FACTS:

Silkair (Singapore) Pte. Ltd., a foreign corporation with a Philippine representative office, filed an administrative claim for the refund of excise taxes paid on aviation jet fuel purchases. It relied on a BIR ruling exempting its Singapore-Cebu-Singapore route from excise taxes. Since the BIR took no action on the claim, Silkair filed a petition for review with the Court of Tax Appeals (CTA). The CTA First Division ruled that Silkair was qualified for tax exemption, but was not entitled to it due to the lack of proof of authorization to operate in the Philippines. Silkair filed a motion for reconsideration, which was denied. Silkair then filed a petition for review on certiorari before the Supreme Court.

The main issue raised by Silkair was whether it had proven its authority to operate in the Philippines for the relevant period. Silkair argued that it had proven its authority through its Foreign Air Carrier's Permit (FACP) and that its failure to present certain documents was due to inadvertence. On the other hand, the Commissioner of Internal Revenue argued that Silkair failed to present the original copies of its SEC Registration and operating permits, which amounted to a failure to prove its authority.

The CTA En Banc denied Silkair's petition for review, affirming the dismissal of the petition for lack of merit. The court held that the CTA could not take judicial notice of Silkair's SEC Registration and that evidence offered and admitted in previous cases cannot be adopted in a separate case without being offered and identified anew. The court emphasized that a hearing is necessary before judicial notice may be taken, as stated in Section 3 of Rule 129 of the Revised Rules of Court. The court also pointed out that Silkair should have been aware of the rules regarding the offering of documentary evidence, as certain exhibits had been offered and admitted in evidence in similar cases before the court. Additionally, the original copies of certain documents were not presented for comparison and verification, violating Section 3 of Rule 129.

ISSUES:

1. Whether the court can take judicial notice of pieces of evidence offered and admitted in a previous case without being properly offered in this case.

2. Whether the original copies of certain documents were necessary for comparison and verification.

3. Whether the court can take judicial notice of certain documents without a hearing.

4. Whether the petitioner failed to establish its authority to operate in the Philippines.

5. Whether the photocopies of the SEC Registration and operating permits are admissible in evidence without the presentation of the original copies.

6. Whether the petitioner is the proper party to claim for refund or tax credit of excise taxes.

7. Whether the purchaser and end-consumer of goods can be considered a statutory taxpayer for the purpose of claiming a refund or tax credit of indirect taxes.

8. Whether the two-year prescriptive period for filing an administrative claim for refund or tax credit applies to the purchaser and end-consumer of goods.

9. Whether or not the Court of Tax Appeals (CTA) correctly denied petitioner's claim for refund of unutilized input VAT.

10. Whether or not the petitioner is entitled to the refund or credit of the unutilized input VAT.

RULING:

1. The court cannot take judicial notice of pieces of evidence offered and admitted in a previous case without being properly offered in this case.

2. The original copies of certain documents were necessary for comparison and verification.

3. The court cannot take judicial notice of certain documents without a hearing.

4. The petitioner failed to establish its authority to operate in the Philippines.

5. The photocopies of the SEC Registration and operating permits are inadmissible in evidence without the presentation of the original copies for comparison and verification. The petitioner cannot rely on the principle of judicial notice to evade its responsibility of complying with the rules of evidence. The failure to compare the photocopied documents with their original renders them inadmissible.

6. The petitioner is not the proper party to claim for refund or tax credit of excise taxes. The statutory taxpayer, in this case, Petron Corporation, is entitled to claim a refund of the indirect tax, even if it passed on the burden of the tax to the petitioner. The additional amount billed to the petitioner is not a tax but part of the purchase price of the goods sold.

7. The purchaser and end-consumer of goods cannot be considered a statutory taxpayer for the purpose of claiming a refund or tax credit of indirect taxes. The party liable for the payment of excise taxes is the manufacturer or producer, even if the burden of the tax is passed on to the purchaser or consumer. Only the statutory taxpayer, in this case, Petron, has the legal personality to claim the refund or tax credit.

8. The two-year prescriptive period for filing an administrative claim for refund or tax credit applies to the taxpayer, which is Petron in this case. The purchaser or consumer cannot file a claim for refund or tax credit as they are not considered the statutory taxpayer.

9. The Supreme Court denied the petition for review on certiorari and affirmed the decision and resolution of the CTA En Banc. The denial of the claim for refund of unutilized input VAT was upheld.

PRINCIPLES:

• Pieces of evidence should be properly offered in court and cannot be admitted solely based on their presentation in previous cases.

• Documents should not be admissible in evidence unless and until the original copies are offered or presented for verification, except for certain exceptions provided by law.

• Judicial notice of any matter may only be taken by the court after a hearing, especially when the matter is decisive of a material issue in the case.

• The burden of compliance with the rules of evidence rests on the party seeking to admit the evidence.

• The principle of judicial notice does not exempt a party from complying with the rules of evidence.

• The party on whom an indirect tax is imposed by law and who paid the same, even if the burden is shifted to another, is the proper party to claim for refund or tax credit.

• Excise taxes apply to goods manufactured or produced in the Philippines for domestic sale or consumption or for any other disposition and to things imported.

• Indirect taxes are primarily paid by persons who can shift the burden of the tax to someone else.

• The economic burden of an indirect tax may fall on the purchaser, but it does not make them the taxpayer.

• The statutory taxpayer, who is liable for the payment of indirect taxes, has the legal personality to claim a refund or tax credit.

• Tax refunds are in the nature of tax exemptions and must be granted only by a clear provision of law.

• Statutes granting tax exemptions are strictly construed against the taxpayer and in favor of the taxing authority.

• Stare decisis et non quieta movere - once a case has been decided, any other case involving the same issue should be decided in the same manner.

• The burden of proving entitlement to a refund rests upon the taxpayer claiming it. The taxpayer must comply with the requirements and procedures prescribed by law to establish its right to refund.

• A person claiming a refund must show that they have complied with both the substantive and the formal or procedural requirements for refund. Failure to comply with any of the required conditions is fatal to the claim for refund.

• The Court has consistently held that strict compliance with the requirements for refund or credit of input VAT is necessary in order to prevent fraud or abuse on the part of taxpayers.