COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE v. GINEBRA SAN MIGUEL, INC. (Consolidated with CTA EB NO. 2555)

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES COURT OFTAX APPEALS QUEZON CITY ENBANC COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL CTA EB No. 2544 REVENUE, (CTA Case Nos. 8953 & 8954) Peti ti oner, - versus - GINEBRA SAN MIGUEL, INC., CTA EB No. 2555 Respondent. (CTA Case Nos. 8953 & 8954) Present: x---------------------------------------------x GINEBRA SAN MIGUEL, INC., Petitioner, Pr DEL ROSARIO, RINGPIS-LIBAN, MANAHAN, - versus - BACORRO-VILLENA, MODESTO-SAN PEDRO, REYES-FAJARDO, CUI-DAVID, FERRER-FLORES, and ANGELES,JL COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent. X- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - RESOLUTION REYES-FAJARDO, L.: For the Court's resolution is the Commissioner of Internal Revenue (CIR)'s Motion for Reconsideration1 of the Decision promulgated on January 18, 2024. In the Assailed Decision, the Court En Bane affirmed the Court of Tax Appeals (CTA) Third 1 Rollo (CfA EB No. 2554), p. 121-139.

RESOLUTION CIA EBNos. 2544 & 2555 (CIA Case Nos.8953 & 8954) Division (Court in Division)'s ruling, which granted Ginebra San Miguel, Inc. (GSMI)'s claim for refund to the extent of P319,755,320.82. GSMI had sought the refund of erroneously and excessively paid excise taxes finished goods removals from January 1, 2013 to May 31, 2013 that were produced using tax-paid raw materials. For its part, GSMI filed its Comment On/Opposition2 to the instant motion on March 1, 2024. In the present motion, the CIR raises the same arguments it advanced before the Court in Division and its Petition for Review before the Court En Bane. First, We already rejected its argument that that the CTA does not have jurisdiction to try the question of validity or constitutionality of BIR issuances;3 the CTA's jurisdiction over the issue of constitutionality or validity of tax issuances is sanctioned by Section 7 of Republic Act No. 1125, as amended. Second, We also discussed at length the findings that support GSMI's entitlement to a partial refund. While it is true that" a motion for reconsideration, by its very nature, may tend to dwell on issues already resolved in the decision sought to be reconsidered and that this should not be an obstacle for a reconsideration, the hard reality is that movant has failed to raise matters substantially plausible or compellingly persuasive to warrant the desired course of action."4 There being no substantial arguments warranting reconsideration, there is no reason for the Court to reverse or modify the Assailed Decision.5 Any further discourse will only be unnecessary and repetitive.6 SO ORDERED. rw ~ ~ F.~,F~-~ MARIAN F. REYEs-,FArARDo Associate Justice 2 Rollo (CIA EB No. 2554), pp. 153-157. ' Rollo (CIA EB No. 2554), p. 123. ' Slwngri-la International Hotel Management, Ltd. v. Developers Gronp of Companies, Inc., G.R. No. 159938 (Resolution), January 22, 2007, 541 PHIL 138-143. s Ibid. 6 Social fnstice Society (SJS) Officers, et nl. v. Lim, G.R Nos. 187836 & 187916, March 10,2015. Also see Roqne, Jr. v. Commission on Elections, G.R. No. 188456 (Resolution), February 10, 2010, 626 PHIL 75-92).

RESOLUTION CTA EBNos. 2544 & 2555 (CTA Case Nos. 8953 & 8954) WE CONCUR: Presiding Justice ~. ~ ----Y'-� ~�7 MA. BELEN M. RINGPIS-LIBAN CATHERINE T. MANAHAN Associate Justice Associate Justice JEAN MARl MARIARO /mm?tmt~- ON LEAVE LANEE S. CUI-D..,&ID CORAZON G. FERRER-FLORES Associate Justice Associate Justice HENRY u.~NGELES Associate Justice