You are on page 1of 10


There is no dispute as to the following facts that gave rise to the claim
for refund of MPC, as found by the CTA[5]
COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL G.R. No. 159593 [MPC] is a domestic corporation duly organized
REVENUE, and existing under and by virtue of the laws of the
Petitioner, Present: Philippines with principal office address
in Pagbilao Grande Island, Pagbilao, Quezon. It is
PANGANIBAN, C.J. licensed by the Securities and Exchange Commission to
Chairperson, principally engage in the business of power generation
- versus- YNARES-SANTIAGO, and subsequent sale thereof (Exh. A). It is registered
AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, with the Bureau of Internal Revenue as a VAT
CALLEJO, SR., and registered entity with Certificate of Registration bearing
CHICO-NAZARIO, JJ. RDO Control No. 96-600-002498, dated January 26,
SOUTHERN ENERGY QUEZON, Promulgated: For the period April 1, 1996 to December 31,
INC.), 1996, [MPC] seasonably filed its Quarterly VAT Returns
Respondent. October 12, 2006 reflecting an (sic) accumulated input taxes in the amount
x- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -x of P39,330,500.85 (Exhs. B, C, and D). These input
taxes were allegedly paid by [MPC] to the suppliers of
capital goods and services for the construction and
development of the power generating plant and other
related facilities in Pagbilao, Quezon (TSN, November
16, 1998, p. 11).
CHICO-NAZARIO, J.: Pursuant to the procedures prescribed under
Revenue Regulations No. 7-95, as amended, [MPC]
Before this Court is a Petition for Review
under Rule 45 of the 1997 filed on June 30, 1998, an application for tax credit or
refund of the aforementioned unutilized VAT paid on
Rules of Civil Procedure assailing the Decision, [3] dated 30 July 2003, of capital goods (Exhibit E).
the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 60783, which
Without waiting for an answer from the [BIR
affirmed in toto the Decision, dated 11 July 2000, of the Court of Tax Commissioner], [MPC] filed the instant petition for
review on July 10, 1998, in order to toll the running of
Appeals (CTA) in CTA Case No. 5658. The CTA partially granted the
the two-year prescriptive period for claiming a refund
claim of herein respondent Mirant Pagbilao Corporation (MPC) for the under the law.
refund of the input Value Added Tax (VAT) on its purchase of capital In answer to the Petition, [the BIR
goods and services for the period 1 April 1996 to 31 December 1996, Commissioner] advanced as special and affirmative
defenses that [MPC]s claim for refund is still pending
and ordered herein petitioner Commissioner of the Bureau of Internal investigation and consideration before the office of [the
Revenue (BIR) to issue a tax credit certificate in the amount BIR Commissioner] accordingly, the filing of the present
petition is premature; well-settled is the doctrine that
of P28,744,626.95. provisions in tax refund and credit are construed strictly
against the taxpayer as they are in the nature of a tax
exemption; in an action for refund or tax credit, the

a reads - memorandum report. SINCE RESPONDENT IS EXEMPT FROM VAT. dated August 27. p. Resolution. 1996 to December 31. was The CTA subsequently denied the BIR Commissioners Motion for commissioned to verify the accuracy of [MPC]s summary of input taxes (TSN. Per independent P10. A report. IT IS NOT ENTITLED TO THE REFUND OF .40 was properly supported by valid invoices and/or official receipts (Exh. dated 31 August 2001.45 the Tax Code. and TSN. Ma.873.[] Per CTAs examination On July 14. (Exhs.616. through the VAT invoices and official receipts it to wit had presented. 1 and 1-a).85.745.626. overwhelmingly proved. Rubio. to investigate [MPC]s application for tax credit or refund of input taxes (Exhs. the dispositive portion of the CTA Decision. Commissioner] is ORDERED to ISSUE A TAX CREDIT CERTIFICATE in the amount of P28. 12). in view of the foregoing.[7] dated 11 July 2000. 3. pp. As a result.500. was presented stating the audit procedures performed and the finding that out of the total claimed input taxes of P39.90 accordance with law and revenue regulations. 1996. 60 Thus. [MPC]s reduced amount of P49.40 representing unapplied claim for refund is hereby partially GRANTED. Mr. independent Certified Public Accountant pursuant to CTA Circular No. 1999. October 15. IT IS SUBJECT TO FRANCHISE TAX UNDER power generation and sale. in accordance with the following computation 2.626. 3. Revenue Officer.85 the said burden is fatal to the action for refund. it is claim for refund incumbent upon [MPC] to show that the claim for tax Less: Disallowances credit has been filed within the prescriptive period under a. Rosemarie M. reduced the amount THEN SECTION 117 (NOW SECTION 119) OF THE TAX CODE AND NOT TO VALUE ADDED TAX (VAT).744.[8] dated 31 August 2001. The tax court. and 3-a). see also Petition for Review[9] of the foregoing Decision.330. dated 11 July 2000.45 10. and declared that MPC had arguments that were totally new and were never raised before the CTA.95[6] trial.584. 1998. taxpayer has the burden to show that the taxes paid were erroneously or illegally paid and failure to sustain Total amount of the P39.330.585. the BIR Commissioner filed with the Court of Appeals a the sum of P28. availed of the services of an period April 1. of refund to which MPC was entitled. 1998. of Revenue District No. 1998. 5). however. Reconsideration in a Resolution. 1-95.744.500. 875. Vitto. while the case was pending P28. [The BIR input taxes on capital goods. RESPONDENT BEING AN ELECTRIC in the construction of power plant facilities which it used in its business of UTILITY. March 3. 2-a. dated March 8. Notably.998. Nimfa Penalosa-Asensi.95 [MPC]. 2. was submitted recommending a favorable action but in a WHEREFORE. 1999. due to the voluminous nature of representing input taxes paid on capital goods for the evidence to be presented.502. only Aggrieved. the BIR Commissioner identified and discussed as grounds [10] for its Petition The CTA ruled in favor of MPC.As a consequence. G. that its purchases of goods and services were necessary 1. as amended. Ruben R. and the taxes allegedly paid by [MPC] auditor are presumed to have been collected and received in b. Partner of SGV & Company. was assigned by Revenue District Officer. of the CTA.

observance of procedural rules may be relaxed considering that technicalities are not ends in themselves but exist to protect and 6. Well-settled is the doctrine that provisions in tax refund and credit are construed strictly against the committed reversible error in affirming the Decision of the CTA holding taxpayer as they are in the nature of a tax exemption. The taxes allegedly paid by [MPC] are presumed to the taxpayer. respondent entitled to the refund of the amount of P28. the BIR Commissioner raised in its Answer [12] before the CTA assailed 11 July 2000 Decision of respondent Court in the following special and affirmative defenses CTA Case No. 7-95. 3. He reiterates his position before the Court of Appeals that have been collected and received in accordance with law and revenue regulations. tax and. dated 30 July 2003. not entitled to a refund of input VAT on its purchase of capital goods and services. the taxpayer has allegedly representing input VAT on capital goods and services for the the burden to show that the taxes paid were erroneously period 1 April 1996 to 31 December 1996. It is incumbent upon [MPC] to show that the claim for tax credit has been filed within the prescriptive period promote the substantive rights of the parties. the Petition is DISMISSED for lack of merit and the To recall. This Court finds no merit in the Petition at bar. He argues that (1) The or illegally paid and failure to sustain the said burden is fatal to the action for refund. 5658 is hereby AFFIRMED in toto. Petition before this Court on the ground that the Court of Appeals 4. it pronounced that: (1) The BIR Commissioner cannot validly change his theory of the case on appeal. MPC. No costs. 5. and in its Decision. In an action for refund or tax credit. Accordingly. and (2) A tax refund is in under the tax code. the nature of a tax exemption which must be construed strictly against 7. premises considered. thus. the decretal portion of the said Decision[11] reads as theory of the case on follows appeal. is exempt from VAT.626. as a VAT-registered taxpayer. The Court of Appeals found no merit in the BIR Commissioners Petition. and (4) rule is that a party cannot The MPC. the present petition is Refusing to give up his cause. Accordingly. may apply for tax change his credit. [MPC]s claim for refund is still pending investigation and consideration before the office of [the BIR Commissioner].95.744. INPUT VAT PURSUANT TO SECTION 4.103-1 OF REVENUE REGULATIONS NO. WHEREFORE. I (2) The MPC is not a public utility within the contemplation of law. as a public utility. subject instead to franchise . (3) The sale by MPC of its generated power to the National Power The general Corporation (NAPOCOR) is subject to VAT at zero percent rate. the BIR Commissioner filed the present premature.

The settled rule is that defenses not pleaded in the answer may not be raised for the first time on appeal. in this jurisdiction. in Carantes v. When against the claim for refund of MPC and an evident change of a party deliberately adopts a certain theory and the case is decided upon that theory in the court below. that the latter filed his Petition for assignment of errors any question of law or fact that has been raised in the court below and which is within the Review before the Court of Appeals on 4 October 2000. Court of Appeals. However. The rule technical rules of procedure and in the interest of substantial justice. which was favorable to MPC appeal. the BIR Commissioner raised for the first time affirms that courts of justice have no jurisdiction or power to decide a on appeal questions of both fact and law not taken up before the tax question not in issue. the BIR Commissioner. rests on the fundamental tenets of fair play. because to permit him to do so would be unfair to the a VAT-registered taxpayer. is not only irregular but also extrajudicial and invalid. that MPC was a public utility. for again pronounced that. and since it was not paying VAT. an actuality which the BIR Commissioner himself does not deny. it could not claim the Thus. very first time. entitlement to refund. 15. the BIR Commissioner admitted that the MPC is not be permitted to change the same on appeal.[14] this Court emphasized that refund of input VAT on its purchase of capital goods and services. Court of Appeals. Whether or not the appellant has filed a motion for new trial in the court below. but charged it with the burden of proving its adverse party. A party cannot. subject to franchise tax and not VAT. making In the more recent case of Mon v. It franchise tax. a judgment that goes beyond the issues and court. before the Court of Appeals. on appeal. Section 15 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure. averring. in effect denied that the MPC is subject to VAT.These appear to be general and standard arguments used by the BIR to oppose any claim by a taxpayer for refund. . purports to adjudicate something on which the court did not hear the but he argues that he should be allowed to do so as an exception to the parties. he will theory.[13] Such a rule has been expressly of MPC. he may include in his and adverse to the BIR Commissioner. change There is a palpable shift in the BIR Commissioners defense fundamentally the nature of the issue in the case. It was only after the CTA SEC.[15] this Court an affirmative allegation that it is a public utility liable. presented evidence of its entitlement to the refund and in negation of the which provides afore-cited defenses of the BIR Commissioner. Before the CTA. The Answer did not posit any It is already well-settled in this jurisdiction that a party may not change allegation or contention that would defeat the particular claim for refund his theory of the case on appeal. instead. the settled rule is that a party cannot change his theory of the case or his cause of action on appeal. Trial proper ensued before the CTA. for the issues framed by the parties. Questions that may be raised on promulgated its Decision on 11 July 2000. Thus. Irrefragably. during which the MPC adopted in Rule 44.

this Court has expounded that in a singular paragraph in his Petition. as this of technicalities.[16] warrant the relaxation of technical or procedural rules in the instant case. so warrant or when the purpose of justice requires it. entirely on the basis of this Courts ruling in Sy v. good and sufficient cause that would merit suspension of the rules is The BIR Commissioner pleads with this Court not to apply the foregoing discretionary upon the courts.[17] rule to the instant case. be prosecuted in accordance with the prescribed the observance of procedural rules may be relaxed. should be Memorandum. The appeal. general course of action. There is no sufficient cause to only in proper cases and under justifiable causes and circumstances. intended to forge a bastion for erring litigants to violate the rules with impunity. The adjudicatory bodies and The submission fails to take into account that although the parties to a case are thus enjoined to abide strictly this Honorable Court has repeatedly ruled that litigants by the rules. but this flexibility was never [2000]). While it is true that a litigation is not a game cannot raise an issue for the first time on appeal. procedure to ensure an orderly and speedy noting that technicalities are not ends in themselves but administration of justice. we must stress. There have been some exist to protect and promote the substantive rights of the instances wherein this Court allowed a relaxation in the litigants (Sy v. Court of Appeals. The BIR Commissioner argues. Hence. The BIR Commissioner apparently forgets that there Commissioner made no attempt to provide reasonable explanation for are specific reasons why technical or procedural rules are imposed upon his failure to raise before the CTA the issue of MPC being a public utility the courts. should still be the subject to franchise tax rather than VAT. 330 SCRA 570 application of the rules. The general rules of procedure still apply and the BIR The courts have the power to relax or suspend technical or procedural Commissioner cannot be allowed to raise an issue for the first time on rules or to except a case from their operation when compelling reasons appeal. quasi-judicial and administrative bodies. the BIR substantive justice.[20] He contends that shall have a right to the speedy disposition of their cases before all judicial. Court of requirement is in pursuance to the bill of rights inscribed in the Constitution which guarantees that all persons Appeals.[18] subsequently reproduced in his Procedural rules. for a rule on technicality should not defeat In his Petition and Memorandum before this Court. A liberal interpretation and application of the rules of procedure can be resorted to This Court is unconvinced. although it was raised for the first time on remedy the worsening problem of delay in the resolution of rival claims and in the administration of justice. What constitutes . it is equally true that every case must would contravene the basic rules of justice and fair play.[19] that the Court of Appeals should have taken treated with utmost respect and due regard since they are designed to facilitate the adjudication of cases to cognizance of the said issue. and that compliance with these rules.

. Fernando Sy. as this that the same causes or circumstances that justified the suspension of or would contravene the basic rules of fair play and justice.] psychological incapacity. when substantial justice plainly requires. raises the issue of circumstance that would qualify his case for such a suspension or the marriage being void for lack of a valid marriage license at the time of its celebration. of technicalities should not be subject to cavil. and what is required now is a declaration of their effects RTC because it found that Fernandos acts did not constitute according to existing law. That this Court had previously allowed in another case such according to her. in a number of instances.e. Its ratiocination on the matter is a suspension of the general rules of procedure or an exception thereto. and ruled in favor of Filipina. the case at bar requires that we address the issue is not even on all fours with his case.. however. reproduced in full below thus. on which the BIR Commissioner fully anchored his defeated. incapacity of her husband. It should be emphasized that the BIR Commissioner is invoking Appeals. the very reason for their existence would be The Sy case. lack of a marriage license at the time of the ceremony. it issue that her marriage to Fernando was void from the very beginning for remaining on a professional level. The BIR Commissioner has the burden of persuading this Court Although we have repeatedly ruled that litigants cannot raise an issue for the first time on appeal. exempting a particular case from the operation claim for suspension of or exception to the technical or procedural rules.[21] [Emphasis supplied. the conflict between the MPC and the BIR Commissioner could be hardly described as deeply seated and violent. reversed the RTC and the Court of facts. the date of the actual celebration of their marriage and the date of issuance of their marriage suspension of or exception to technical or procedural rules does not certificate and marriage license are different and necessarily mean that the same shall also be allowed in the present incongruous. noting that technicalities are not ends in themselves but exist to protect and promote present in the case at bar. in order to arrive at a just resolution of a deeply seated and the Regional Trial Court (RTC) on the basis of the alleged psychological violent conflict between the parties. i. exception. Filipina raised the In the instant case. Hence. We said that certain rules ought not to be applied with severity and rigidity if by so doing. case. the dates of actual celebration of the marriage. Note. and issuance of the marriage license. this Court pointed out in the Sy case that the pertinent cognizance of the said issue. It involves a petition for declaration of the validity of the marriage between Filipina and Fernando which petitioner claims is void from the of nullity of marriage instituted by the therein petitioner Filipina Sy before beginning for lack of a marriage license. In an appeal by certiorari before this Court. In our view. issuance of the marriage certificate. for the first time. This Court took Moreover. It appears that. we have relaxed observance exception to the technical or procedural rules in the other case are also of procedural rules. substantive rights of litigants. it is incumbent upon him to present sufficient cause or justifiable Petitioner. Her petition was denied by the that here the pertinent facts are not disputed. a finding later affirmed by the Court of Appeals.

after abandoned or declined to assert it. . substantial justice would be served (b) Capital goods. this Court was of the opinion that under all the xxxx attendant circumstances of the case. but also closely-related questions of fact[23] which it sells its generated power to NAPOCOR exclusively. 7716.A VAT-registered person may apply for the issuance of a tax credit certificate or if the BIR Commissioner be held as precluded from attempting to raise refund of input taxes paid on capital goods imported or the issue at this stage. it is a public best not at all to discuss these issues for they do not simply involve utility. It asserts that it is subject to VAT and that its sale of the evidence on record.were undisputed. II Substantial justice. on the contrary. . and not to the neither the Court of Appeals nor this Court could presume or garner from general public. The MPC contests this arguing that it is not a public utility because questions of law. [24] which Commissioner of Internal Revenue. Refunds or tax credits of creditable input tax. It is a mere deduction on the part of the BIR Commissioner that subject to VAT or franchise tax is nothing more than obiter dictum.[22] this Court held that it was too late provides for the BIR Commissioner to raise an issue of fact of payment for the first time in his memorandum in the CTA and in his appeal to this Court. the issues raised by the BIR Commissioner for the first time on appeal. the Tax Code of 1986. as amended by Republic Act No. The time warrants a presumption that the party entitled to assert it either has application may be made only within two (2) years. in such a case. requires not the allowance of Input VAT on issues raised for the first time on appeal. On this ground. be raised and threshed out in the first subject of a opportunity before the CTA so that either party would have fully claim for refund. but that the issue of whether capital goods MPC is a public utility. v. 106. presented its evidence and legal arguments in support of its position and to contravene or rebut those of the opposing party. That Therefore. generated electricity to NAPOCOR is subject to zero-rated VAT. It is since the MPC is engaged in the generation of power. to the extent that such input taxes have not been applied against output taxes. raised earlier. If Sec. and the correlated issue of whether MPC is and services may be the subject to VAT or franchise tax. the matter ought to have been seriously delved into by the CTA. the Court of Appeals correctly refused to consider the MPC is a public utility is not an undisputed fact. Its determination thereof gives rise to a multitude of other questions of fact discussion on whether the MPC is a public utility and whether it is and law. the close of the taxable quarter when the importation or purchase was made. The MPC bases its claim for refund of its input VAT on Section 106(b) of In Atlas Consolidated Mining & Development Corp. Failure to assert a question within a reasonable locally purchased. The same cannot be said in the case at bar.

[25] the Tax Code of 1986. 3-88. will not give credence to the BIR Commissioners input tax by Section 104(a) of the Tax Code of 1986. likewise. are goods and properties with with the Tax Code. or VAT credits. 104. 7-95. under Section 106(b) of production or sale of taxable goods or services. The BIR Commissioner is apparently (1) Purchase or importation of goods: confused. goods and properties used by the taxpayer in its VAT- Capital goods or properties. input VAT the said input VAT has not been applied to its output VAT. arising from distinct transactions. These are two different input of a finished product for sale including packing materials. aircraft and yachts. as amended by contention that the claim for refund of input VAT on capital goods by the Rep. but only to the extent that Contrary to the argument of the BIR Commissioner. except automobiles. or VAT credits and discusses them in two separate paragraphs: Section (E) For use in trade or business for which deduction for depreciation or amortization is 16(a) on zero-rated sales of goods and services. on capital goods is among those expressly recognized as creditable This Court.[26] to wit MPC should be denied for the latters failure to comply with the Sec. or regulation invoked by the BIR Commissioner. 5-87. Tax Credits. are considered capital goods. subject to depreciation or amortization in accordance 95. 7- taxable business. Revenue Regulations No. The taxpayer is further given the option. capital goods.] issued on 9 December 1995. 7716. (D) For use as materials supplied in the sale of 5-87.(a) Creditable input tax. 7716. and Section 16(b) on allowed under this Code. It is also worth noting that Revenue Regulations No. to claim refund of the input VAT on its capital goods. although both may be the [27] subject of claims for refund by the taxpayer. Input VAT on the estimated useful life greater than one year and which are treated as purchase of such capital goods is creditable against the taxpayers output depreciable assets under Section 29(f). as amended. distinguishes between these two refundable input service. as defined in Revenue Regulations No. used directly or indirectly in the VAT. MPC is claiming refund of the input VAT it has paid on the (A) For sale. [Emphasis supplied. as amended the following transactions shall be creditable against the output tax: by Revenue Regulations No. . Act No. Thus. Indeed. . the implementing rules on VAT.Any input tax evidenced by a VAT invoice or official requirements for the refund of input VAT credits on zero-rated sales receipt issued in accordance with Section 108 hereof on provided in Section 16 of Revenue Regulations No. which consolidated all VAT regulations. the very same (C) For use as supplies in the course of business. or purchase of capital goods. it is not claiming refund of its input VAT (B) For conversion into or intended to form part credits attributable to its zero-rated sales. as amended by Republic Act No. .

Following its own has the burden of proving that it is entitled to the refund it is claiming for. The MPC had been filing its VAT Quarterly Returns. examination and evaluation of the evidence submitted. capitalized and not necessary in the construction of power plant facilities. asserting.. this Court finds no reason to evidenced by its Certificate of Registration. on 26 January 1996.106-1(a).500. reason for this Court to disturb the The VAT invoices and receipts submitted by MPC.502. 60.95 after disallowing the substantial evidence to support its claim for refund of its input VAT on input VAT on the purchase of xerox and office supplies which cannot be capital goods and services in the amount of P28. Still. from the original the Court of Appeals. and does not offer any Regulations No. and capital goods in Section 4. the independent auditor. that the MPC supported by valid invoices and/or official receipts.745.95.40 sufficiently While it is true.106-1(b).85 claimed by MPC for refund. District Office (RDO) No. in support of findings of fact of the its claim for refund. of capital goods and services. found only the sum of P28.already superseded Revenue Regulations No. These capital goods and services were III necessary in the construction of the power plant facilities used by MPC There is no in electric power generation. Revenue Commissioner does not contest this fact. Thus. including those for the period Hence. discussing the zero-rated sales of goods or properties or MPC as a VAT-taxpayer when. amount of P39. the MPC is not subject to VAT but to franchise tax. The BIR . as affirmed by independent auditor. Likewise. as well as by the CTA itself.[28] The CTA found that MPC is registered as a VAT-taxpayer. 7-95 maintains the distinction between these two input explanation as to why the BIR RDO had approved the registration of VAT credits.626. the CTA further both the CTA and Court of Appeals had ruled that the MPC presented reduced the amount refundable to P28. 5-87. issued by the BIR Revenue disturb the foregoing findings of the tax court.330. had been examined and evaluated by an CTA.744. as the BIR Commissioner alleges. goods filed by MPC need not comply with the requirements for refund of reporting and reflecting therein the input VAT it had paid on its purchase input VAT attributable to zero-rated sales. the present claim for refund of input VAT on capital covered by its claim for refund. 1 April 1996 to 31 December 1996. as It is worth noting that the foregoing findings by the CTA were affirmed in totality by the Court of Appeals.744. SGV & Co.626. as the BIR Commissioner is now services in Section 4.

his Petition for Review before the appellate court. he should not wait present case is found to be supported by substantial evidence. numbering only by the findings of fact of the CTA. with only one page devoted to a discussion of the merits of the weight of evidence.744. Only errors of law. which affirmed in toto the Decision.626. before it. left much to be desired and would hardly persuade any the CTA are not to be disturbed unless clearly shown to be unsupported court. presented general and pro forma arguments. of the Court of IV Appeals in CA-G. claim for refund pending SO ORDERED. Quite the reverse. which it essentially reproduced as its Memorandum before the same court. but also by the Court of Appeals. are reviewable by this Court. dated 11 July 2000.R.95 representing input VAT paid on capital goods and consider each and every services for the period of 1 April 1996 to 31 December 1996. 5658. to seriously study and consider each and every application for claim for refund filed before their office. The BIR Commissioner only raised belatedly before the Court of Appeals the issues of whether MPC is a public utility and whether it is subject to franchise tax and not VAT. 60783. not just to do so only upon appeal of his case to the higher court. The BIR Commissioner is hereby ORDERED to should issue in favor of MPC a tax credit certificate in the amount seriously study and of P28. Since he represents the interest of the government in tax cases. and not rulings on six pages. dated 30 July 2003.Another well-settled principle in this jurisdiction is that this Court is bound then. It is very obvious to this Court that the Answer filed by the BIR Commissioner before the Court of Appeals. No application for pronouncement as to costs. as well as the responsible BIR officers. [29] by substantial evidence. failed to convince this Court otherwise. Even . The Decision. SP No. As a final point. This Court may by the CTA. of the CTA in CTA Case No. is The BIR hereby AFFIRMED. IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING. Findings of fact of his Petition. this Court would like to call the attention of the BIR Commissioner. the claim of MPC for the BIR Commissioner should exert more effort and exercise more refund of input VAT on its purchase of capital goods and services in the diligence in preparing his pleadings before any court. The BIR Commissioner not always be inclined to allow him to remedy his past laxity. the instant Petition is hereby DENIED.