MELCO RESORTS LEISURE (PHP) CORPORATION v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES COURT OF TAX APPEALS QUEZON CITY ENBANC MELCO RESORTS LEISURE CTA EB NO. 2670 (PHP) CORPORATION, (CTA Case Nos. 10029 & 10052) Petitioner, Present: -versus- DEL ROSARIO, P.J., COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, RINGPIS-LIBAN, MANAHAN, Respondent. BACORRO-VILLENA, MODESTO-SAN PEDRO, REYES-FAJARDO, CUI-DAVID, FERRER-FLORES, and ANGELES, JJ. X- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - X RESOLUTION RINGPIS-LIBAN,.L: This resolves Petitioner's "Motion for Reconsideration [o f Decision dated January 9, 2024]"1 ("Motion for Reconsideration") flied on January 29, 2024, without Respondent's comment thereon .2 Petitioner's Motion for Reconsideration prays for the setting aside of the Decision promulgated on Januaty 09, 2024 and rule that judgment be rendered: 1) D eclaring Petitioner entitled to a refund or tax credit in the o y aggregate amount of Php92,760,416.49 representing erroneously and illegally paid value-added tax ("VAT") Rollo, pp. 213-238. 2 Records Verification Report dated February 29, 2024 stating that Respondent failed to file his comment to Petitioner's Motion for Reconsideration.

RESOLUTION CTA EB NO. 2670 (CTA Case Nos. 10029 & 10052) its purchases of capital goods, domestic purchases of goods (other than capital goods) and services, importation of goods (other than capital goods) and purchases of services rendered by non~residents, which are passes on by its suppliers and arc related to revenues from gaming operations for the 1" and 2"" quarters of taxable year 2017; and 2) Ordering Respondent to refund or issue a tax credit certificate in the aggregate amount ofPhp92,760,416.49. The dispositive portion of the Decision promulgated by this Court on January 09, 2024 reads: "WHEREFORE, premises considered, the instant Petition for Review is DENIED for lack of merit. The Decision dated September 07, 2021 and the Resolution dated July 19, 2022 of the Second Division in the case docketed as C'L\ Case Nos. 10029 and 10052 arc AFFIRMED. SO ORDERED."3 In his i\Iotion for Reconsideration, Petitioner contends that in a claim for refund of erroneously paid or passed on taxes by a non~statutory taxpayer, as in the instant case, the "payment of taxes" under Section 229 of the National Internal Revenue Code ("NIRC") of 1997, as amended, should be construed as the time the passed~on taxes are determined to be erroneous, which is from the filing of Petitioner's Quarterly VI\T Return and as evidenced by VAT~registered sales invoices and official receipts issued by its suppliers. Moreover, Petitioner avers that under the principle of Jo!utio indebiti, the government had to restore to Petitioner the sums representing erroneous payment of taxes. Likewise, Petitioner maintains that it complied with the requirements in a claim for refund or credit of taxes erroneously paid or illegally collected under Sections 204 and 229 of the NIRC of 1997, as amended. Lastly, Petitioner disputes that the additional proof of payment consisting of BIR Form No. 1600 in the amount of Php616,578.29 should be allowed as additional amount to be refunded to Pctitioneriv" 3 Id., Decision dated January 09, 2024, p. 185.

RESOLUTION / ITA EB NO. 2670 (ITA Case Nos. 10029 & 10052) \ve resolve to deny Petitioner's i\Iotion for Reconsideration for lack of ment. The arguments raised by Petitioner in its motion arc mere recapitulation of the arguments raised in its Petition for Review filed with this Court. In addition, these issues have been amply considered, weighed and resolved in the Decision promulgated on January 09, 2024. Thus, \ve shall not belabor, in this Resolution, to repeat the disquisitions made therein. One final note. It must be emphasized that "the bare invocation of 'the interest of substantial justice' line is not some magic wand that will automatically compel this Court to suspend procedural rules."� Petitioner was given the opportunity to submit necessary evidence to support its allegations in its original petition before the case was submitted for decision. Now that it obtained an unfavorable decision, Petitioner again prays that it be allowed to present additional evidence to justify its claim. This is too much. A liberal application of the rules of procedure to suit Petitioner's purpose would clearly pave the way for injustice as it would be rewarding an act of negligence with undeserved tolerance. 3 In sum, the Court En Bane finds no cogent reason to overturn the September 07, 2021 Decision and July 19, 2022 Resolution of the Second Division. WHEREFORE, prcnuscs considered, Petitioner's "l\Iotion for Reconsideration [of Decision dated January 9, 2024]" is DENIED for lack of ment. SO ORDERED. MA. BELEN M. RINGPIS-LIBAN Associate Justice WE CONCUR: Presiding Justice 4 G.D.L. Marketing v. Hercules Agro Industrial Corporation, G.R. No. 183239, June 02, 2014. 5 Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. A. Soriano Corporation, Court of Tax Appeals and Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 113703, January 31, 1997.

RESOLUTION CTA EB NO. 2670 (CTA Case Nos. 10029 & 10052) ~7.~ I join PreJ�idmg ]m'tzce 's Separate Conaming Opinion CATHERINE T. MANAHAN Associate Justice c I reiterate my Co1 ming and Dissenting Opinion JEAN MARl BACORRO-VILLENA ~ ~ f. fl.uw.. -f~'r:Nk MARIAN IvY"! REYE31FAJAR1'>o /1.ssociate Justice M1AMt!Yh~ LANEE S. CUI-DAVID Associate Justice I\ssociate Justice ~ c . J ' IJO.Z.II 1)resz.aJz'ng mtzce s //parate ononnng 0'Pt.m.on HENRY S. ANGELES Associate J usticc