Mamalateo on CIR vs BPI

In Commissioner v. Reyes, G.R. No. 159694, January 27, 2006, and related decisions, the Supreme Court laid down the ruling which says that the taxpayer should be informed of the law and the facts serving as the bases for the assessment he receives from the BIR. Or else the assessment is void.

We quote from Victorino C. Mamalateo, from page 639 of his book Reviewer on Taxation, 2014 Edition (available at Rex Bookstore) -

One page later he turns to the case of Commissioner v. BPI, G.R. No. 134062, April 17, 2007. Here's the timeline for the case according to Mamalateo:

• Oct 28, 1988 the CIR assessed BPI for tax deficiency for 1986.
• Dec 10, 1988 BPI replied claiming there was no assessment
• June 17, 1991, BPI received letter from BIR stating BPI failed to protest
• July 6, 1991, BPI requested consideration of the assessment
• Dec 1, 1991 BIR denied protest
• Feb 18, 1992 BPI petitioned CTA for review
• Nov 16, 1995 CTA dismissed petition saying assessments had become final
• May 27, 1996 CTA did not reconsider
• May 29, 1998 (not mentioned by Mamalateo but found in the SC decision) CA reversed CTA decision

The CA said the CIR assessment was not valid because it did not inform BPI of the legal and factual bases of the assessment. The CIR, as is usually the case, went to the SC.

Here's  Mamalateo's take (on page 640) on the SC ruling:

Looking at the Mamalateo's words inside the red polygon you would think that the SC ruled against the CIR following its ruling in Commissioner vs Reyes. But you have some doubts when reading the sentence in the blue polygon.

And then you find out that the SC indeed ruled against BPI from this portion on page 641:

So how to explain Mamalateo's seeming equivocation on page 640? Here's how the SC decision reads:

Admittedly, (bold type mine) the CIR did not inform BPI in writing of the law and facts on which the assessments of the deficiency taxes were made. He merely notified BPI of his findings, consisting only of the computation of the tax liabilities and a demand for payment thereof within 30 days after receipt.

In merely notifying BPI of his findings, the CIR relied on the provisions of the former Section 270 prior to its amendment by RA 8424 (also known as the Tax Reform Act of 1997)