COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE v. FILMINERA CORPORATION

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES COURT OF TAX APPEALS QUEZON CITY ENBANC COMMISSIONER OF CTA EB N0.1681 (CTA Case No. 8938) INTERNAL REVENUE, Present: Petitioner, -versus- Del Rosario, P.J. , Castaneda, Jr., Uy, Fabon-Victorino, Mindaro-Grulla, Ringpis-Liban, and Manahan,JJ. FILMINERA RESOURCES Promulgated: CORPORATION, Respondent. X-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------X RESOLUTION CASTANEDA, JR., J.: This resolves petitioner's Motion for Reconsideration (Re: Decision dated 28 January 20 19) praying for the reversal of the Court's decision which affirmed the decision ofthe Court ofTax Appeals Third Division (CTA Third Division), the dispositive portion of which reads: "Considering the foregoing discussion, petitioner CIR has failed to validly argue against the holding of the Court a quo decreeing the partial grant of the claim in favo r of FRC. WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Petition for Review is DENIED for lack of merit. The January 31 , 2017 Decision and the June 20, 2017 Resolution are hereby AFFIRMED. SO ORDERED." Petitioner raises the following arguments in support of its motion: 7v

RESOLUTION CTA EB No. 1681 (CTA Case No. 8938) Page 2 of3 � A BOI Certification is not sufficient to prove that there was actual shipment of goods from the Philippines to a foreign country; and, � Petitioner should not be made to suffer the consequences of the negligence of his counsel. To counter these arguments, respondent Filminera Resources Corporation (FRC) reiterates that the decision of the CTA Third Division had become final and executory due to petitioner's failure to file the Motion for Reconsideration within the reglementary period1 and, furthermore, it had sufficiently proven that the goods supplied to a BOI-registered exporter were 100% exported2 and that it was able to comply with the conditions set forth in Revenue Memorandum Order No. 9-2000.3 We agree with the respondent. First, with respect to the issue on the BOI Certification, the Court finds petitioner's arguments as a repetition of those already raised in the petition which the Court had already amply considered, passed upon and discussed in its assailed decision. Second, mere allegation is not proof.4 Merely reciting the disproportionate case load ofthe former counsel while he was still part of the Litigation Division and his reassignment to Revenue Region No. 95 without more is simply not enough to convince the Court of the veracity of these contentions. To be given any weight or value, at the very least, petitioner's counsels should have filed a verification to attest to the truth ofthe facts stated in the motion, which may explain why the Motion for Reconsideration of the decision of the Court a quo was filed only on March 29, 2017, more than a month later than the last day set by the rules, i.e. February 18, 2017. More importantly, these material facts allegedly constituting excusable negligence to warrant easing of the rules of procedure were not disclosed in the verified Petition for Review filed before the Court. This omission contradicts the petitioner's unqualified representation on the timeliness of the petition.6 Counsels for petitioner should be reminded that, because of the particular nature of an attorneys' function, it is essential that they should act with fairness, honesty and candor towards the courts and their clients. Under Rule 10.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility: "A lawyer shall not do any falsehood, nor consent to the doing ofany in Court; nor shall he mislead, or allow the Court to be misled by any artifice."7 ~ 1 Comment, Rollo, pp. 187-196. 2 Id at pp. 199-20 I. 3 Id at pp. 201-203. 4 Malayan Insurance Co., Inc. v. First Philippine Insurance Co., Inc., eta/., G.R. No. 184300. July II, 2012. ' Motion for Reconsideration, Rollo, p. 166. 6 Petition for Review, Rollo, p. 8. 7 Dr. Domiciano F. Villahermosa v. Atty. Isidro L. Caracol, A.C. No. 7325, January 21,2015.

RESOLUTION CTA EB No. 1681 (CTA Case No. 8938) Page 3 of3 WHEREFORE, finding no cogent reason to reverse the assailed decision, petitioner's motion is DENIED for lack of merit. SO ORDERED. JUA~SIlTO0 c.- CAS~ TANiQD. A, JR. Associate Justice WE CONCUR: Presiding Justice ER~P.UY Associate Justice mum !'.�. 6~~ ~. Mt..~-Ct...lL N. MINDARO-GRULLA Associate Justice <br. ~ 4~ L- MA. BELEN M. RINGPIS-LIBAN Associate Justice (On Leave) CATHERINE T. MANAHAN Associate Justice