PETRON CORPORATION v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES COURT OF TAX APPEALS QUEZON CITY ENBANC PETRON CORPORATION, CTA EB NO. 2615 Petitioner, (CTA Case No. 9512) -versus- Present: DEL ROSARIO, P.J. RINGPIS-LIBAN, MANAHAN, BACORRO-VILLENA, MODESTO-SAN PEDRO, REYES-FAJARDO, CUI-DAVID, FERRER-FLORES, and ANGELES, JJ. COMMISSIONER OF Promulgated: INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent. X---- --- --- - - - -- - -- - -------------------- RESOLUTION CUI-DAVID, J.: This resolves respondent's Motion for Reconsideration (Re: Decision promulgated 7 July 2023)1 filed on July 25, 2023, with petitioner's Opposition (Re: Motion for Reconsideration dated 25 July 2023) filed on August 10, 2023. Respondent seeks reconsideration of the Decision 2 promulgated on July 7, 2023, the dispositive portion of which reads: WHEREFORE, premises considered, the instant Petition for Review is GRANTED . The Decision dated September 16, 2021 , and the Resolution dated March 31, 2022, of the Court's Third Division in CTA Case No. 9512 are REVERSED and SET ASIDE. 1 En Bane (EB) Docket, pp. 11 27-11 37 . ~ 2 EB Docket, pp. II 00-11 2 1.

RESOLUTION CTA EBNo. 2615 (CTA Case No. 9512) Petron Corporation v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue X------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------X Accordingly, respondent is ORDERED to REFUND or ISSUE A TAX CREDIT CERTIFICATE in favor of petitioner in the amount of Nineteen Million Nine Hundred Ninety- Seven Thousand Twenty-Eight Pesos (Pl9,997,028.00), representing excise taxes erroneously paid for its importation of alkylate under Import Entry & Internal Revenue Declaration No. 00379406065. SO ORDERED. In his bid to reverse and set aside the aforesaid Decision of July 7, 2023, respondent re-stated the ratiocination of the Court in Division, which found that alkylate, being a product of distillation, is subject to excise tax pursuant to Section 148(e) of the National Internal Revenue Code (NIRC) of 1997, as amended. Hence, the subject excise tax payments are not erroneous or illegal. By way of an Opposition, petitioner submits that respondent's Motion for Reconsideration should be denied on the following grounds: I. The CIR's Motion should be denied outright for being pro forma. Not only does the Motion fail to comply with the requirements for a motion for reconsideration, the CIR merely quoted the Decision of this Honorable Court in one case and a dissenting opinion in another case. The CIR's sole argument is a mere rehash of the argument already passed upon and rejected by the Honorable Court. II. This Honorable Court correctly ruled that alkylate is not a product of distillation and is not similar to naphtha or regular gasoline. Respondent's Motion must fail. Indeed, all the arguments set forth by respondent have already been considered and rejected in the assailed Decision of July 7, 2023. To rule on the same issues again is a waste of time and dwindling the Court's resources. Nevertheless, it is well to emphasize that the Supreme Court has already spoken on the present controversy. In the r very recent case of Petron Corporation v. Commissioner of

RESOLUTION CTA EB No. 2615 (CTA Case No. 9512) Petron Corporation v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue X------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------X Internal Revenue,3 the Highest Tribunal categorically declared that alkylate does not fall under the category of "other similar products of distillation" as stated in Section 148(e) of the NIRC of 1997, as amended. The Supreme Court, by tradition and in our system of judicial administration, has the last word on what the law is; it is the final arbiter of any justiciable controversy. There is only one Supreme Court from whose decisions all other courts should take their bearings.4 Thus, the Court En Bane cannot rule on the matter in any other way. WHEREFORE, premises considered, respondent's Motion for Reconsideration (Re: Decision promulgated 7 July 2023) is DENIED for lack of merit. SO ORDERED. LAN&J"k';A.vA~iUlIt-nD~~V1D Associate Justice We Concur: Presiding Justice ~. 4A-.-- -z, L-- MA. BELEN M. RINGPIS-LIBAN Associate Justice (Inhibited) CATHERINE T. MANAHAN Associate Justice 3 G.R. No. 255961, March 20,2023. 4 GSJS v. Court ofAppeals, 334 Phil. 163, 175 [1997], citingAng Ping v. RTC ofManila, Br. 40, G.R. No. L-75860, 17 September 1987, 154 SCRA 77 and Tugade v. Court ofAppeals, G.R. L-47772, 31 August 1978, 85 SCRA 226.

RESOLUTION CTA EB No. 2615 (CTA Case No. 9512) Petron Corporation v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue X------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------X \ LENA . ~~ r.~ r~~ MARIAN I# F. RE4ES-FA1ARDO Associate Justice co~L'!:::E~~~ ~:::u-H~ Associate Justice HENRY ~GELES Associate Justice