PHILIPPINE AIRLINES, INC. v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE AND COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES COURT OF TAX APPEALS QUEZON CITY THIRD DIVISION PHILIPPINE AIRLINES, INC., CTA CASE NO. 11228 Petitioner, Members: -versus- MANAHAN, Chairperson, REYES-FAJARDO, and ANGELES, JJ. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE AND COMMISSIONER OF Promulgated: CUSTOMS, , .. Respondents. ~ H f ' f ?n?l( ' " ~- ~-'.}..,-_ -/'-. ~-� X - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - -X - RESOLUTION MANAHAN,J.: For resolution of the Court are the following: (1) respondent Commissioner of Internal Revenue (CIR)'s Motion for Reconsideration (Re: Decision promulgated 19 December 2024) filed on January 17, 2025, with petitioner's Comment (Re: Respondent CIR's Motion for Reconsideration dated 1 7 January 2024) filed on January 28, 2025; and (2) respondent Commissioner of Customs (COC)'s Motion for Reconsideration filed on January 23, 2025, with petitioner's Comment (Re: Respondent COG's Motion for Reconsideration dated 23 January 2025) filed on March 24, 2025. For easy reference, the dispositive portion of the assailed Decision provides: ACCORDINGLY, the instant Petition for Revival of Judgment is GRANTED. Consequently, the judgment rendered in CTA Case No. 8361 Decision promulgated on March 26, 2014 is REVIVED and the Commissioner of Internal Revenue is ORDERED TO REFUND in favor of petitioner Philippine Airlines, Inc. the amount of One Million Nine Hundred Forty-Eight Thousand One Hundred Seventy- Five and 7/100 Pesos (P1,948,1 75.07), representinga....--

RESOLUTION CTA CASE NO. 11228 petitioner's erroneously paid excise taxes on October 26, 2009. Let the corresponding Writ of Execution be issued. SO ORDERED.l In their r espective motions, both r espondent CIR and COC essentially assert that a regular court, or a Regional Trial Court, has jurisdiction over the instant case which is an original action incapable of pecuniary estimation, and which should be instituted within ten (10) years from the time the judgment h as become final. On the other hand, petitioner counters that the instant motion is only filed to circumvent and disregard settled laws, rules, and jurisprudence. After careful consideration, the Court finds the instant motion unmeritorious. As previously discussed in the assailed Decision, the Court of Tax Appeals (CTA) has jurisdiction over "other matters" arising under the 1997 National Internal Revenue Code (NIRC) , as amended. To reiterate, Section 7 (a)(1) of Republic Act (RA) No. 1125, as amended by RA No . 9282, provides: Section 7. Jurisdiction. - The CTA s h all exercise: (a) Exclusive a ppellate jurisdiction to review by appeal, as h erein provided: (1) Decisions of the Commissioner of Inter n al Revenue in cases involving disputed assessments, refunds of internal revenu e taxes, fees or other ch arges, penalties in relation thereto, or other matters arising under the National Internal Revenue Code or other laws administered by the Bureau of Internal Revenue , where the National Internal Revenue Code provides for a specific period for action, in which case the inaction shall be deemed a denial (Emphasis supplied) While the above-quoted prov1s1on refers only to the appellate jurisdiction of the CTA, jurisprudence affirms that the latter carries with it the "authority to control all auxiliary and incidental matters necessary to the efficient and proper exercise 1 Decision, Docket , p. 446. ~

RESOLUTION CTA CASE NO. 11228 ofthatjurisdiction."2 In this regard, the case of The City ofManila v. Hon. Caridad H. Grecia-Cuerdo is in structive: A grant of appellate jurisdiction implies that there is included in it the power necessary to exercise it effectively, to make all orders that will preserve the subject of the action, and to give effect to the final determination of the appeal. It carries with it the power to protect that jurisdiction and to make the decisions of the court thereunder effective. The court, in aid of its appellate jurisdiction, has authority to control all auxiliary and i ncidental matters necessary to the efficient and proper exercise of that jurisdiction. For this purpose, it may, when necessary, prohibit or r estrain the performance of any act which might interfere with the proper exercise of its rightful jurisdiction in cases pending before it. Considering t h at the CTA has authority to control all auxiliary and incidental matters necessary to the efficient and proper exercise of its jurisdiction, the Court finds no error when it found in the assailed Decision that: Here, the present Petition for Revival of Judgment stemmed from PAL's refund claim. Based on Section 7 of RA No. 1 125, as amended, and the ruling of the Supreme Court in the Manila Medical case, the CTA has jurisdiction over the instant Petition under 'other matters.' Thus, the denial of respondent COC's Motion to dismiss is in order.3 Fur thermore, in the case of Heirs of Numeriano Miranda, Sr. , et al., v. Pablo R. Miranda, 4 the Supreme Court categorically held that: An action for revival of judgment may be filed either 'in the same court where said judgment was rendered or in the place where the plaintiff or defendant resides, or in any other place designated by the statutes which treat of the venue of actions in general. Thus, an action for revival ofjudgment may be filed in the same court where said judgm ent was rendered, among others. 2 The City of Manila v. Hon. Caridad H. Grecia-Cuerdo, G.R. No. 175723, February 04, 2014 [Per J. Peralta, En Bane]. 3 Decision, Docket, p. 444. 4 G.R. No. 179638, July 8, 2013.~

RESOLUTION CTA CASE NO. 11228 In this case, the judgment subject of the present action for revival of judgment was rendered on March 26, 2014 by this Cou rt's Second (2nd) Division in CTA Case No. 8361. Following the ruling of the Suprem e Court in Miranda, the action for revival of judgment may be filed in the CTA. Hence, the Court has jurisdiction over the same. To encapsulate, respondents failed to convince the Court that it has no jurisdiction over petitioner's action for revival of judgment. Hence, the denial of respondents' respective motion s 1s p roper. ACCORDINGLY, respondent CIR's Motion for Reconsideration (Re: Decision promulgated 19 December 2024) and respondent COC's Motion for Reconsideration are both DENIED, for lack of merit. SO ORDERED. ~T- CATHERINE T. MANAHAN Associate Justice ~; r: ~ ~ J-; ~~ - �~ (With due respect,-I1Jaintain Diss'tnting Opinion in the Decision dated 12/ 19/ 24) MARIAN IVY F . REYES-FAJARDO Associate Justice HENRY ~.~GELES Associate Justice