G.R. No. 121666 - COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, VS. MANILA ELECTRIC COMPANY.D E C I S I O N - Supreme Court E-Library

Ruling

Accordingly, let Petitioner's Petition for Review be considered withdrawn and this case deemed closed and terminated." [20] (Emphasis supplied; underscoring in the original) The issue of whether respondent adduced sufficient evidence to prove its entitlement to a refund is a question of fact. [21] It bears noting that the tax court and the appellate court found respondent's claim for tax refund or credit meritorious on the basis of the testimonial and documentary evidence adduced by the parties. As the appellate court declared: We have minutiousely [ sic ] examined and evaluated the testimonial and documentary evidence marshalled by the Private Respondent, through Renato Barieta, its accountant, and its documentary evidence, Exhibits "A" to "AA" , as well as the Petitioner's testimonial evidence and lone documentary evidence, Exhibit "1" . We find that the findings of the Respondent Court and its conclusions evolved from said findings in accord with the aforesaid evidence. x x x [22] (Underscoring in the original) It bears noting too that petitioner did not dispute the validity and authenticity of respondent's quarterly income tax returns as well as the final adjustment returns for the years 1987 and 1988 and proofs of payment of its tax liabilities. [23] Neither did petitioner refute respondent's assertion that petitioner failed to cross-examine its (respondent's) accountant Renato Barieta who testified on the returns, and to object to its (respondent's) offer of evidence which included its quarterly and final adjustment returns and proofs of payment of its tax liabilities. It is doctrinal that the factual findings of the Court of Tax Appeals, when supported by substantial evidence, will not be disturbed on appeal, unless it is shown that it committed gross error in the appreciation of facts. [24] Hence, as a matter of practice and principle, this Court will not set aside the conclusion reached by the said court, especially if affirmed by the Court of Appeals as in the present case. For by the nature of its functions, the tax court dedicates itself to the study and consideration of tax problems and necessarily develops expertise thereon, unless there has been an abuse or improvident exercise of authority on its part. [25] None such is appreciated by this Court, however. WHEREFORE , the petition is DISMISSED . The Court of Appeals Decision of August 23, 1995 is AFFIRMED. SO ORDERED.