PHILEX MINING REVENUE, respondent.

CARPIO, J p:

[G.R. No. 196113. October 8, 2013.] CORPORATION, petitioner, vs.

COMMISSIONER

[G.R. No. 197156. October 8, 2013.] CORPORATION, petitioner, vs.

COMMISSIONER

RESOLUTION

Under Section 246, taxpayers may rely upon a rule or ruling issued by the
Commissioner from the time the rule or ruling is issued up to its reversal by the
Commissioner or this Court. The reversal is not given retroactive effect. This, in
essence, is the doctrine of operative fact. There must, however, be a rule or
ruling issued by the Commissioner that is relied upon by the taxpayer in
good faith. A mere administrative practice, not formalized into a rule or
ruling, will not suffice because such a mere administrative practice may not
be uniformly and consistently applied. An administrative practice, if not
formalized as a rule or ruling, will not be known to the general public and
can be availed of only by those with informal contacts with the government
agency.

Since the law has already prescribed in Section 246 of the Tax Code how the
doctrine of operative fact should be applied, there can be no invocation of the
doctrine of operative fact other than what the law has specifically provided in
Section 246. In the present case, the rule or ruling subject of the operative fact
doctrine is BIR Ruling No. DA-489-03 dated 10 December 2003. Prior to this
date, there is no such rule or ruling calling for the application of the operative fact
doctrine in Section 246. Section 246, being an exemption to statutory taxation,
must be applied strictly against the taxpayer claiming such exemption. IDSaTE

COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, petitioner, vs. TeaM

(PHILIPPINES) OPERATIONS CORPORATION [Formerly MIRANT
(PHILIPPINES) OPERATIONS CORPORATION], respondent.

VILLARAMA, JR., J p:

Thus, we are in accord with the findings of the CTA First Division and the CTA
En Banc that respondent complied with the substantiation requirements for
refund of creditable withholding tax. Here, respondent was able to establish the
fact of withholding by submitting a copy of the withholding tax certificates duly
issued by MPagC and MSC, as the withholding agent, indicating the name of the
payor and showing the income payment basis of the tax withheld and the amount
of the tax withheld. Contrary to petitioner's assertion, it is not necessary for the
person who executed and prepared the Certificates of Creditable Tax Withheld at
Source to be presented and to testify personally as to the authenticity of the
certificates. The copies of the Certificates of Creditable Tax Withheld at Source
when found by the duly commissioned ICPA to be faithful reproductions of the
original copies would suffice to establish the fact of withholding. This was our
ruling in the case of Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Mirant (Philippines)
Operations, Corporation, 17 where this Court had agreed with the conclusion of
the CTA En Banc stating that: ISTHED

Contrary to petitioner CIR's contention, the fact of withholding was likewise

established through respondent's presentation of the Certificates of
Creditable Tax Withheld at Source, duly issued to it by Southern Energy
Pangasinan, Inc. and Southern Energy Quezon, Inc., for the year 2000 . . . .
These certificates were found by the duly commissioned independent CPA
to be faithful reproductions of the original copies, as per his
Supplementary Report dated March 24, 2003 . . . . (Emphasis supplied.)