereceiptisissuedtocoverpaymentmadeasrentals,commissions,compensationorfees,receipts
or invoices shall be issued which shall show the name, business style, if any, and address of the purchaser,
customerorclient.
The original of each receipt or invoice shall be issued to the purchaser, customer or client at the time the
transactioniseffected,who,ifengagedinbusinessorintheexerciseofprofession,shallkeepandpreservethe
same in his place of business for a period of three (3) years from the close of the taxable year in which such
invoiceorreceiptwasissued,whiletheduplicateshallbekeptandpreservedbytheissuer,alsoinhisplaceof
business,foralikeperiod.
The Commissioner may, in meritorious cases, exempt any person subject to an internal revenue tax from
compliancewiththeprovisionsofthisSection.[Emphasessupplied]
Evidently,asitfailedtoindicateinitsVATinvoicesandreceiptsthatthetransactionswerezerorated,Kepcofailed
tocomplywiththecorrectsubstantiationrequirementforzeroratedtransactions.
Kepcothenarguesthatnoncomplianceofinvoicingrequirementsshouldnotresultinthedenialofthetaxpayers
refund claim. Citing Atlas Consolidated Mining & Development Corporation vs. Commissioner of Internal
Revenue,36 it claims that a party who fails to issue VAT official receipts/invoices for its sales should only be
imposedpenaltiesasprovidedunderSection264ofthe1997NIRC.37
The Court has read the Atlas decision, and has not come across any categorical ruling that refund should be
allowed for those who had not complied with the substantiation requirements. It merely recited "Section 263"
which provided for penalties in case of "Failure or refusal to Issue Receipts or Sales or Commercial Invoices,
ViolationsrelatedtothePrintingofsuchReceiptsorInvoicesandOtherViolations."Itdoesnotcategoricallysay
thattheclaimantshouldberefunded.Atanyrate,Section264(formerlySection263)38ofthe1997NIRCwasnot
intendedtoexcusethecomplianceofthesubstantiveinvoicingrequirementneededtojustifyaclaimforrefundon
inputVATpayments.
Furthermore, Kepco insists that Section 4.108.1 of Revenue Regulation 0795 does not require the word "TIN
VAT"tobeimprintedonaVATregisteredpersonssupportinginvoicesandofficialreceipts39andsothereisno
reasonforthedenialofitsP4,720,725.63claimofinputtax.40
In this regard, Internal Revenue Regulation 795 (Consolidated ValueAdded Tax Regulations) is clear. Section
4.1081thereofreads:
OnlyVATregisteredpersonsarerequiredtoprinttheirTINfollowedbytheword"VAT"intheirinvoiceorreceipts
andthisshallbeconsideredasa"VAT"Invoice.AllpurchasescoveredbyinvoicesotherthanVATInvoiceshall
notgiverisetoanyinputtax.
ContrarytoKepcosallegation,theregulationspecificallyrequirestheVATregisteredpersontoimprintTINVAT
onitsinvoicesorreceipts.Thus,theCourtagreeswiththeCTAwhenitwrote:"[T]obeconsideredaVATinvoice,
theTINVATmustbeprinted,andnotmerelystamped.Consequently,purchasessupportedbyinvoicesorofficial
receipts,whereintheTINVATisnotprintedthereon,shallnotgiverisetoanyinputVAT.Likewise,inputVATon

purchasessupportedbyinvoicesorofficialreceiptswhichareNONVATaredisallowedbecausetheseinvoicesor
officialreceiptsarenotconsideredasVATInvoices."41
Kepco further argues that under Section 113(A) of the 1997 NIRC, invoices and official receipts are used
interchangeablyforpurposesofsubstantiatinginputVAT.42Hence,itclaimsthattheCTAshouldhaveaccepted
itssubstantiationofinputVATon(1)P64,509.50onpurchasesofgoodswithofficialreceiptsand(2)P256,689.98
onpurchasesofserviceswithinvoices.43
TheCourtisnotpersuaded.
Underthelaw,aVATinvoiceisnecessaryforeverysale,barterorexchangeofgoodsorpropertieswhileaVAT
officialreceiptproperlypertainstoeveryleaseofgoodsorproperties,andforeverysale,barterorexchangeof
services.44 In Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Manila Mining Corporation,45 the Court distinguished an
invoicefromareceipt,thus:
A "sales or commercial invoice" is a written account of goods sold or services rendered indicating the prices
charged therefor or a list by whatever name it is known which is used in the ordinary course of business
evidencingsaleandtransferoragreementtosellortransfergoodsandservices.
A "receipt" on the other hand is a written acknowledgment of the fact of payment in money or other settlement
betweensellerandbuyerofgoods,debtororcreditor,orpersonrenderingservicesandclientorcustomer.
Inotherwords,theVATinvoiceisthesellersbestproofofthesaleofthegoodsorservicestothebuyerwhilethe
VAT receipt is the buyers best evidence of the payment of goods or services received from the seller. Even
thoughVATinvoicesandreceiptsarenormallyissuedbythesupplier/selleralone,thesaidinvoicesandreceipts,
takencollectively,arenecessarytosubstantiatetheactualamountorquantityofgoodssoldandtheirsellingprice
(proofoftransaction), and the best means to prove the input VAT payments (proof of payment).46 Hence, VAT
invoiceandVATreceiptshouldnotbeconfusedasreferringtooneandthesamething.Certainly,neitherdoes
thelawintendthetwotobeusedalternatively.
Although it is true that the CTA is not strictly governed by technical rules of evidence,47 the invoicing and
substantiationrequirementsmust,nevertheless,befollowedbecauseitistheonlywaytodeterminetheveracity
of Kepcos claims. Verily, the CTA En Banc correctly disallowed the input VAT that did not meet the required
standardofsubstantiation.
TheCTAisdevotedexclusivelytotheresolutionoftaxrelatedissuesandhasunmistakablyacquiredanexpertise
on the subject matter. In the absence of abuse or reckless exercise of authority,48 the CTA En Bancs decision
shouldbeupheld.
The Court has always decreed that tax refunds are in the nature of tax exemptions which represent a loss of
revenue to the government. These exemptions, therefore, must not rest on vague, uncertain or indefinite
inference,butshouldbegrantedonlybyaclearandunequivocalprovisionoflawonthebasisoflanguagetoo
plaintobemistaken.Suchexemptionsmustbestrictlyconstruedagainstthetaxpayer,astaxesarethelifeblood
ofthegovernment.49
WHEREFORE,thepetitionisDENIED.
SOORDERED.
JOSECATRALMENDOZA
AssociateJustice
WECONCUR:
ANTONIOT.CARPIO
AssociateJustice
Chairperson
ANTONIOEDUARDOB.NACHURA
AssociateJustice
ROBERTOA.ABAD
AssociateJustice
ATTESTATION

DIOSDADOM.PERALTA
AssociateJustice

I attest that the conclusions in the above Decision had been reached in consultation before the case was
assignedtothewriteroftheopinionoftheCourtsDivision.
ANTONIOT.CARPIO
AssociateJustice
Chairperson,SecondDivision
CERTIFICATION
PursuanttoSection13,ArticleVIIIoftheConstitutionandtheDivisionChairpersonsAttestation,Icertifythatthe
conclusionsintheaboveDecisionhadbeenreachedinconsultationbeforethecasewasassignedtothewriterof
theopinionoftheCourtsDivision.
RENATOC.CORONA
ChiefJustice

Footnotes
1Rollo,pp.1699.
2 Id. at 100129. Penned by Associate Justice Lovell R. Bautista with Associate Justices Juanito C.

Castaeda, Jr., Erlinda P. Uy, Caesar A. Casanova and Olga PalancaEnriquez concurring, and Presiding
JusticeErnestoD.Acosta,concurringanddissenting.
3AnActRevisingtheCharteroftheNationalPowerCorporation.
4Rollo,p.101.
5Id.at102.
6Records,pp.1721.
7Id.at110.
8Id.at3738.
9Id.at91.
10Rollo,pp.284285.
11Id.at285.
12Id.at295296.
13Id.at295.
14Id.at276298.
15Id.at296297.
16Id.at155157.
17Records,VolumeII,pp.1030.
18Rollo,pp.100120.
19Id.at110.
20Id.at119.
21Id.at122129.
22Id.at129.

23Id.at26.
24RulesofCourt,Rule65,Section1.
25DeCastrov.Fernandez,Jr.,G.R.No.155041,February14,2007,515SCRA682,686.
26Rollo,p.28.
27Id.
28Id.at29.
29Id.at31.
30G.R.No.178090,February8,2010,612SCRA28.
31G.R.No.177127,October11,2010.
32 Panasonic Communications Imaging Corporation of the Philippines v. Commissioner of Internal

Revenue,G.R.No.178090,February8,2010,612SCRA28,3637.
33Id.at3637.
34Section4.108.1.InvoicingRequirements.

All VAT registered persons shall for every sale or lease of goods or properties or services,
issuedulyregisteredreceiptsorsalesorcommercialinvoiceswhichmustshow:
1.thename,TINandaddressofseller
2.dateoftransaction
3.quantity,unitcostanddescriptionofmerchandiseornatureofservices
4.thename,TIN,businessstyle,ifany,andaddressofservice
5.thewordzeroratedimprintedontheinvoicecoveringzeroratedsalesand
6.theinvoicevalueorconsideration.
Xxx
OnlyVATregisteredpersonsarerequiredtoprinttheirTINfollowedbythewordVATintheir
invoiceorreceiptsandthisshallbeconsideredasa"VATInvoice."Allpurchasescoveredby
invoicesotherthanVATInvoiceshallnotgiverisetoanyinputtax.
Ifthetaxablepersonisalsoengagedinexemptoperations,heshouldissueseparateinvoices
or receipts for the taxable and exempt operations. A "VAT Invoice" shall be issued only for
salesofgoods,propertiesorservicessubjecttoVATimposedinSections100and102ofthe
Code.
The invoice or receipt shall be prepared at least in duplicate, the original to be given to the
buyerandtheduplicatetoberetainedbytheselleraspartofhisaccountingrecords.
35AnActAmendingSections27,28,34,106,107,108,109,110,111,112,113,114,116,117,119,121,

148, 151, 236, 237 and 288 of the National Internal Revenue Code of 1997, as amended, and for other
purposes.
36376Phil.495(1999).
37Rollo,p.58.
38Paragraph(b)(4)hasbeendeleted.
39Rollo,p.71.

40Id.
41Id.at295.
42Id.at85.
43Id.at89.
44Section113,1997NationalInternalRevenueCode,asamended.
45505Phil.650,665(2005),citingDeoferioandMamalateo,TheValueAddedTaxinthePhilippines,279

(1sted.,2000).
46CommissionerofInternalRevenuev.ManilaMiningCorporation,505Phil.650,666(2005).
47Section8,R.A.No.1125entitled"AnActCreatingtheCourtofTaxAppeals,"asamended.
48KEPCOPhilippinesCorporationv.CommissionerofInternalRevenue,G.R.No.179356,December14,

2009, 608 SCRA 207, 214 citing Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Cebu Toyo Corporation, 491 Phil.
625,640(2005).
49Silkair(Singapore)Pte.Ltd.v.CommissionerofInternalRevenue,G.R.No.184398,February25,2010.
TheLawphilProjectArellanoLawFoundation