0% found this document useful (0 votes)
37 views2 pages

782 - 8 - Pilipinas Kao, Inc. vs. Court of Appeals

Uploaded by

ian
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
0% found this document useful (0 votes)
37 views2 pages

782 - 8 - Pilipinas Kao, Inc. vs. Court of Appeals

Uploaded by

ian
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 2

782. Pilipinas Kao, Inc. vs.

Court of Appeals

372 SCRA 548, G.R. No. 105014 December 18, 2001

FACTS:

 Pilipinas Kao, Inc. is a corporation organized and existing under the laws of the
Philippines
 The present controversy refers only to the tax incentives provided for under Article 48
of P.D. No. 1789, as amended by B.P. Blg. 391. On July 27, 1990. \
 Respondent denied petitioner’s request for reconsideration anent its 1988 tax credit,
the denial being communicated to petitioner in a letter dated August 1, 1990 and
received by the latter on August 15, 1990.
 On December 17, 1990, petitioner again moved for reconsideration of respondent’s
letter dated August 1, 1990, but the same was denied by respondent in a letter dated
March 11, 1991.
 On March 11, 1991, respondent also advised petitioner of the approval of its application
for the year 1989 tax credit but only in the following reduced amounts. Again, without
any explanation for the reduction.

ISSUE:

Whether BOI rendered a decision within the meaning of its own rules? (which requires
that the decision in a contested case shall be in writing and shall state clearly and distinctly the
facts and the law on which it is based).

RULING:.

No, the constitutional and statutory mandate that “no decision shall be rendered by any
court of record without expressing therein clearly and distinctly the facts and the law on which
it is based,” applies as well to dispositions by quasi-judicial and administrative bodies. In the
context of what the law and its own rules prescribe, as well as our applicable pronouncements,
the BOI Resolution of May 10, 1990, as well as its Letters of August 1, 1990 and March 11, 1991
DID NOT QUALIFY as “decision”. Lacking the essential attribute of a decision, the acts in
question were at best interlocutory orders that did not attain finality nor acquire the effects of
a final judgment despite the lapse of the statutory period of appeal. Thus, the element of time
relied upon by respondents does not bar our inquiry into the substantive merits of the petition.

You might also like