4/7/2021 E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly that declaratory relief lies against assessments made by the BIR and BOC. Yet in National Dental Supply Co. v. Meer, this Court held that: From the opinion of the former Chief Justice Moran may be deduced that the failure to incorporate the above proviso [CA No. 55] in section 1, rule 66, [now Rule 64] is not due to an intention to repeal it but rather to the desire to leave its application to the sound discretion of the court, which is the sole arbiter to determine whether a case is meritorious or not. And even if it be desired to incorporate it in rule 66, it is doubted if it could be done under the rule-making power of the Supreme Court considering that the nature of said proviso is substantive and not adjective, its purpose being to lay down a policy as to the right of a taxpayer to contest the collection of taxes on the part of a revenue officer or of the Government. With the adoption of said proviso, our law-making body has asserted its policy on the matter, which is to prohibit a taxpayer to question his liability for the payment of any tax that may be collected by the Bureau of Internal Revenue. As this Court well said, quoting from several American cases, "The Government may fix the conditions upon which it will consent to litigate the validity of its original taxes..." "The power of taxation being legislative, all incidents are within the control of the Legislature." In other words, it is our considered opinion that the proviso contained in Commonwealth Act No. 55 is still in full force and effect and bars the plaintiff from filing the present action. As a substantive law that has not been repealed by another statute, CA No. 55 is still in effect and holds sway. Precisely, it has removed from the courts' jurisdiction over petitions for declaratory relief involving tax assessments. The Court cannot repeal, modify or alter an act of the Legislature. (Emphasis supplied) CIR v. Standard Insurance, Co., Inc.[45] further reinforced the rule that regional trial courts have no jurisdiction over petitions for declaratory relief against the imposition of tax liability or validity of tax assessments: The more substantial reason that should have impelled the RTC to desist from taking cognizance of the respondent's petition for declaratory relief except to dismiss the petition was its lack of jurisdiction. We start by reminding the respondent about the inflexible policy that taxes, being the lifeblood of the Government, should be collected promptly and without hindrance or delay. Obeisance to this policy is unquestionably dictated by law itself. Indeed, Section 218 of the NIRC expressly provides that "[n]o court shall have the authority to grant an injunction to restrain the collection of any national internal revenue tax, fee or charge imposed by th[e] [NIRC]." Also, pursuant to Section 11[15] of R.A. No. 1125, as amended, the decisions or rulings of the Commissioner of Internal Revenue, among others, assessing any tax, or levying, or https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/65912 12/25