SPOUSES EMMANUEL D. PACQUIAO and JINKEE J. PACQUIAO, petitioners, vs.

THE COURT OF TAX

APPEALS, FIRST DIVISION and the COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, respondents.

Remedial Law; Civil Procedure; Appeals; Taxation; Section 11 of Republic Act (RA) No. 1125, as amended
by RA No. 9282, embodies the rule that an appeal to the Court of Tax Appeals (CTA) from the decision of
the Commissioner of Internal Revenue (CIR) will not suspend the payment, levy, distraint, and/or sale of
any property of the taxpayer for the satisfaction of his tax liability as provided by existing law.—Section
11 of R.A. No. 1125, as amended by R.A. No. 9282, embodies the rule that an appeal to the CTA from the
decision of the CIR will not suspend the payment, levy, distraint, and/or sale of any property of the
taxpayer for the satisfaction of his tax liability as provided by existing law. When, in the view of the CTA,
the collection may jeopardize the interest of the Government and/or the taxpayer, it may suspend the
said collection and require the taxpayer either to deposit the amount claimed or to file a surety bond.

Courts; Court of Tax Appeals; Jurisdiction; Injunction; Despite the amendments to the law, the Supreme
Court (SC) still holds that the Court of Tax Appeals (CTA) has ample authority to issue injunctive writs to
restrain the collection of tax and to even dispense with the deposit of the amount claimed or the filing
of the required bond, whenever the method employed by the Commissioner of Internal Revenue (CIR) in
the collection of tax jeopardizes the interests of a taxpayer for being patently in violation of the law.—
Despite the amendments to the law, the Court still holds that the CTA has ample authority to issue
injunctive writs to restrain the collection of tax and to even dispense with the deposit of the amount
claimed or the filing of the required bond, whenever the method employed by the CIR in the collection
of tax jeopardizes the interests of a taxpayer for being patently in violation of the law. Such authority
emanates from the jurisdiction conferred to it not only by Section 11 of R.A. No. 1125, but also by
Section 7 of the same law, which, as amended provides: Sec. 7. Jurisdiction.—The Court of Tax Appeals
shall exercise: a. Exclusive appellate jurisdiction to review by appeal, as herein provided: 1. Decisions of
the Commissioner of Internal Revenue in cases involving disputed assessments, refunds of internal
revenue taxes, fees or other charges, penalties imposed in relation thereto, or other matters arising
under the National Internal Revenue or other laws administered by the Bureau of Internal Revenue.

Same; Same; Same; Same; Bonds; Whenever it is determined by the courts that the method employed
by the Collector of Internal Revenue in the collection of tax is not sanctioned by law, the bond
requirement under Section 11 of Republic Act (RA) No. 1125 should be dispensed with.—It is clear that
the authority of the courts to issue injunctive writs to restrain the collection of tax and to dispense with
the deposit of the amount claimed or the filing of the required bond is not simply confined to cases
where prescription has set in. As explained by the Court in those cases, whenever it is determined by the
courts that the method employed by the Collector of Internal Revenue in the collection of tax is not
sanctioned by law, the bond requirement under Section 11 of R.A. No. 1125 should be dispensed with.
The purpose of the rule is not only to prevent jeopardizing the interest of the taxpayer, but more
importantly, to prevent the absurd situation wherein the court would declare “that the collection by the
summary methods of distraint and levy was violative of law, and then, in the same breath require the
petitioner to deposit or file a bond as a prerequisite for the issuance of a writ of injunction.”
Same; Same; Same; Same; Same; The Court of Tax Appeals (CTA) should have conducted a preliminary
hearing and received evidence so it could have properly determined whether the requirement of
providing the required security under Section 11, Republic Act (RA) No. 1125 could be reduced or
dispensed with pendente lite.—Though it may be true that it would have been premature for the CTA to
immediately determine whether the assessment made against the petitioners was valid or whether the
warrants were properly issued and served, still, it behooved upon the CTA to properly determine, at
least preliminarily, whether the CIR, in its assessment of the tax liability of the petitioners, and its effort
of collecting the same, complied with the law and the pertinent issuances of the BIR itself. The CTA
should have conducted a preliminary hearing and received evidence so it could have properly
determined whether the requirement of providing the required security under Section 11, R.A. No. 1125
could be reduced or dispensed with pendente lite.

Taxation; Assessment; The determination of whether the methods, employed by the Commissioner of
Internal Revenue (CIR) in its assessment, jeopardized the interests of a taxpayer for being patently in
violation of the law is a question of fact that calls for the reception of evidence which would serve as
basis.—Absent any evidence and preliminary determination by the CTA, the Court cannot make any
factual finding and settle the issue of whether the petitioners should comply with the security
requirement under Section 11, R.A. No. 1125. The determination of whether the methods, employed by
the CIR in its assessment, jeopardized the interests of a taxpayer for being patently in violation of the
law is a question of fact that calls for the reception of evidence which would serve as basis. In this
regard, the CTA is in a better position to initiate this given its time and resources. The remand of the
case to the CTA on this question is, therefore, more sensible and proper.

Same; Same; In the conduct of its preliminary hearing, the Court of Tax Appeals (CTA) must balance the
scale between the inherent power of the State to tax and its right to prosecute perceived transgressors
of the law, on one side; and the constitutional rights of petitioners to due process of law and the equal
protection of the laws, on the other.—In the conduct of its preliminary hearing, the CTA must balance
the scale between the inherent power of the State to tax and its right to prosecute perceived
transgressors of the law, on one side; and the constitutional rights of petitioners to due process of law
and the equal protection of the laws, on the other. In case of doubt, the tax court must remember that
as in all tax cases, such scale should favor the taxpayer, for a citizen’s right to due process and equal
protection of the law is amply protected by the Bill of Rights under the Constitution.