COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE v. PETRON CORPORATION

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES COURT OF TAX APPEALS QUEZON CITY ENBANC COMMISSIONER OF CTA EB NO. 2643 INTERNAL REVENUE, (CTA Case No. 8544) Petitioner, Present: - versus- DEL ROSARIO, P.J., RINGPIS-LIBAN, MANAHAN, BACORRO-VILLENA, MODESTO-SAN PEDRO, REYES-FAJARDO, CUI-DAVID, FERRER-FLORES, and ANGELE S, JJ. PETRON Promulgated: CORPORATION, Respondent. X-- - -- ---------- - -- - -- ----- ----------- - --- - - -- - ---- --- - ---- X RESOLUTION FERRER-FLORES, J.: Before the Court En Bane is the Motion for Reconsideration (Re: Dec-ision promulgated 12 January 2024) (Motion for Reconsideration) filed by petitioner Commissioner of Internal Revenue (petitioner/CIR) on February 1, 2024, with Comment/Opposition (Re: Motion for Reconsideration dated 25 January 2024) filed by respondent Petron Corporation (respondent/Petron) via registered mail on March 4, 2024 and received by the Court on March 6, 2024. ~

RESOLUTION CTA EB No. 2643 (CTA Case No. 8544) Commissioner ofInternal Revenue vs. Petron Corporation In the instant motion, petitioner prays for the Court En Bane to reverse and set aside its Decision dated January 12, 2024 (assailed Decision), 1 which dismissed his Petition for Review dated June 29, 2022 for lack of merit, the dispositive portion of which reads: WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Petition for Review is DENIED for lack of merit. Accordingly, the assailed Amended Decision dated July 19, 2021, and assailed Resolution dated June 9, 2022 in CTA Case No. 8544 are AFFIRMED. SO ORDERED. To recall, in the assailed Decision, this Court affirmed the Court in Division's ruling and held that Petron's alkylate importation is not subject to excise tax considering that alkylate is not similar to naphtha or regular gasoline nor is it a product of distillation. In his Motion for Reconsideration, petitiOner heavily relies on the discussion of the Court in a different case2 involving the similar issue of whether alkylate is subject to excise tax, where it was held that alkylate was a product of distillation, hence, subject to excise tax under Section 148(e) of the NIRC of 1997, as amended. On the other hand, in its Comment/Opposition, respondent interposes that the present motion should be denied for being pro forma and for failing to comply with the requirements for a motion for reconsideration. Furthermore, respondent insists that the Court En Bane correctly ruled that alkylate is not a product of distillation and is not similar to naphtha or regular gasoline. After an evaluation of the respective arguments raised by the parties, this Court finds that the petitioner's motion for reconsideration lacks merit. A cursory reading of the present motion would reveal that the arguments of the petitioner are mere rehash of the matters already considered and exhaustively discussed by the Court En Bane in the assailed Decision. Glaringly, petitioner merely quoted the discussion of the Court in a different case which involved matters already addressed in the assailed Decision. In Department ofEnergy vs. Commissioner of Internal Revenue,3 the Supreme Court, citing Shangri-la International Hotel Management, Ltd. vs. I 1 Rollo, pp. 1421 to 1438. Perron CorporaUon vs. Commissioner ofinternal Revenue, CTA EB No. 2425, June 28, 2022. G.R. No. 260912 (Resolution), August 30,2023.

RESOLUTION CTA EB No. 2643 (CTA Case No. 8544) Commissioner ofInternal Revenue vs. Petron Corporation Developers Group of Companies, Inc.,4 held that, while a motion for reconsideration, by its nature, may tend to dwell on issues already resolved in the decision or resolution sought to be reconsidered, a circumstance which should not be an obstacle for a reconsideration, petitioners must still raise matters substantially plausible or compellingly persuasive to warrant a reversal of the Court's previous ruling. Clearly, there are no new matters which warrant the Court's attention. At any rate, the Court, at the risk of being repetitive, emphasizes that no less than the Supreme Court has definitively declared that alkylate does not belong to the same category as naphtha and regular gasoline; hence, the same should not be subjected to excise tax.5 The Supreme Court, by tradition and in our system of judicial administration, has the last word on what the law is. It is the final arbiter of any justiciable controversy. There is only one Supreme Court from whose decisions all other courts should take their bearings.6 The ruling of the Supreme Court, therefore, that alkylate should not be subjected to excise tax, should prevail. All told, the Court En Bane finds no compelling reason to reverse or modify the assailed Decision. WHEREFORE, premises considered, petitioner's Motion for Reconsideration (Re: Decision promulgated 12 January 2024) is DENIED for lack of merit. SO ORDERED. 4 G.R. No. 159938 (Resolution). January 22, 2007. 5 Petron Corporation vs. Commissioner ofInternal Revenue, G.R. No. 255961, March 20, 2023. 6 Commissioner of Internal Revenue vs. Michel J. Lhuillier Pawnshop, Inc., G.R. No. 150947, July 15, 2003, citing Government Service Insurance System vs. Court ofAppeals, G.R. No. I01632, January 13, 1997.

RESOLUTION CTA EB No. 2643 (CTA Case No. 8544) Commissioner ofInternal Revenue vs. Petron Corporation WE CONCUR: ROMAN G. DEL ROSARIO Presiding Justice ~.~~. MA. BELEN M. RINGPIS-LIBAN Associate Justice (Inhibited) CATHERINE T. MANAHAN Associate Justice JEANMARI ON LEAVE MARIAN IVY F. REYES-FAJARDO Associate Justice /rlu1;tnJ:Vm LANEE S. CUI-DA Associate Justice HENRY //I};GELES Associate Justice