Court of Tax Appeals · En Banc
0Unisys Philippines Limited V. Commissioner of Internal Revenue
REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES
Court of Tax Appeals
QUEZON CITY
En Banc
UNISYS PHILIPPINES LIMITED, CTA EB NO. 1450
Petitioner, (CTA Case No. 8634)
Members:
DEL ROSARIO, P.|.,
CASTANEDA, JR.,
BAUTISTA,
UY;
CASANOVA,
FABON-VICTORINO,
MINDARO-GRULLA,
RINGPIS-LIBAN, and
MANAHAN, J].
— VeETSUS —
COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL Promulgated:
REVENUE,
Respondent. FEBO7 2018 7 Sra.m
X----------------------------------- --- - --- -- = - = = - = - +++ ae
AdVLE INI EID IE CAS EO
BAUTISTA, J.>
For resolution is petitioner’s Motion for Reconsideration filed on
October 4, 2017; without respondent’s comment despite due notice.
On September 6, 2017, the Court En Banc promulgated a Decision
(the “Assailed Decision”) denying the Petition for Review and
affirming the Court in Division’s Decision! promulgated on March 7,
2016 (the “Division Decision”) and Order? dated March 31, 2016 (the
“Division Order’). Essentially, the Assailed Decision upheld the
finding of the Court in Division, which denied petitioner’s claim for
AMENDED DECISION
CTA EB NO. 1450 (CTA Case No. 8634)
Page 2 of 4
refund of unutilized creditable withholding taxes ("CWTs") for calendar year ("CY") 2010 in the amount of Php31,736,011.00. The dispositive portion of the Assailed Decision reads:
WHEREFORE, the instant Petition for Review is hereby DENIED. The Decision promulgated on March 7, 2016 and the Order dated March 31, 2016 by the First Division are hereby AFFIRMED.
SO ORDERED.3
Petitioner, in its Motion for Reconsideration, raises the following arguments:
1.
The Court En Bane erred in ruling that the present case does not fall under the exceptions to the mandatory requirement of the notice of hearing for motions. In the interest of substantial justice, the requirements of the notice of hearing for motions should be liberally applied by the Court En Bane to the instant case. 2.
The factual background of the cases cited by the Court En Bane in the Assailed Decision does not fall squarely with the facts of the instant case.
3.
Petitioner
had substantially cmnplied with the requirements of notice of hearing in filing its Motion for Reconsideration of the Division Decision.
4.
The Division Order is null and void for being contrary to Section 4, Rule VIII of the Internal Rules of the Court ofT ax Appeals. 5.
Contrary to the Division Decision, petitioner is entitled to the refund of its unutilized CWT in the amount of Php31,736,011.00 for CY 2010, pursuant to Section 76 of the National Internal Revenue Code of 1997, as amended (the "1997 NIRC")4.
After a careful review of the grounds raised in the Motion for Reconsideration, the Court En Bane finds the same meritorious. Upon 3 Emphases retained.
4 Republic Act No. 8424, as amended (1997). (
CTA EB NO. 1450 (CTA Case No. 8634) closer inspection, the Court En Bnnc holds that while the Division Order correctly found petitioner's motion for reconsideration of the Division Decision to be a mere scrap of paper, the required quorum was not met in the issuance of said Division Order; hence, the case should be remanded to the Court in Division for further proceedings. Section 4, Rule 2 of the Revised Rules of the Court of Tax Appeals ("RRCTA")S provides that a final resolution of a court decision requires the presence at the deliberation and the affirmative vote of at least two
(2) justices, as follows: Sec. 4. The Court Division; quorum and voting. - The Chairperson of the Division or, if absent, the most senior me1nber shall preside over the session of the Court in Division. The attendance of at least two (2) justices of the court shall be necessary to constitute a quormn for its sessions in Divisions. The presence at the deliberation and the affirmative vote of at least two justices shall be required for the pronouncement of a judgment or final resolution of the Court Decision.6 In the present case, the required quorum was not met in the issuance of the Division Order. Considering the Court in Division is mandated to act as a collegiate body in the deliberation of a final resolution, the consequent Division Order ruling on petitioner's motion for reconsideration of the Division Decision was improperly issued. Hence, the remand of the case is in order.
WHEREFORE, premises considered, petitioner's Motion for Reconsideration is PARTIALLY GRANTED. The Decision of the Court En Bane promulgated on September 6, 2017 is hereby REVERSED and SET ASIDE. Let the case be REMANDED to the Court in Division for further proceedings.
SO ORDERED.
s A.M. No. 05-11-07-CTA (2005).
6 Underscoring ours.
LOVEL~R. BAUTISTA
Associate Justice
CTA EB NO. 1450 (CTA Case No. 8634)
WE CONCUR:
Presiding Justice
~;Lvc.~~~t~· JUANITO C. CASTANEDA, JR.
Associate Justice
CAESAR~ASANOVA
Associate Justice
~
N_ M~·~- CwJL
CIELITO N. MINDARO-GRULLA
Associate Justice
ER~P.UY
Associate Justice
~· ~ ..-3\.-
I
MA. BELEN M. RINGPIS-LIBAN
Associate Justice
t::!JJ--r' :7-~ CATHERINE T. MANAHAN
Associate Justice
CERTIFICATION
Pursuant to Article VIII, Section 13 of the Constitution, it is hereby certified that the conclusions in the above Decision were reached in consultation before the case was assigned to the writer of the opinion of this Court.
~uW ROMAN G. DEL ROSARIO