CTA Case No. 3860

DECISION

- 2 - F:evenue the total amount of P14~063,400.65 as withholding taxes due on interest remitted to var .i.ous foreign creditors for the account o·f its numer-ous bor-r-oi-'Jer-c 1 ien ts on their gl.tar-anteed foreign obligations.

the total amount of P14,063 ,400.65 1-'lit.hholding paid to the Bureau~ the amount of P91~817.68 represents the 10% tr:~>:

t-l.i thheld on inter·e~;t payments due on for·eign c ur-rene y loan tr-ansac: tion by one of its c 1 ients ~ i.e.~ Sta. Ines Melale Forest Products Corporation with Banque Nationale de Paris. Pet.i tioner con tends that at the time it paid the \1-J.ithholding ta >: of P14~063~400.65 it had no knowledge that Sta.

Ines Malale Forest Products Corpor-,"'t.ion had a 1 r·eady paid on October 22, 1982 the P91,817.68 tax corresponding to the firm's interes ts remitted to Banque Nationale de Paris. Inas much as there has been overpayment on account o f the double remittance of P91,817.68, ·f Jrst, by Sta.

Ines Malale .Forest Products Corporation and, second, by petitioner, the course of action pursued by petitioner was to file a claim for ta x credit with the Bureau of Internal Revenue He<:1d O·ffice.

l,oJ:i.thout t-Jaiting for the decision of

- 3 - r·espondent ~ pet.i t.ioner filed the instant petition for n?viet.-J •;;o as not to be bar-red by reason o ·f pres cr·iption.

The issue addr-essed to this Court is whether petitioner ha s pr-oven a va 1 id c 1 aim to the refund of alleged erroneously paid lOX withholding tax on interests remitted to foreign bank in the amount of F'91~8.17.68.

~'-li thout going over the actual merits of this case~ We are faced with the dilemma of dismissing the pet i t.icm P.r.!!_P.!_Q for lack of jurisdiction.

Our jurisdiction is defeated by the r-ecent.

promul ga t.i.on of the Supreme Court in the case of Development Bank of the Philippines vs. The Court o ·f Appeals and the Commissioner of Customs~ G .FL No.

December 1.989~ t.-Jhich affirmed the deci s ion of the Court of Appeals in that case~ where it was held that the Court of Tax Appeals has no jurisdiction to take cognizance of the case following the explicit mandate of Section 1 of Presi dential Decree No. 242~ which provides:

SECTION 1.

p,~ovisions of law to the contrary notwithstanding~ all disputes~ claims and controversies solely between or among the departments, bureaus~ offices~ agencies and instrumentalities of the National Government~ including government-owned or cclntr··olled c:orporatlons but e>:c:ludinq

- 4 - constitutiona l of fice s or agencies~ arising from the interpretation and application of s tatutes~ contracts or agreements~ sha ll henceforth be administratively sett led or adjudicated as provided hereinafter: Provided, That this ~;; h a ll not apply to cases already pending in court at the time of the effectivity of this decree. ThosE? cases fa 11 ing under Section 1 sha 11 be ~. ubmi t tE~ d for adj ud ic at: ion pursua nt to the provi sions under Sections 2 and 3 of said Decree eit her to the Secretary of ~Justice :i. f the dispute invol ves only questions of law or to the Solicitor Genera 1 ~ Government Corporate Counsel or the Secretary of Ju!':.t :i.ce in cases involving mixed questi o ns of

1 C:\1-'1

and of f ac t or only factual Cons.ider-·Jnq that. the provi~dons of P.D.

242 1-'J h .i.c h took effect on the date of its promulgation on ,July 9 ~ 19T3 are t-epugn a nt I·Ji th Section 7 of Republ :i.e Act No.

1.125 providing for the jurisdiction of the Court of Ta x Appeals (eff. June .16~ 1954) ~ then thi s later enactment in effect amended the jur-i sd ic tion of this court as it was provided in Section 1 of P.D. 242 - "Provisions of 1 aw to the contrary notwi thstanc.Hng". Thus~ as this case involves a claim by DBP~ a governme nt and controlled corporation~

- 5 - a gain s t the Commissioner of Internal Revenue~ both parties r·epresenting only one interest the Gover·nment ~ then the procedure to be applied in a djud.i. c.-'.\ t:.ing s uch claim 1-'muld be that embodied in F'.D. 2 4 2 .

vii th the ci.rcumstances now obtaining and in vievJ o ·f the t-ecent pronouncement of the Supreme Court~ suffice it~ therefcJre, to state that i.t is beyond the ambit of this Court's jurisdiction to t ake cogni zance of the instant petition. As ruled by th e High Court~ We mus t obey.

Nothing more is to be done except to DISMISS this case for lack of jur· i~ ::. diction v1.ithout pr·ejudice to the filing of a petition with the Secretary of Justice~ as its proper· ·forum.

WHEREFORE, the petition for review is hereby DISMISSED without pronouncement as to costs.