ROHM APOLLO SEMICONDUCTOR of Internal Revenue (CIR) had a

PHILIPPINES, Petitioner VS. period of 120 days from the filing of

COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL
REVENUE, Respondent (G.R. No.
the application for a refund or credit
168950, January 14, 2015) on 11 December 2000, or until 10
April 2001, to act on the claim. The
FACTS: waiting period, however, lapsed
without any action by the CIR on the
 Petitioner (Rohm Apollo) is a claim.
domestic corporation registered with  Instead of filing a judicial claim
the Securities and Exchange within 30 days from the lapse of the
Commission. It is also registered 120-day period on 10 April, or until
with the Philippine Economic Zone 10 May 2001, Rohm Apollo filed a
Authority as an Ecozone Export Petition for Review with the CTA
Enterprise. Petitioner is in the docketed as CTA Case No. 6534 on
business of manufacturing 11 September 2002. It was under the
semiconductor products, particularly belief that a judicial claim had to be
microchip transistors and tantalium filed within the two-year prescriptive
capacitors. Further, it is registered period ending on 30 September
with the Bureau of Internal Revenue 2002.
(BIR) as a value-added taxpayer.
 On 27 May 2004, the CTA First
 Sometime in June 2000, prior to the Division rendered a Decision
commencement of its operations on denying the judicial claim for a
1 September 2001, Rohm Apollo refund or tax credit. The CTA First
engaged the services of Shimizu Division held, among others, that
Philippine Contractors, Inc. petitioner must have at least
(Shimizu) for the construction of a submitted its VAT return for the
factory. For services rendered by third quarter of 2001, since it was in
Shimizu, petitioner made initial that period that it began its business
payments of P198,551,884.28 on 7 operations. The purpose was to
July 2000 and P132,367,923.58 on 3 verify if indeed petitioner did not
August 2000. carry over the claimed input VAT to
the third quarter or the succeeding
 Petitioner treated the payments as quarters.
capital goods purchases and thus  On 14 July 2004, petitioner filed a
filed with the BIR an administrative Motion for Reconsideration, but the
claim for the refund or credit of tax court stood by its Decision. On
accumulated unutilized creditable 18 January 2005, the taxpayer
input taxes on 11 December 2000. As elevated the case to the CTA En
the close of the taxable quarter when Banc via a Petition for Review. On
the purchases were made was 30 22 June 2005, the CTA En Banc
September 2000, the administrative rendered its Decision denying Rohm
claim was filed well within the two- Apollo’s Petition for Review.
year prescriptive period. Petitioner filed this Rule 45 Petition,
 Pursuant to Section 112(D) of the arguing that it has satisfied all the
1997 Tax Code, the Commissioner legal requirements for a valid claim
 for refund or tax credit of unutilized failed to do so, however. Rohm Apollo
input VAT. should then have treated the CIR’s inaction
as a denial of its claim. Petitioner would
ISSUE: then have had 30 days, or until 10 May
2001, to file a judicial claim with the CTA.
Whether or not the CTA acquired
But Rohm Apollo filed a Petition for
jurisdiction over the claim for the refund or
Review with the CTA only on 11 September
tax credit of unutilized input VAT?
2002. The judicial claim was thus filed late.
RULING:
Justice Carpio stated: “The old rule
that the taxpayer may file the judicial claim,
The court denied the Petition on the
without waiting for the Commissioner's
ground that the petitioner’s judicial claim for
decision if the two-year prescriptive period
a refund/tax credit was filed beyond the
is about to expire, cannot apply because that
prescriptive period.
rule was adopted before the enactment of
the 30-day period. The 30-day period was
Section 112(D) of the 1997 Tax
adopted precisely to do away with the old
Code states the time requirements for filing
rule, so that under the VAT System the
a judicial claim for the refund or tax credit
taxpayer will always have 30 days to file the
of input VAT. The legal provision speaks of
judicial claim even if the Commissioner acts
two periods: the period of 120 days, which
only on the 120th day, or does not act at all
serves as a waiting period to give time for
during the 120-day period. With the 30-day
the CIR to act on the administrative claim
period always available to the taxpayer, the
for a refund or credit; and the period of 30
taxpayer can no longer file a judicial claim
days, which refers to the period for filing a
for refund or credit of input VAT without
judicial claim with the CTA. It is the 30-day
waiting for the Commissioner to decide until
period that is at issue in this case.
the expiration of the 120-day period. The
30-day period to appeal is mandatory and
The landmark case of Commissioner
jurisdictional.”
of Internal Revenue v. San Roque Power
Corporation has interpreted Section 112 (D).
As a general rule, the 30-day period
The Court held that the taxpayer can file an
to appeal is both mandatory and
appeal in one of two ways: (1) file the
jurisdictional. The only exception to the
judicial claim within 30 days after the
general rule is when BIR Ruling No. DA-
Commissioner denies the claim within the
489-03 was still in force, that is, between 10
120-day waiting period, or (2) file the
December 2003 and 5 October 2010, The
judicial claim within 30 days from the
BIR Ruling excused premature filing,
expiration of the 120-day period if the
declaring that the taxpayer-claimant need
Commissioner does not act within that
not wait for the lapse of the 120-day period
period.
before it could seek judicial relief with the
CTA by way of Petition for Review.
On 11 December 2000, petitioner
filed with the BIR an application for the
Premature filing is allowed for cases
refund or credit of accumulated unutilized
falling during the time when BIR Ruling No.
creditable input taxes. Thus, the CIR had a
DA-489-03 was in force; nevertheless, late
period of 120 days from 11 December 2000,
filing is absolutely prohibited even for cases
or until 10 April 2001, to act on the claim. It
falling within that period. The petitioner
filed its judicial claim with the CTA on 11
September 2002. This was before the
issuance of BIR Ruling No. DA-489-03 on
10 December 2003. Thus, Rohm Apollo
could not have benefited from the BIR
Ruling. Besides, its situation was not a case
of premature filing of its judicial claim but
one of late filing. To repeat, its judicial
claim was filed on 11 September 2002 –
long after 10 May 2001, the last day of the
30-day period for appeal. The case thus falls
under the general rule – the 30-day period is
mandatory and jurisdictional.

Hence, the CTA lost jurisdiction

over Rohm Apollo’s claim for a refund or
credit.