METROBANK v. CIR

METROPOLITAN BANK & TRUST COMPANY, Petitioner, vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent.

G.R. No. 182582

April 17, 2017

FACTS:

On June 5, 1997, Solidbank Corporation (Solidbank) entered into an agreement with Luzon Hydro Corporation (LHC), whereby the former extended to the latter a foreign currency denominated loan in the principal amount of US$123,780,000.00 (Agreement). Pursuant to the Agreement, LHC is bound to shoulder all the corresponding internal revenue taxes required by law to be deducted or withheld on the said loan, as well as the filing of tax returns and remittance of the taxes withheld to the Bureau of Internal Revenue (BIR). On September 1, 2000, Metrobank acquired Solidbank, and consequently, assumed the latter's rights and obligations under the aforesaid Agreement.

On March 2, 2001 and October 31, 2001, LHC paid Metro bank the total amounts of US$1,538,122.17 and US$1,333,268.31,  respectively. Pursuant to the Agreement, LHC withheld, and eventually paid to the BIR, the ten percent (10%) final tax on the interest portions of the aforesaid payments, on the same months that the respective payments were made to petitioner. In sum, LHC remitted a total ofUS$106,178.69, or its Philippine Peso equivalent of ₱5,296,773.05, as evidenced by LHC's Schedules of Final Tax and Monthly Remittance Returns for the said months.

According to Metrobank, it mistakenly remitted the aforesaid amounts to the BIR as well when they were inadvertently included in its own Monthly Remittance Returns of Final Income Taxes Withheld for the months of March 2001 and October 2001. Thus, on December 27, 2002, it filed a letter to the BIR requesting for the refund thereof. Thereafter and in view of respondent the Commissioner of Internal Revenue's (CIR) inaction, Metrobank filed its judicial claim for refund via a petition for review filed before the CTA on September 10, 2003.

In defense, the CIR averred that: Metro bank must prove that there was double payment of the tax sought to be refunded.

The CTA Division also denied Metrobank's claim for refund relative to the October 2001 tax payment for insufficiency of evidence.

The CTA En Banc affirmed the CTA Division's ruling. It held that since Metrobank's March 2001 final tax is in the nature of a final withholding tax, the two (2)-year prescriptive period was correctly reckoned by the CTA Division from the time the same was paid on April 25, 2001. As such, Metro bank's claim for refund had already prescribed as it only filed its judicial claim on September 10, 2003.

ISSUE:

Whether or not the CTA En Banc correctly held that Metrobank's claim for refund relative to its March 2001 final tax had already prescribed.

RULINGS:

In this relation, Section 229 of the same Code provides for the proper procedure in order to claim for such refunds, to wit:

Section 229. Recovery of Tax Erroneously or Illegally Collected. - No suit or proceeding shall be maintained in any court for the recovery of any national internal revenue tax hereafter alleged to have been erroneously or illegally assessed or collected, or of any penalty claimed to have been collected without authority, or of any sum alleged to have been excessively or in any manner wrongfully collected, until a claim for refund or credit has been duly filed with the Commissioner; but such suit or proceeding may be maintained, whether or not such tax, penalty, or sum has been paid under protest or duress.

No such suit or proceeding shall be filed after the expiration of two (2) years from the date of payment of the tax or penalty regardless of any supervening cause that may arise after payment.

Metrobank insists that the filing of its administrative and judicial claims on December 27, 2002 and September 10, 2003, respectively, were well-within the two (2)-year prescriptive period.

WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED. The Decision of the Court of Tax Appeals En Banc in C.T.A. EB No. 340 is hereby AFFIRMED.