G.R. NO. 141212 - BENGUET CORPORATION, VS. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE.D E C I S I O N - Supreme Court E-Library

Ruling

Accordingly, its findings of fact are generally regarded as final, binding and conclusive on this Court, especially if these are substantially similar to the findings of the CA which is normally the final arbiter of questions of fact. [33] Thus, such findings will not ordinarily be reviewed nor disturbed on appeal when supported by substantial evidence and in the absence of gross error or abuse on its part. [34] By arguing that the POs and CRs should be believed over the BIR reports and the annotations at the back of the checks, petitioner is actually raising before us questions of fact. This is not allowed. A question of fact involves an examination of the probative value of the evidence presented. It exists when doubt arises as to the truth or falsehood of alleged facts. [35] It bears emphasis that questions on whether certain items of evidence should be accorded probative value or weight, or rejected as feeble or spurious, or whether the proofs on one side or the other are clear and convincing and adequate to establish a proposition in issue, are without doubt questions of fact. This is true regardless of whether the body of proofs presented by a party, weighed and analyzed in relation to contrary evidence submitted by the adverse party, may be said to be strong, clear and convincing. Whether certain documents presented by one side should be accorded full faith and credit in the face of protests as to their spurious character by the other side; whether inconsistencies in the body of proofs of a party are of such gravity as to justify refusing to give said proofs weight - all these are issues of fact. Questions like these are not reviewable by us. As a rule, we confine our review of cases decided by the CA only to questions of law raised in the petition and therein distinctly set forth. [36] The CTA and CA gave credence to the annotations and reports and, these being questions of fact, we hold that their findings are conclusive. This Court is not mandated to examine and appreciate anew any evidence already presented below. Petitioner has not advanced strong reasons why we should delve into the facts. The findings of the CTA, as affirmed by the CA, are supported by substantial evidence. Petitioner, as a withholding agent, is burdened by law with a public duty to collect the tax for the government. However, its payroll agent, L.C. Diaz and Company, failed to remit to the BIR the withholding taxes on compensation. Hence, no valid payment of the withholding taxes was actually made by petitioner. Codal provisions on withholding tax are mandatory and must be complied with by the withholding agent. [37] It follows that petitioner is liable to pay the disputed assessment. WHEREFORE , the petition is hereby DENIED . Costs against petitioner. SO ORDERED.