G.R. No. 192024 - FORTUNE TOBACCO CORPORATION, VS. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE.

Ruling

accordingly developed an expertise on the subject, unless there has been an abuse or improvident exercise of authority. [7] Moreover, it has been said that the proper interpretation of the provisions on tax refund that does not call for an examination of the probative value of the evidence presented by the parties-litigants is a question of law . [8] Conversely, it may be said that if the appeal essentially calls for the re-examination of the probative value of the evidence presented by the appellant, the same raises a question of fact . Often repeated is the distinction that there is a question of law in a given case when doubt or difference arises as to what the law is on a certain state of facts; there is a question of fact when doubt or difference arises as to the truth or falsehood of alleged facts. [9] Verily, the sufficiency of a claimant's evidence and the determination of the amount of refund, as called for in this case, are questions of fact , [10] which are for the judicious determination by the CTA of the evidence on record. Significantly, it bears noting that Section 5, Rule 45 of the Rules of Court provides that the failure of petitioner to comply with the requirements on the contents of the petition shall be sufficient ground for its dismissal. While jurisprudence provides exceptions to these rules, the subject petition does not fall under any of those so excepted. Thus, for this reason alone, the petition must fail. The CTA committed no reversible error in denying petitioner's claim for tax refund for insufficient evidence. A. Petitioner relied heavily on photocopied documents to prove its claim. Granting that the Court could take a second look and review petitioner's evidence, the result would be the same. The claim for refund hinges on the admissibility and the probative value of the following photocopied documents that allegedly contain a recording of petitioner's excise payments for the period covering June 1, 2004 up to December 31, 2004: (1) Production, Removals and Payments for All FTC Brands; [11] and (2) Excise Tax Refund Computation Summary. [12] Although both the CTA Division and the CTA En Banc provisionally admitted petitioner's Exhibit "C," [13] the above-mentioned documents, as well as the other documentary evidence submitted by petitioner were refused admission for being merely photocopies. [14] Section 3 of Administrative Matter ( A.M. ) No. 05-11-07 CTA, the Revised Rules of the Court of Tax Appeals, provides that the Rules of Court shall apply suppletorily in the proceeding before the tax tribunal. In this connection, Section 3 of Rule 130 of the Rules of Court lays down the Best Evidence Rule with respect to the presentation of documentary evidence. Thus: Section 3. Original document must be produced; exceptions . When the subject of inquiry is the contents of a document, no evidence shall be admissible other than the original document itself, except in the following cases: (a) When the original has been lost