Commissioner of Internal Revenue vs. Irish Fe N. Aguilar, et al.

DECISION

Fa bon- Victorino, J.:

In law, nothing is as elementary as the concept of jurisdiction, for the same is the foundation upon which the courts exercise their power of adjudication, and without which, no rights or obligation could emanate from any decision or resolution. 1 Jurisdiction vests the Court with the required competence to determine the merit of cause raised before it.

Glynna Foronda-Crystal vs. Aniana Lawas Son, G.R. No. 221815, November 29, 20 17. Italics in the original.

In the instant

Petition

for Review2, petitioner Commissioner of Internal Revenue (CIR) assails the Original Decision3 and Amended Decision 4 dated December 1, 2017 and May 8, 2018, respectively, both rendered by the Court in Division in CTA Case No. 9073. The dispositive portions of the assailed

Original

and

Amended

respectively state as follows:

2 3 4 Assailed Original Decision of December 1, 2017: In light of the foregoing, We PARTIALLY GRANT (respondents') Petition for Review in the aggregate sum of P4,626,335.18:

Name of Employee

Amount of Tax Refund

Irish Fe N. Aquilar p 395,383.84 Majella R. Canzon 289 966.00 Arlene B. Chavez 434 002.98 Helen B. Cruda 1_L565_L_838.85 Maria Amparo M. Data 544 687.22 Marian L. Lagmay 127-'-359.17 Verge! K. Latay 362 118.14 Princess 0. Lubaq 261,305.76 Ruth C. Mangrobang 133,865.28 Shiela Marie F. Mariano 20,055.89 Arlene P. Porras 491-'-752.05

Total

P4 626,335.18 Accordingly, (petitioner) is hereby ORDERED TO

ISSUE A TAX REFUND/ TAX CREDIT CERTIFICATE in

favor of (respondents) in the reduced amount of P4,626,335.18 to be individually allocated based on the aforementioned tabular summary, representing the illegally collected income taxes for taxable year 2012.

WHEREFORE, premises considered, (respondents')

Motion for Partial Reconsideration (of the Decision

dated 1 December 2017) is PARTIALLY GRANTED, while (petitioner's)

Motion for

Reconsideration

is DENIED for lack of merit.

Rollo, pp. 1-9.

Ibid. at pp. 12-30.

!d. at pp. 41-48.

/

Accordingly, the Decision dated December 1, 2017 is modified to read as follows:

"In light of the foregoing, We PARTIALLY GRANT (respondents') Petition for Review.

Accordingly, (petitioner) is hereby ORDERED TO

ISSUE A TAX REFUND/ TAX CREDIT CERTIFICATE in

favor of (respondents) in the amount of P4,743,330.80, representing the illegally collected income taxes for taxable year 2012, to be individually allocated as follows:

Name of Emolovee

Amount of Tax Refund

Irish Fe N. Aquilar p 395 383.84 Maiella R. Canzon 289,966.00 Arlene B. Chavez 434 002.98 Helen B. Cruda 1.565,838.85 Maria Amoaro M. Data 544,687.22 Marian L. Laomav 127,359.17 Verqel K. Latav 479 113.76 Princess 0. Lubaq 261,305.76 Ruth C. Manorobano 133 865.28 Shiela Marie F. Mariano 20,055.89 Arlene P. Porras 491.752.05

Total

P4,743 330.80

Revenue

(BIR)

charged with the administration and enforcement of national internal revenue laws, including the granting of refunds and tax credits of taxes erroneously or illegally collected. He holds office at the BIR National Office Building, Agham Road, Quezon City.

On the other hand, respondents, Irish Fe N. Aguilar, Majella R. Canzon, Helen B. Cruda, Maria Amparo M. Dato, Marian L. Lagmay, Vergel K. Latay, Princess 0. Lubag, Ruth C. Mangrobang, Shiela Marie F. Mariano and Arlene P. Porras, are all of legal age, Filipinos and employees of the

Asian

Development

Bank

(ADB), an international organization with principal office at No. 6 ADB Ave., Mandaluyong City.

On

April

12, 2013, petitioner issued

Revenue

Memorandum Circular (RMC) No. 31-2013. 5 Section 2(d)(1) thereof provides inter alia, that the officers and staff of the ADB who are not Philippine nationals shall be exempt from Philippine income tax.

In contrast, Filipinos who are employed at the ADB are subject to pertinent Philippine income taxes, thus:

5 SECTION 2. Tax Treatment of Compensation Income. - The tax treatment of Philippine nationals and alien individuals on compensation income received by them from foreign governments/embassies and missions and international organizations shall be as follows:

XXX

XXX

XXX

(d)

Those

Employed by Organizations

Covered by

Separate International Agreements or Specific Provisions of Law

1. Asian Development Bank (ADB) Section 45 (b), Article XII of the Agreement between the Asian Development Bank and the

Government of the Republic of the Philippines

regarding the

Headquarters

of the

Asian

Development Bank provides:

'ARTICI.E XII

XXX

XXX

XXX

Section 45.

Officers and staff of the Bank, including for the purposes of this Article experts and consultants performing missions for the Bank, shall enjoy the following privileges and immunities:

XXX

XXX

XXX

Guidelines on the Taxation of Compensation Income of Philippine Nationals and

Alien

Individuals

Employed

by

Foreign

Governments/Embassies/Diplomatic Missions and International Organizations Situated in the Philippines.

(b) Exemption from taxation on or in respect of the salaries and emoluments paid by the Bank subject to the power of the Government to tax its nationals;

From the above, only officers and staff of the ADB who are not Philippine nationals shall be exempt from Philippine income tax.

In compliance with the above quoted prov1s1on of the RMC, respondents paid their :ncome taxes for the taxable year (TY) 2012, as follows:

Name of Emolovee

Pavment Date

Amount of Payment

Irish Fe N. Aouilar June 21, 2013 p 395 383.84 Maiella R. Canzon July 12, 2013 289,966.00 Arlene B. Chavez July 15, 2013 434,002.98 Helen B. Cruda July 15, 2013 1,565,838.85 Maria Amoaro M. Data June 21, 2013 544 687.22 Marian L. Laomay July 15, 2013 127,359.17 Veroel K. Latay July 11, 2013 479,113.76 Princess 0. Lubao Auoust 27, 2013 261,305.76 Ruth C. Manorobano

Julv 12 2013

133,865.28 Shiela Marie F. Mariano July 15, 2013 20,055.89 Arlene P. Porras

Julv 30 2013

491,752.05

Total

P4 743 330.80 On February 14, 2014, Erwin Salaveria and Portia Gonzales6 instituted before the Regional Trial Courtl of Mandaluyong City (RTC-Mandaluyong), a Petition to Nullify Section 2(d)(1) of RMC No. 31-2013, docketed as Civil Case No. MC14-8775.

On

September

30, 2014, the

RTC-Mandaluyong

rendered its Decision invalidating Section 2(d)(1) of RMC No. 31-2013 for having being issued without legal basis, in excess of authority and/or without due process of law due to absence of legislation and/or regulation in support thereof. On April 15, 2015, respondents filed their respective administrative claims for refund of income taxes they paid covering TY 2012 before BIR Revenue District No. 41, Mandaluyong City.

6 7 Individuals not among the Filipino ADB Employees in this case. Branch 213.

/

On June 19, 2015, respondents elevated the subject refund claim before the Court in Division, claiming inaction on the part of petitioner.

On December 1, 2017, the Court in Division rendered the assailed Original Decision, finding respondents' refund claim partially impressed with merit. It ruled that Sections 23 and 24 of the National Internal Revenue Code (NIRC), as amended, impose taxes on the compensation income derived from sources within or outside the Philippines realized by resident citizens such as respondents. The general tax-exempt provisions under the ADB Charter may not be applied to them as the Philippine government retained its right to tax its citizens working at the said international organization. Nevertheless, since retroactivity of revenue circulars is expressly prohibited under of Section 246 of the same Code, RMC No. 31-2013 should operate prospectively and may not be applied to their income realized in TY 2012, or prior to its effectivity. Ergo, the Court in Division concluded that save for respondent Vergel K. Latay which was granted a partial refund amounting to P362,118.14 (out of P479,113.76) as he only proved payment to that extent, the other respondents were allowed full refund of income taxes they paid. On December 20, 2017, petitioner and respondents separately moved to reconsider the assailed

Original

Decision of December 1, 2017.

On May 8, 2018, the Court in Division rendered the equally assailed Amended Decision, holding that respondent Vergel K. Latay is entitled to an additional amount of P116,995.62 which he was able to substantiate. On the other hand, petitioner's Motion for Reconsideration was denied for failure to raise any novel matter to warrant the relief prayed for.

On such account, the Court in Division increased the total amount for refunded from P4,626,335.18 to P4,743,330.80.

Hence, the present appeal.

Petitioner ascribes error to the Court in Division in holding that RMC No.

31-2013 may only be applied prospectively. He claims that the imposition of taxes on the income earned by respondents covering

TY

2012 is warranted since his right to impose income taxes is not dependent on the efficacy of RMC No. 31-2013 which merely clarifies existing revenue laws.

Rather, their income tax liability springs from the provisions of the Sections 23 and 24 of the Tax Code, which were already enforced as early as 1998, or way prior to the realization of their compensation income in TY 2012.

He as well invokes the legal tenet that tax refunds like the instant case are to be construed against respondents, who must prove by sufficient and competent evidence their entitlement thereto, lest the claim for refund must be denied outright.

In their Comment dated July 30, 2018,8 respondents counter that the matters set forth by petitioner in the instant Petition for Review were truncated from his pleadings filed with the Court in Division, all of which were discussed and passed upon in the assailed Original and Amended Decision. Be that as it may, they still insist that since there is no particular statute imposing taxes on their compensation income realized at the ADB, they are relieved from paying income taxes in consonance with the general tax-exemption provision provided under Article 56(2) of the ADB Charter. They further assert that the decision rendered by the RTC-Mandaluyong, explicitly declaring void Section 2(d)(1) of RMC No. 31-2013 as well ::=JS the Court of Appeals (CA) Resolution affirming the same are proper subjects of mandatory judicial notice by this Tribunal, citing Section 2, Rule 129 of the Rules of Court, and pertinent case-law9 as bases.

Respondents as well retort that to permit petitioner to implement the provisions of RMC No. 31-2013 on their income realized on TY 2012 is offensive of the time-honored 8 9 Rollo, pp. 57-68.

Degayo vs. Magbanua-Dinglasan, G.R. No. 173148, April 16, 2015.

principle that statutes, as well as BIR circulars are to be applied prospectively, relying on jurisprudence, 10 together with the observation of the Court in Division 11 as authorities. In closing, respondents state that they are duly entitled to the refund of income taxes they paid relating to TY 2012.

THE RULING OF THE COURT

The instant petition deserves scant consideration. Jurisdiction is defined as the power and authority of a court to hear, try, and decide a case. In order for the court or an adjudicative body to have authority to dispose of the case on the merits, it must acquire, among others, jurisdiction over the subject matter. 12 On the other hand, jurisdiction over the subject matter is the power to hear and determine cases of the general class to which the proceedings in question belong. It is conferred by law and an objection based on this ground cannot be waived by the parties. 13 Perforce, it is important that a court or tribunal should first determine whether or not it has jurisdiction over the subject matter presented before it, considering that any act that it performs without jurisdiction shall be null and void, and without any binding legal effects. 14 On this regard, Section 18 of Republic Act (RA) No. 1125, as amended, spells out, inter alia the precise matters legally cognizable by the Court En Bane. It states: 10 11

1Z

13 14 SEC. 18. Appeal to the Court of Tax Appeals En Bane. - No civil proceeding involving matter arising under the National Internal Revenue Code, the Tariff and Customs Code or the Local Government Code shall be maintained, except as herein provided, until and unless an appeal has been previously filed with the CTA and disposed of in accordance with the provisions of this Act.

Co vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 100776, October 28, 1993; and ABS-CBN Broadcasting Corporation vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. L-52306, October 12, 1981.

Pages 12-13 of the assailed Original Decision dated December 1, 2017. Mitsubishi Motors Philippines Corporation vs. Bureau of Customs, G.R. No. 209830, June 17, 2015.

See Heirs of Concha, Sr. vs. Spouses Lumocso, G.R. No. 158121, December 12, 2007.

Bilag vs. Ay-Ay, G.R. No. 189950, April 24, 2017.

A party adversely affected by a resolution of a Division of the CTA on a motion for reconsideration or new trial, may file a petition for review with the CTA en bane. (emphasis supplied) To give muscle to the above prov1s1on, Section 1, Rule 8 of the Revised Rules of the Court of Tax Appeals (RRCTA) 15 stringently decrees a party dissatisfied with the Decision of the Court in Division to first institute a timely motion for reconsideration or new trial thereto before invocation of the Court En Bane's jurisdiction may be permitted. 16 This is because it is the resolution of the Court in Division on the motion for reconsideration or new trial which may be the proper subject of an appeal before the Court En Bane. Significantly, Section 3, Rule 1417 of the RRCTA teaches us that when the Court in Division renders an Amended Decision, or one which modifies or reverses the finding/s in the Original Decision, it is virtually a decision different and distinct from the original one. As such, the party aggrieved by the Amended Decision must again timely file a motion for reconsideration or new trial thereto, lest the Amended Decision shall become final and executory. This position is jurisprudentially engrafted in Asia Trust Development Bank, Inc. vs. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, 18 where it was ruled that:

15 16 17 18 xxx, in order for the CTA En Bane to take cognizance of an appeal via a petition fo; review, a timely motion for reconsideration or new trial must first be filed with the CTA Division that issued the assailed decision or resolution. Failure to do so is a ground for the dismissal of the appeal as the word "must" indicates that the filing of a prior motion is mandatory, and not merely directory. The same is true in the case of an amended decision. Section 3, Rule 14 of the same rules defines an amended decision as '[a]ny action modifying or reversing a decision of the Court en bane or in Division.' As explained in CE SECTION 1. Review of cases in the Court en bane. - In cases falling under the exclusive appellate jurisdiction of the Court en bane, the petition for review of a decision or resolution of the Court in Division must be preceded by the filing of a timely motion for reconsideration or new trial with the Division. See Commissioner of Customs vs. Marina Sales, Inc., G.R. No. 183868, November 22, 2010.

SEC. 3. Amended decision. - Any action modifying or reversing a decision of the Court en bane or in Division shall be denominated as Amended Decision. G.R. No. 201530,April 19,2017.

Luzon Geothermal Power Company, Inc. v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, an amended decision is a different decision, and thus, is a proper subject of a motion for reconsideration .19 In this case, the Court in Division rendered its Original Decision dated December 1, 2017,2° granting in part respondents' refund of income taxes for TY 2012 to the extent of P4,626,335.18, as follows:

In light of the foregoing, We PARTIALLY GRANT (respondents') Petition for Review in the aggregate sum of 1'4,626,335.18:

Name of Employee

Amount of Tax Refund

Irish Fe N. Aguilar p 395,383.84 Majella R. Canzon 289,966.00 Arlene B. Chavez 434,002.98 Helen B. Cruda 1,565 838.85 Maria Amparo M. Data 544,687.22 Marian L. Lagmay 127 359.17 Vergel K. Latay 362,118.1421 Princess 0. Lubaq 261 305.76 Ruth C. Mangrobang 133,865.28 Shiela Marie F. Mariano 20,055.89 Arlene P. Porras 491,752.05

Total

P4,626,335.18 Accordingly, (petitioner) is hereby ORDERED TO ISSUE A TAX REFUND/ TAX CREDIT CERTIFICATE in favor of (respondents) in the reduced amount of P4,626,335.18 to be individually allocated based on the aforementioned tabular summary, representing the illegally collected income taxes for taxable year 2012.

WHEREFORE, premises considered, (respondents') Motion for

Partial

Reconsideration (of the Decision dated 1 December 2017) is PARTIALLY GRANTED, while (petitioner's) Motion for Reconsideration is DENIED for lack of merit. Accordingly, the Decision dated December 1, 2017 is modified to read as follows:

"In light of the foregoing,

We

PARTIALLY GRANT

(respondents') Petition for Review.

Accordingly, (petitioner) is hereby ORDERED TO ISSUE A

TAX

REFUND/

TAX

CREDIT

CERTIFICATE

in favor of (respondents) in the amount of P4,743,330.80, representing the illegally collected income taxes for taxable year 2012, to be individually allocated as follows:

Name of Employee

Amount of Tax Refund

Irish Fe N. Aguilar p 395,383.84 Majella R. Canzon 289,966.00 Arlene B. Chavez 434 002.98 Helen B. Cruda 1,565,838.85 Maria Amparo M. Dato 544,687.22 Marian L. Lagmay 127,359.17 Vergel K. Latay 479,113.7625 Princess 0. Lubag 261,305.76 Ruth C. Mangrobang 133,865.28 Shiela Marie F. Mariano 20 055.89 Arlene P. Porras 491,752.05

Total

P4,743,330.80

En

Bane.

To repeat, the filing of a motion for 25 Boldfacing supplied.

/ reconsideration or new trial to question the decision of a division of the Court of Tax Appeals (CTA) is mandatory. An appeal brought directly to the CTA En Bane is dismissible for lack of jurisdiction. 26 Moreover, the perfection of an appeal in the manner and within the period prescribed by law is not only mandatory but also jurisdictional and failure of a party to conform to the rules regarding appeal will render the judgment final and executoryY A decision that has attained finality becomes the law of the case regardless of any claim that it is erroneous. 28 It may no longer be modified in any respect, even if the modification is meant to correct what is perceived to be an erroneous conclusion of fact or law, and regardless of whether the modification is attempted to be made by the court rendering it or by the highest court of the land. Just as the losing party has the right to file an appeal within the prescribed period, the winning party also has the correlative right to enjoy the finality of the resolution of his case. 29

WHEREFORE, the Petition for Review dated June 8, 2018, filed by the Commissioner of Internal Revenue is DISMISSED, for lack of jurisdiction.

26 27 28 29

We Concur:

Presiding Justice

9«4-.u~ c G,;.¢= ~ , l J6'ANITO C. CASTANECJA, JR.

Associate Justice

~ M.M~LN>.C~ CIELITO 'N. MIN~O-GRULLA

Associate Justice

t~· /-.,t6~·tt·..__- CATHERINE T. MANAHAN ER~P. UY

Associate Justice

~. ~ ..-:>- /.....

I

With due respect, please see

Separate Opinion

MA. BELEN M. RINGPIS-LIBAN

Associate Justice

'

RO-VILLENA

ustice

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 the Court.

Presiding Justice

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES

COURT OF TAX APPEALS

QUEZON CITY

ENBANC

COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL

REVENUE, Peri tioner, -versus - IRISH FE N. AGUILAR, ET. AL., CTAEB N0. 1859 (CT i\ Case No. 9073)

Present:

DEL ROSARIO, P.J., CASTANEDA, JR., UY, FASON-VICTORINO, MINDARO-GRULLA, RINGPIS-LIBAN, MANAHAN, BACORRO-VILLENA, and MODESTO-SAN PEDRO, ]].

Respondents.

p(ffff4c'2o19 x - __ ________________________________ _ _ _ __ -(JF-~ ·~C!rr,

SEPARATE OPINION

RIN GPIS-LIBAN, L:

I agree with the result that Respondents are entitled to a refund or issuance of a tax credit certificate amounting to a total of Php4,743,330.80 representing the illegally collected income taxes for taxable year 2012. However, it is my view that the instant Petition for Review should not be outrightly dismissed for failure by Petitioner to seek any reconsideration of the 1\mended Decision dated May 08, 2018 ("assailed Amended Decision"). l 1or the orderly administration of justice, I maintain my position that the ruling laid down by tl1e Supreme Court in Asiatmst Development Bank, Inc. v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue1 ("Asiatmsl') should only be applied in instances of similar factual milieu. This is obviously not the case here.~ G.R. Nos. 201530 & 201680-81, April 19, 2017.

Separate Opinion

CTA EB No. 1859 (CTA Case No. 9073)

Page 2 of 5

On this score, I adopt my Concurring Opinion in Phi/am Properties Corporation V Commissioner of Internal RevenUI?, which expound on why Asiatrust should not be applied in each and every case, as dictated by sound procedural rules. The relevant portions are quoted below: 2 Before the Court En Bane could take cognizance of a Petition for Review concerning a case falling under its exclusive appellate jurisdiction, the litigant must sufficiently show that it sought prior reconsideration or moved for a new trial with the concerned division, following Section 1, Rule 8 of the Revised Rules of the Court of Tax Appeals. This has always been the rule, and it still is. Said section provides, to wit:

"RULE 8

PROCEDURE IN CIVIL CASES

SECTION 1. Review of cases in the Court en bane. - In cases falling under the exclusive appellate jurisdiction of the Court en bane, the petition for review of a decision or resolution of the Court in Division must be preceded by the filing of a timely motion for reconsideration or new trial with the Division. (n)" On July 13, 2015, the Third Division (court in Division) promulgated a Decision denying Philam's claim for refund or issuance of a tax credit certificate for insufficiency of evidence ...

XXX

XXX

XXX

On August 04, 2015, Philam ftled

a Motion

for Reconsideration alleging that its claim was fully substantiated. On December 03, 2015, the court in Division issued an Amended Decision partially granting Philam's Motion for Reconsideration and ordering the Commissioner of Internal Revenue (CIR) to issue a tax credit certificate in the amount of Php612,287.61.

Thereafter, the CIR ftled a Motion for Reconsideration on the Amended Decision, which was denied by the court in Division ~ CTA EB NO. 1406, July 07, 2017.

Separate Opinion

CfA EB No. 1859 (CfA Case No. 9073)

Page 3 of 5

in a Resolution. Subsequendy, Philam filed the instant Petition with this Court.

Hence, as borne by the records of the case, it is very clear that Philam already sought prior reconsideration with the court in Division before it filed a Petition for Review with the Court En Bane. The mandatory requirement under Section 1 of Rule 8 of the Revised Rules of the Court of Tax Appeals was already complied with.

I am not unaware of the recent pronouncement of the Supreme Court in Asiatrust Development Bank, Inc. v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue. However, I humbly stress and emphasize that the factual milieu of the said case differs significandy from the case at bar. Asiatrustis not on all fours with the instant case and should not be applied to the same.

At first glance, the facts of Asiatrust and this case may seem similar for in both cases, an amended decision was promulgated by the court 1n division partially granting the motion for reconsideration to the original decision. A perusal of the case however discloses that prior to the issuance of the amended decision, the court set a hearing for the presentation of the originals of the documents attached to

Asiatrust's

motion for reconsideration, documentary exhibits were presented and marked, a witness was recalled, and a supplemental formal offer of evidence was filed. Otherwise stated, a formal hearing was held which became the foundation of the amended decision in Asiatrust. Therefore, it is only proper that the Commissioner of Internal Revenue in Asiatrust file a motion for reconsideration to the amended decision as to the findings made by the Court in division during the hearing.

In contrast with the case at bar, the only basis for the court in Division's Amended Decision dated December 03, 2015 was Philam's Motion for Reconsideration dated August 04, 2015. No hearing was set nor additional evidence presented. Moreover, to insist that Philam file a motion for reconsideration of the Amended Decision would only force Philam to reiterate its argument in its Motion for Reconsideration to the original decision, i.e., that its claim for refund was fully substantiated, which was already passed upon and resolved by the court in Division in its Amended Decision. ,.,...,

Separate Opinion

CTA EB No. 1859 (CTA Case No. 9073)

Page 4 of 5

Otherwise stated, to apply the rule in Asiatrust to include all situations involving issuance of an Amended Decision despite the fact that the issues to be raised in the "second motion for reconsideration" were already included in the motion for reconsideration ftled and passed upon by the court when it promulgated the Amended Decision would set a dangerous and mischievous precedent. ;\ second motion for reconsideration which contains mere iterations and reiterations of the same points and arguments over and over again becomes, in effect, a mere dilatory strategy and consequently nothing more than pro forma. To reiterate, the use of precedents should not be mechanical. Application of a particular doctrine is appropriate only in cases involving similar facts. When the facts vary, one should analyze and re-examine if the same doctrine would still apply. As aptly put by the Supreme Court in Philzppine Carpet Manufacturing v. Ignacio B.

Tagyamon:

"Under the doctrine of stare decisis, when a court has laid down a principle of law as applicable to a certain state of facts, it will adhere to that principle and apply it to all future cases in which the facts are substantially the same, even though the parties may be different. Where the facts are essentially different. however. stare decisis does not apply. for a perfectly sound principle as applied to one set of facts might be entirely inappropriate when a factual variant is introduced. (Emphasis supplied)" Similar to Phi/am, Petitioner herein timely filed a Motion for Reconsideration to the Decision dated December 01, 2017 (assailed Decision), on December 20, 2017 via registered mail. Second, the only basis for the court in Division's assailed Amended Decision was Respondents' Motion for Partial Reconsideration and Petitioner's Motion for Reconsideration both filed on December 20, 2017. And third, no hearing was set nor additional evidence presented for the resolution of the parties' motions for reconsiderations. Hence, I am of the humble opinion that Asiatrnst does not apply in this case, and that outright dismissal of the instant Petition for Review is unwarranted. Having resolved the procedural issue, it is now time to proceed to the merits of the case. After carefully perusing Petitioner's arguments in the instant Petition for Review, I find that the same had already been exhaustively discussed and resolved in the findings and conclusions of the court in Division in the assailed Decision and assailed Amended Decision. Thus, Petitioner should be ordered to refund or issue a tax credit certificate amounting to a total of Php4,743,330.80 in favor of Respondents. /V'

Separate Opinion

CTA EB No. 1859 (CTA Case No. 9073)

Page 5 of 5

The result is the same, but for a reason which is distinct from the ponente. In view of the foregoing, I vote for the DENIAL of the Petition for Review filed by the Commissioner of Internal Revenue, for lack of merit. ~- J.lh-...... ..A-- MA. BELEN M. RINGPIS-LIBAN

Associate Justice