BOEHRINGER INGELHEIM (PHILIPINES), INC. v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE

CTA Form No.8 (For DCC) 1111111 1111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111 22-000049-0062 REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES COURT OF TAX APPEALS QUEZON CITY FIRST DIVISION CTA CASE N0.10758 BOEHRINGER INGELHEIM (PHILIPINES), INC., Petitioner, -versus- NOTICE OF RESOLUTION COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent. To: OFFICE OF THE SOLICITOR GENERAL 134 Amorsolo Street, Legazpi Village Makati City ATTY. BRYAN ANTHONY C. DIEGO Bureau of Internal Revenue Room 703, Litigation Division, BIR National Office Building Sen. Miriam P. Defensor-Santiago Avenue Diliman, Quezon City CASTILLO LAMAN TAN PANTALEON & SAN JOSE 2nd to 5th and 9th Floors, The Valero Tower 122 Valero Street, Salcedo Village Makati City GREETINGS: You are hereby notified by these presents that on February 25, 2025, a Resolution was rendered in the above-entitled case, copy of which is attached hereto. Quezon City, Philippines, February 27, 2025. Atty. Maria Job~. Chan-Te Executive cferk-ot-Court II

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES COURT OF TAX APPEALS QUEZON CITY FIRST DIVISION BOEHRINGER INGELHEIM CTA CASE NO. 10758 (PHILIPPINES), INC., Members: Petitioner, - versus - DEL ROSARIO , P.J. , Chairperson, BACORRO-VILLENA, and CUI-DAVID, JJ. COMMISSIONER OF Promulgated: INTERNAL REVENUE, R es p o n d e n t . }{- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - RESOLUTIO CUI-DAVID, J.: On October 22, 2024, the Court promulgated a Decision,1 the dispositive portion of which reads: WHEREFORE, in light of the foregoing considerations, the Petition for Review is PARTIALLY GRANTED. Accordingly, r espondent is ORDERED TO REFU~D to petitioner the a mount o f P89,752,626. 80, repre s e n ting th e erroneously paid value-added tax on its importation of prescription drugs and medicines for diabetes, high cholesterol, and hypertension from J a nuary 2 3 , 2020 to April 20, 2020. SO ORDERED. Unconvinced, respondent filed the presen t Motion for Partial Reconsideration (Re: D ecision promulgated on 22 October 2024)2 (Motion) on November 13, 2024, via personal service, and on November 14, 2024, via electronic mail (e-mail). The Motion assails the Decision on the sole ground that: Docket - Vol. III, pp. I 191- 12 10. 2 /d. at 12 11- 12 17.

RESOLUTION CTA Case No. 10758 Boehringer Ingelheim (Philippines), Inc. v. Commissioner of Internal Reveriue x------------------------------------------------ --- ----------------------------- ----x THIS HONORABLE COURT ERRED IN RULING THAT PETITIONER IS PARTIALLY ENTITLED TO THE REFUND SOUGHT. In opposing respondent's move for partial reconsideration, petitioner filed its Opposition (to Motion for Partial Reconsideration dated November 13, 2024) on November 25, 2024, via personal service, and on November 26, 2024, via e-mail. Petitioner contends that the arguments set forth by respondent in his Motion are pro forma, false, misleading, and bereft of merit. It asserts that the Court correctly ruled on the case based on the evidence admitted in the proceedings, which were the same documents submitted to the Bureau bf Internal Revenue in support of the administrative claim for refund. Accordingly, the Motion should be denied. After reviewing the allegations in the Motion and the counterarguments proffered by petitioner, the Court finds no cogent reason to reconsider its Decision dated October 22, 2024. The Motion fails to present any new or substantial grounds that would warrant a departure from the Court's previous findings and conclusions. Truth be told, the arguments raised have already been passed upon, amply discussed, and considered by the Court in the Decision sought to be reconsidered. Thus, the Court sees no reasonable ground to deviate from its original ruling on the merits of the case. The ruling in Social Justice Society (SIS) Officers et al. v. Lim 3 provides instructive guidance on the effect and disposition of a motion for reconsideration: The filing of a motion for reconsideration, authorized by Rule 52 of the Rules of Court, does not impose on the Court the obligation to deal individually and specifically with the grounds relied upon therefor, in much the same way that the Court does in its judgment or final order as regards the issues raised and submitted for decision. This would b~ a useless formality or ritual invariably involving merely a reiteration of the reasons a lready set forth in the judgment or final order for rejecting the arguments advanced by the movant; and it would be a needless act, too, with respect to issues raised for the first time, these being, as above stated, deemed waived because not asserted at the first opportunity. 3 Social Justice Society (SJS) Officers, et al. v. Lim, G.R. Nos. 187836 & 187916, March I0, 201 5 (Resolution).

RESOLUTION CTA Case No. 10758 Boehringer Ingelheim (Philippines), Inc. v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue X------------------------------------------------------------------------------------X It suffices for the Court to deal generally and summarily with the motion for reconsideration, and merely state a legal ground for its denial (Sec. 14, Art. VIII, Constitution) ; i.e., the motion contains merely a reiteration or rehash of arguments already submitted to and pronounced without merit by the Court in its judgment, or the basic issues have already been passed upon, or the motion discloses no substantial argument or cogent reason to warrant reconsideration or modification of the judgment or final order; or the arguments in the motion are too unsubstantial to require consideration, etc. WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Motion for Partial Reconsideration (Re: Decision promulgated on 22 October 2024) filed by respondent Commissioner of Interna.l Revenue on November 13, 2024, is DENIED for lack of merit. SO ORDERED. LAJ/J~w~u'1~/utriJ-D;IkviD Associate Justice WE CONCUR: Associate Justice