COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE v. SAN MIGUEL BREWERY INC., A SUBSIDIARY OF SAN MIGUEL CORPORATION

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES COURT OF TAX APPEALS QUEZON CITY ENBANC ********* COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL CTA EB No. 1730 REVENUE, (CTA Case No. 8748) Petitioner, Present: DEL ROSARIO, P.J. , CASTANEDA, JR., -versus- UY, FABON-VICTORINO, MINDARO-GRULLA, RINGPIS-LIBAN, and MANAHAN, JJ. SAN MIGUEL BREWERY, INC., A SUBSIDIARY OF SAN MIGUEL Promulgated: CORPORATION, Respondent. MAR 0 8 2019 ~ a .' /7�"'"' . X- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - X RESOLUTION UY, J.: For resolution ts petitioner's "MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION Re: Decision dated 11 October 2018" filed on November 5, 2018 , with respondent's "OPPOSITION TO THE PETITIONER'S 'MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION ... ' DATED OCTOBER 31, 2018" filed on January 4, 2019, praying for the reversal and setting aside of the Court En Bane's Decision dated October 11 , 2018 , the dispositive portion of which reads : "WHEREFORE, in light of the foregoing considerations, the Petition for Review is DENIED for lack of merit. Accordingly, the Decision dated June 9, 2017 and the Resolution dated October 6, 2017, both rendered by the Court in Division in CTA Case No. 8748 are AFFIRMED.

RESOLUTION CTA EB No. 1730 (CTA Case No. 8748) Page 2 of3 SO ORDERED." In the Motion, petitioner argues that the Court in Division has no jurisdiction over respondent's Petition for Review filed on December 19, 2013; that San Mig Light Pale Pilsen is a variant of an existing brand; and that respondent is not entitled to the refund of excise tax. On the other hand, in its Opposition, respondent avers, inter alia, that this Court can now rule not only on the propriety of an assessment or tax treatment of certain transaction, but also on the validity of the revenue regulation or revenue memorandum circular on which the said assessment is based; and that there is no merit in petitioner's arguments relative to that San Mig Light Pale Pilsen is a variant of existing brand, and the same are riddled with inaccuracies. THE COURT EN BANC'S RULING The instant Motion for Reconsideration lacks merit. A careful perusal of the petitioner's Motion for Reconsideration shows that the arguments raised therein are a mere reiteration of matters which have already been specifically considered, weighed and resolved in the assailed Decision. Finding no compelling reason to reconsider, modify or reverse Our Decision, We shall no longer belabor in this Resolution, to repeat the disquisitions made therein. WHEREFORE, premises considered, petitioner's Motion for Reconsideration is DENIED for lack of merit. SO ORDERED. ER~P.UY WE CONCUR: Associate Justice Presiding Justice

RESOLUTION CTA EB No. 1730 (CTA Case No. 8748) Page 3 of3 Jl.f~lN~ITOcC.. CaASATwAN~ED}~.JR. 7 ESPEr A . FABON-VICTORINO / As ciate Justice Associate Justice C)l.. ~ ~ .., '-.._I ~ N~ MrIvNtD~A-R.O~cWlA'_U1LLL.A MA. BELEN M. RINGPIS-LIBAN CIELITO N. Associate Justice Associate Justice ~'7-~- CATHERINE T. MANAHAN Associate Justice