PHILIPPINE AIRLINES, INC. v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES Court of Tax Appeals QUEZON CITY En Bane PHILIPPINE AIRLINES, INC., CTAEB NO. 2657 Petitioner, (CTA Case No. 10133) -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, SEP 19 2025 X --------------------------~~~~~~~~------------------~!-~~~~-~ X RESOLUTION MODESTO-SAN PEDRO, J.: For the Court's resolution is petitioner's Motion for Reconsideration (Re: Decision dated 26 March 2025), filed on May 6, 2025, with respondent's Opposition (Re: Motion for Reconsideration ofthe Decision dated 26 March 2025), filed on June 10, 2025, assailing this Court' s Decision, dated March 26, 2025, wherein this Court denied the instant Petition for Review for lack of merit. The Motion likewise lacks merit. In said Motion, petitioner mainly focuses on how both this Court and the Supreme Court have, in the past, granted its judicial claims after being presented with similar evidence. However, it raises the similarity in the quantity of evidence presented, whereas Our denial of the Petition is based on the quality of the evidence presented before the Court in Division. Its only arguments in support of the quality of the evidence presented is that these are/

R[SOLlTIO:\ CT A EB CASE NO. 2637 (CTA CASE NO. 10133) Page 2oD similar kinds of documentary evidence as those presented in past cases. A similarity in kind, however, does not refute the specific problems found by both this Court En Bane and the Court in Division. It does not cure, for example, the Table of Comparison's lack of comparative prices for 16 of the 24 impotied alcohol products. Petitioner's major argument thus fails to actually challenge Our ruling. Its minor arguments fare no better. Its insistence, for example, that the lack of some products from some of the lists is proof of said product's scarcity must be rejected. As found by the Court in Division, petitioner failed to submit evidence to show that the single price list with the product in question is from the exclusive distributor of said product. As is, then, nothing makes interpreting the price lists' insufficiency as proof of unavailability more compelling than interpreting it as mere insufficiency. As for petitioner's claim to a prima facie case in its favor, the same is once again anchored on the quantity of its evidence, not the quality of the same. As even Our discussion of prima facie as a concept revolves around quality, the argument once again fails to address the actual reasons for Our ruling. In sum, the Court En Bane is not convinced that the assailed Decision must be set aside. ACCORDINGLY, the petitioner's Motion for Reconsideration (Re: Decision dated 26 March 2025), filed on May 6, 2025, is hereby DENIED for lack of merit. SO ORDERED. A:ssoet te Justice WE CONCUR: Presiding Justice On leave MA. BELEN M. RINGPIS-LIBAN Associate Justice

RESOUTIO' CTA FR CASE NO. 2657 (CTA CASE NO. 10133) c~� 7 ~--. . . . . .~((,..-- cATHERINE T. MANAHAN Associate Justice � . BACORRO-VILLENA M~ AR~ IAN)IV=~~.-~E~Y~f ~FAa~J.':;!;; Associate Justice ~~ LANEE S. CUI-DAVID Associate Justice HENRY ~GELES Associate Justice