STEFANINI PHILIPPINES INC. v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE

CTA Fonn No.8 (For DCC) lllllllllllllllll lllllllllllllllllllllllll llllllllllllllllll 21-000128-0058 REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES COURT OF TAX APPEALS QUEZON CITY FIRST DIVISION CTA CASE NO. 10487 STEFANINI PHILIPPINES 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. FELIX PAUL R. VELASCO Ill ATTY. SYLVIA R. ALMA JOSE ATTY. AYESHA HANIA B. GUILING-MATANOG 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 MENDOZA CALNEA MANGUNDAYAO AND ASSOCIATES U-231 0 Prestige Tower Condominium F. Ortigas Jr. Road, Ortigas Center Pasig City GREETINGS: You are hereby notified by these presents that on June 25, 2025, a Resolution was rendered in the above-entitled case, copy of which is attached hereto. Quezon City, Philippines, June 27, 2025. AttyE. xMecaurtiaiv:~ v~o. uCrthaIIn-Te

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES COURT OF TAX APPEALS QUEZON CITY FIRST DIVISION STEFANINI CTA Case No. 10487 PHILIPPINES, INC., Members: Petitioner, -versus- DEL ROSARIO, EJ., Chairperson, BACORRO-VILLENA, and CUI-DAVID,JL_ COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent. X---- ----- ------- ------- - ---- ---- -- - RESOLUTION BACORRO-VILLENA, L.: For the Court's resolution is respondent Commissioner oflnternal Revenue's (respondent's/ CIR's) "Motion for Partial Reconsideration (Re: Decision promulgated on 09 January 2025)"1 (MR), filed on 28 January 2025 and electronically transmitted on 30 January 2025\ with petitioner Stefanini Philippines, Inc.'s (petitioner's/ Stefanini's) "Comment/ Opposition [to Respondent's Motion for Partial Reconsideration (Re: Decision promulgated on 09 January 20250) ]"3 (Comment), filed on 10 March 2025 and electronically transmitted on n March 2025.4 Respondent's MRS seeks the reconsideration, reversal, or setting aside of this Court's Decision6 promulgated on 09 January 2025 (assailed Decision). The dispositive portion the said Decision reads:t Di vision Docket. Vo lume II , pp. 966-974. ld.. p. 977. ld.. pp. 978-990. ld.. p. 992. Supra at note I . 6 Division Docket. Volume II. pp. 9 17-959.

RESOLUTION CTA Case No. 10487 Stefanini Philippines, Inc. v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue Page 2 of5 x----------- - --- - ---------------- ---- ------ - -----x WHEREFORE, premises considered, the instant Petition for Review filed on 17 March 2021 by petitioner Stefanini Philippines, Inc. is hereby PARTIALLY GRANTED. Accordingly, respondent Commissioner of Internal Revenue is ORDERED TO REFUND or TO ISSUE A TAX CREDIT CERTIFICATE in the amount of P2,44o,628.45, representing petitioner's unutilized excess input Value-Added Tax for the 3rd quarter of CY 2018 which is attributable to its zero-rated sales for the same period. SO ORDERED. In his or her MR, respondent asseverates that this Court erred in partially granting petitioner's claim for value-added tax (VAT) refund. Citing the dissenting opinion of Presiding Justice Roman G. Del Rosario in the assailed Decision, respondent opines that since petitioner failed to have the term 11Zero-rated sale" prominently imprinted or written in accordance with Section 113(B)(2)(c)7 of the National Internal Revenue Code (NIRC) of 1997, as amended, petitioner failed to comply with the requisites for the entitlement to tax refund or credit of excess input VAT attributable to zero-rated sales. In the Comment, petitiOner counters that a 'breakdown' conspicuously showing that the said sale transaction is zero-rated substantially complies with the imprinting requirement under Section 113(B)(2)(c)8 of the NIRC of 1997, as amended.; SEC. 113. Invoicing and Accounting Requirements/or VAT- Registered Persons. - (8) Information Contained in the VAT Invoice or VA T Official Receipt. - The follow ing information shall be indicated in the VAT invoice or VAT official receipt: I. A statement that the seller is a VAT-registered person, followed by his Taxpayer' s Identification Number (TI ); 2. The total amoun t which the purchaser pays or is obligated to pay to the seller with the indication that such amount includes the va lue-added tax: Provided, That: (a) The amount of the tax shall be shown as a separate item in the invoice or rece ipt: (b) If the sale is exempt from va lue-added tax, the term � VAT-exempt sale� shall be written or printed prominently on the invoice or receipt; (c) If the sale is subject to zero percent (0%) value-added tax, the term �zero- rated sale' shall be written or printed prominently on the invoice or receipt[.] ld.

RESOLUTION CTA Case No. 10487 Stefanini Philippines, Inc. v . Commissioner of Internal Reve nue Page 3 ofS X����������� � ��� ������---���� �------------���--- -X We resolve. A careful review of the arguments in the MR, We find that it suffers from both procedural and substantive infirmities. On the procedural aspect, under Section 2 of En Bane Resolution No. 8-20249, "the portable document format (PDF) copies must be transmitted within twenty-four (24) hours from such filing of paper copies; otherwise, the pleading or court submission shall be deemed as not filed". Records disclose that respondent filed the present MR via registered mail on 28 Januaiy 2025.10 Accordingly, the PDF copy should have been electronically transmitted to this Court not later than 29 January 2025. However, as it was transmitted only on 30 January 2025n, the present MR should be deemed as not having been filed, regardless of the completeness of the primary mode of filing. Even disregarding the foregoing procedural faux pas, the present MR is still bound to fail. The Court first notes that the present MR forwards an issue that was already discussed and passed upon in the assailed Decision.12 Thus, discussing the same merits would be an exercise in futility. In Ortigas and Company Limited Partnership v. judge Tirso Velasco, et a/. 13, the Supreme Court declared: 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 be a useless formality or ritual invariably involving merely a reiteration of the reasons already 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?' 9 Guidelines on Submission of Electronic Cop ies of Pleadings and Other Court Submissions Before the Court of Tax Appeals Pursuant to A.M. No. I0-3-7-SC and A.M. No. 11-9-4-SC. 10 Supra at note I . II Supra at note 2. 12 ld., pp. 943-946. 13 G. R. No. I09645, 04 March 1996; Emphasis supplied.

RESOLUTION CTA Case No. 10487 Stefanini Philippines, Inc. v . Commissioner of Internal Revenue X---- -- - - -- ---- -------- - - ---- --- ---------------- -X asserted at the first opportunity. 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. Additionally, if We were to sustain respondent's protestation, the same would run counter to one of the canons of a sound tax system, i. e., administrative feasibility, which means that the tax system should be capable of being effectively administered and enforced with the least inconvenience to the taxpayer.'4 Certainly, to require the seller, such as petitioner, to redundantly print the terms "exempt" or "zero-rated" again on all copies of the same invoice or receipt, when the nature of the transaction and its classification as either exempt, zero-rated or subject to 12% VAT can already be ascertained through the breakdown provided therein would impose an unnecessary burden. Such a requirement would neither enhance tax compliance nor revenue administration, but would instead encumber taxpayers with superfluous technicalities, thereby defeating the very principle of administrative feasibility Our tax system aspires to uphold. In view of the foregoing disquisition, the Court discerns no compelling ground to disturb, much less reverse, the assailed Decision!5 WHEREFORE, premises considered, the "Motion for Partial Reconsideration (Re: Decision promulgated on 09 January 2025)", filed on 28 January 2025 by respondent Commissioner of Internal Revenue is DENIED for lack of merit.) 14 See Renalo V. Dia= and Aurora Ma. F. Timbo/ v. The SecreiC/Iy of Finance and Ihe Commissioner o.flnlernal Revenue, G.R. No. 193007. 19 July 20 11. 15 Supra at note 6.

RESOLUTION CTA Case No. 10487 Stefanini Philippines, Inc. v. Comm issioner of Internal Revenue Page 5 ofS X -- ------------ -- -------------------- -- --------- - X SO ORDERED. ~0-VILLENA i . JEAN MARAIE~~: Justice WE CONCUR: G. DEL . SARI( ; /}T)/&~V-�~ (U7~ ~ fP~ Presiding Justice ~M~ LANEE S. CUI-DAVID Associate Justice