Camua Law Office

Camua Law Office We are a full-service firm specializing in taxation, asset protection, estate planning, corporate governance, and labor relations.

TAX UPDATE:The BIR issues RMO 1-2026 prescribing revised policies, controls and procedures for Tax Audit and Assessment ...
03/02/2026

TAX UPDATE:

The BIR issues RMO 1-2026 prescribing revised policies, controls and procedures for Tax Audit and Assessment following the lifting of the suspension imposed under RMC 107-2025

LABOR LAW UPDATE:New NLRC Rules of ProcedureThe 2025 NLRC Rules of Procedure, issued under En Banc Resolution No. 09-25 ...
30/01/2026

LABOR LAW UPDATE:

New NLRC Rules of Procedure

The 2025 NLRC Rules of Procedure, issued under En Banc Resolution No. 09-25 and taking effect on January 13, 2026, introduced significant reforms to the 2011 Rules, aiming to make labor dispute resolution faster, more transparent, and more professionalized. The new rules impact all labor cases filed on or after January 13, 2026.

Here are the salient features and key changes:

1. Strict Enforcement of Legal Representation

The new rules restrict legal representation in mediation or hearings to lawyers in good standing and explicitly prohibit non-lawyers and "fixers" from practicing law. Lawyers must disclose their professional details in pleadings and are prohibited from fee-splitting with non-lawyers.

2. Expanded Venue Rules for WFH/Remote Employees

The rules recognize WFH arrangements and allow employees to file complaints at the Regional Arbitration Branch nearest their residence. "Workplace" is also clearly defined for various types of workers.

3. Streamlined and Strict Appellate Process

Failure to meet appeal requirements, such as timely filing and payment of fees, will lead to outright dismissal. Filing in the wrong office does not extend the appeal period. Payment of fees is now permitted through accredited banks.

4. Strengthened Ex*****on of Judgments

Issuance of a writ of ex*****on upon judgment finality is a ministerial duty. Uncontested parts of a judgment can be executed immediately, and writs can be served nationwide.

5. Increased Efficiency and Case Management

Certain pleadings, like motions to dismiss and reconsideration of orders, are restricted to prevent delays. The rules emphasize timely actions and case monitoring to speed up resolutions.

6. Special Provisions for Seafarers (2024 Amendments to 2011 Rules)

These amendments, incorporated into the new rules, include mandatory referral to a third doctor for disability grading before filing a case. Legal representatives must commit to limiting fees to 10% of the award. Monetary awards for unpaid salaries are immediately executory, even during an appeal.

These reforms aim to create a more formal and efficient legal process for resolving labor disputes.

TAX UPDATE:The BIR issues RMC 008-2026 to resume tax audit and other field operations imposed RMC 107-2025, as clarified...
30/01/2026

TAX UPDATE:

The BIR issues RMC 008-2026 to resume tax audit and other field operations imposed RMC 107-2025, as clarified by RMC 109-2025 lifted effective immediately.

The resumption of tax audit and related field operations shall cover, but shall not be limited to the following activities:

1. Issuance of Electronic Letters of Authority(eLAs), Mission Orders (MO) and Tax Verification Notices (TVNs);

2. Continuation and completion of audit cases previously suspended;

3. Enforcement, verification, assessment and collection activities requiring audit and field operations; and

4. Other audit or enforcement activities necessary to protect revenue and enforce compliance.

LEGAL UPDATE:The SEC has exempted micro-enterprises from submitting audited financial statements to help reduce business...
22/01/2026

LEGAL UPDATE:

The SEC has exempted micro-enterprises from submitting audited financial statements to help reduce business costs. Under Memorandum Circular No. 4, Series of 2026, the audit threshold was raised from ₱600,000 to ₱3 million in total assets or liabilities. As a result, stock and nonstock corporations below this level may now submit certified financial statements instead of audited ones.

The office.
22/12/2025

The office.

TAX UPDATE:The Commissioner of Internal Revenue appealed a CTA Division ruling that canceled a deficiency income tax ass...
02/12/2025

TAX UPDATE:

The Commissioner of Internal Revenue appealed a CTA Division ruling that canceled a deficiency income tax assessment against Norkis Trading Company, Inc. for fiscal year ending June 30, 2007.

The issue began when Norkis received a Preliminary Assessment Notice on March 17, 2014, followed by a Final Assessment Notice and Formal Letter of Demand on April 11, 2014. The BIR claimed Norkis owed ₱285,927,070.68 in alleged deficiency income taxes. Norkis protested and later elevated the case to the CTA Division, which canceled the assessment for being filed too late.

The main questions were:
Was the assessment issued within the allowed period?
Did the longer 10-year prescriptive period apply because of an alleged false return?
Was there enough valid evidence to support the BIR’s claim?

The BIR argued that Norkis failed to declare a $6 million indemnity from Yamaha, which supposedly meant it filed a false return and triggered the 10-year period. It also claimed that Norkis effectively admitted the authenticity of the Indemnity Agreement by not properly disputing it.

Norkis countered that there was no proof it ever received the $6 million. The supposed Indemnity Agreement was never formally offered or authenticated, so it could not be used as evidence. It added that even if indemnity was received, it would be a return of capital, not taxable income. Therefore, there was no false return, and only the standard 3-year period applied - already expired in 2010.

The Court agreed with Norkis and denied the BIR’s Petition. It held that:

The BIR did not prove the existence of a false return.

The Indemnity Agreement was inadmissible and, even if considered, did not prove taxable income.

Since the assessment was issued more than six years after the return’s due date, it was beyond the 3-year prescriptive period and therefore VOID.

[Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Norkis Trading Company, Inc., CTA En Banc Case No. 1766, June 13, 2025]

TAX UPDATE:The Supreme Court (SC) has clarified that domestic market enterprises can enjoy the zero-rated Value-Added Ta...
28/10/2025

TAX UPDATE:

The Supreme Court (SC) has clarified that domestic market enterprises can enjoy the zero-rated Value-Added Tax (VAT) incentive under Republic Act No. 11534, or the Corporate Recovery and Tax Incentives for Enterprises (CREATE) Act.

In a Decision written by Associate Justice Mario V. Lopez (retired), the SC En Banc declared Rule 18, Section 5 of the CREATE Act’s Implementing Rules and Regulations (IRR), as well as several Bureau of Internal Revenue (BIR) issuances, void for unlawfully limiting which businesses could avail of the VAT incentive.

The CREATE Act, passed in 2021, grants registered business enterprises (RBEs) VAT exemption on importation and VAT zero-rating on local purchases of goods and services that are directly and exclusively used in their registered project or activity. RBEs include both domestic market enterprises and registered export enterprises.

However, the Department of Trade and Industry (DTI) and the Department of Finance (DOF) later issued the IRR, which excluded domestic market enterprises from enjoying zero-rated VAT incentives on their business purchases. The BIR followed with Revenue Regulations No. 21-2022 and Revenue Memorandum Circulars No. 24-2022 and 49-2022, clarifying that only registered export enterprises were entitled to the incentive.

Under a zero-rated VAT system, businesses do not add VAT to their sales (output VAT), but they still pay VAT on their purchases (input VAT). At the end of the tax period, they can request a refund for any excess input VAT. Subic Bay Freeport Chamber of Commerce, Inc. and taxpayer Benjamin E. Antonio III filed a petition for declaratory relief, arguing that the IRR and the BIR regulations unfairly excluded domestic market enterprises from the benefits granted by the law.

The Regional Trial Court dismissed the petition for lack of jurisdiction, ruling that the Court of Tax Appeals (CTA) has exclusive jurisdiction over cases questioning the validity of tax laws and regulations. The petitioners elevated the case to the SC.

The SC confirmed that while the CTA indeed has exclusive jurisdiction over such cases, petitioners should have first exhausted administrative remedies by questioning the regulations before the Secretary of Finance. However, due to the strong public interest involved, the SC exercised its discretion to resolve the case and avoid further delays.

The SC ruled that the IRR and the BIR regulations were invalid for adding restrictions not found in the CREATE Act. The SC stressed that the law clearly covers all RBEs, including domestic market enterprises.

The SC emphasized that government agencies like the DTI and DOF cannot go beyond what the law allows. Since the law includes domestic businesses as RBEs, the IRR cannot exclude them from receiving the incentives.

Senior Associate Justice Marvic M.V.F. Leonen, in his Concurring Opinion, agreed that the petition may be exempted from the strict application of the doctrine of exhaustion of administrative remedies due to compelling public interest and the urgent need to resolve the case. He also stated that the IRR and the BIR regulations are ultra vires (beyond legal authority) as they introduce qualifications for zero-rating on VAT beyond what the law provided. (Courtesy of the SC Office of the Spokesperson)

This press release is prepared for members of the media and the general public by the SC Office of the Spokesperson as a simplified summary of the SC’s Decision. For the SC’s complete discussion of the case, please read the full text of the Decision in G.R. No. 266016 (The Subic Bay Freeport Chamber of Commerce, Inc. and Antonio III v. Department of Finance et al.), February 4, 2025, and the Concurring Opinion of SAJ Leonen.

The BIR issues RMC 81-2025 reiterating the criteria and guidelines on the deductibility of ordinary and necessary expens...
17/09/2025

The BIR issues RMC 81-2025 reiterating the criteria and guidelines on the deductibility of ordinary and necessary expenses under Section 34(A)(1)(a) of the National Internal Revenue Code.

To read the full text, click the link below:

https://bir-cdn.bir.gov.ph/BIR/pdf/RMC%20No.%2081-2025.pdf

TAX UPDATE:The Petitioner, Pampanga Rural Electric Service Cooperative, Inc., filed a Petition for Review assailing the ...
10/09/2025

TAX UPDATE:

The Petitioner, Pampanga Rural Electric Service Cooperative, Inc., filed a Petition for Review assailing the validity of the 2013 income tax assessment issued by the Respondent Commissioner of Internal Revenue.

The Petitioner maintains that the assessment is void on the following grounds: (1) the absence of a valid Letter of Authority (LOA) on the part of the Revenue Officer who conducted the examination; (2) violation of its right to due process; and (3) its claim of exemption from income tax by virtue of its franchise, warranting immediate cancellation of the assessment

Conversely, the Respondent asserts that the assessment is valid, contending that: (1) the audit was conducted by a duly authorized Revenue Officer under a valid LOA; (2) the right of the government to collect taxes has not prescribed; and (3) the Petitioner is not exempt from income tax.

The Court holds that the subject assessments are void for violation of the Petitioner’s right to administrative due process.

Under Section 228 of the National Internal Revenue Code and Revenue Regulations (RR) No. 12-99, as amended by RR No. 18-2013, a taxpayer is granted a period of fifteen (15) days from receipt of the Preliminary Assessment Notice (PAN) within which to file a protest or submit a reply. Only upon the lapse of said period may the Bureau of Internal Revenue validly issue a Formal Letter of Demand (FLD) and/or Final Assessment Notice (FAN).

In this case, the FLD/FAN was issued on June 7, 2016, prior to the expiration of the 15-day period, thereby depriving the Petitioner of its right to respond to the PAN and to present supporting documents. While the Petitioner submitted a letter dated June 6, 2016, the same merely sought an extension of time and cannot be deemed a valid reply to the PAN.

The premature issuance of the FLD/FAN effectively denied the Petitioner its right to due process. Consequently, both the FLD/FAN and the Final Decision on Disputed Assessment (FDDA) are declared VOID and UNENFORCEABLE.

[Pampanga Rural Electric Service Cooperative, Inc. v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue (CTA Case No. 10996, July 7, 2025)]

Register now for this free webinar!
08/09/2025

Register now for this free webinar!

Address

Unit 2501, 139 Corporate Center, Valero Street, Salcedo Village
Makati
1227

Opening Hours

Monday 9:30am - 6:30pm
Tuesday 9:30am - 6:30pm
Wednesday 9:30am - 6:30pm
Thursday 9:30am - 6:30pm
Friday 9:30am - 6:30pm

Telephone

0926-6429146

Website

Alerts

Be the first to know and let us send you an email when Camua Law Office posts news and promotions. Your email address will not be used for any other purpose, and you can unsubscribe at any time.

Contact The Practice

Send a message to Camua Law Office:

Shortcuts

Share

Category