Cases (Tender of Excluded Evidence) Flashcards
Petitioner is the manufacturer and producer of its cigarette brands and prior to 1997 were subject to ad valorem tax. However on Jan. 1, 1997 R.A. 8240 took effect and caused a shift from ad valorem tax to specific tax. As a result of such shift, the aforesaid cigarette brands were subjected to specific tax. Petitioner later on filed a claim for tax credit or refund under Sec. 229 of the NIRC for illegally collected specific taxes. After trial on the merits the Court ruled that it was contrary to law and that there is insufficiency of evidence on the claim for refund. Petitioner elevated the case to the CTA but the latter found no cause to reverse the decision.
ISSUE: Whether or not there is sufficient evidence to warrant or grant the Petitioner’s claim for tax refund
No. The denial of Petitioners claim for tax refund in this case is based on the ground that it failed to provide sufficient evidence to prove its claim and amount thereof. As a result, Petitioner seeks the Court to re-examine the probative value of its evidence and determine whether it should be refunded the amount of excise taxes it allegedly overpaid. This cannot be done. The settled rule is that only questions of law can be raised in a petition under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court. It is not the function of the SC to analyze or weight all over again the evidence already considered in the proceedings below. The Court’s jurisdiction being limited to reviewing only the errors of the law that may have been committed by the lower court. The resolution of the factual issues is the function of the lower court whose findings on these matters are received with respect. A question of law which the Court may pass upon must not involve an examination of the probative value of the evidence presented by the litigants.
