COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE v. TETRA PAK PHILIPPINES, INC.

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES Court of Tax Appeals QUEZON CITY En Bane COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL CTA EB NO. 2831 REVENUE, (CTA Case No. 10113) Petitioner, Present: -versus- DEL ROSARIO, P.J., RIN GPIS-LIBAN, MANAHAN, BACORRO-VILLENA, MODESTO-SAN PEDRO, REYES-FAJARDO, CUI-DAVID, FERRER-FLORES, and ANGELES,JJ Promulgated: TETRA PAK PHILIPPINES, INC., Respondent. .FEB 11 2025 X -------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------- X RESOLUTION MODESTO-SAN PEDRO, J.: Before the Court is petitioner's Motion for Reconsideration (Re: Resolution [sic] Promulgated 12 September 2024) , filed on October 7, 2024, with respondent's Comment/Opposition (to the Respondent's Motion for Reconsideration dated 4 October 2024), filed via licensed courier on 18 October 2024. Petitioner assails the Decision of this Court, dated September 12, 2024, which dismissed his Petition for Review for being filed late. The Motion lacks merit. Petitioner' s primary argument against the dismissal of the case is his insistence that the reckoning point for filing a Petition for Review before this Court En Bane should be the Bureau of Internal Revenue's ("BIR") receipt of / the assailed issuance, not that of the Office of the Solicitor General ("OSG"),,........

RESOLlTIO:\ CTA EB No. 2831 (CTA Case l\o_ I0 I 13 l Page 2 of.f given that (!)the latter validly deputized the lawyers of the former; (2) said lawyers of the BIR are the ones who actually prepare petitioner's pleadings; and (3) technical rules of procedure should be applied with a liberal hand. The arguments fail to convince. First, the deputization of BIR lawyers does not directly refute the laws, rules, and jurisprudence on which Our ruling was based. While the BIR's lawyers were, indeed, deputized by the OSG to "prepare all pleadings, motions, ... and other papers/documents in connection with the case," nothing in the passage quoted by petitioner from the Memorandum of Agreement between the BIR and the OSG shows that the OSG loses its status as main counsel for petitioner before the Court En Bane. This is precisely the reason raised in the assailed Decision for reckoning the period for filing a Petition for Review with the Court ofTax Appeals ("CTA") En Bane from the OSG's receipt, rather than that of the BIR, of a denial of Motion for Reconsideration. The Motion's discussion of such deputization thus fails to refute Our ruling. The claims that the BIR's lawyers are the ones who prepare petitioner's pleadings in practice and that "it is not desirable for [the] OSG to attend to each and every case that [is] filed against the government" do not persuade Us either. If anything, this is an admission of non-compliance by petitioner himself. For as quoted in the assailed Decision and in the Motion itself, the Revised Rules of the Court of Tax Appeals, as amended ("RRCTA"), states that the deputized BIR lawyers "shall remain at all times under the direct control and supervision of the Solicitor General." Note the use of the word "shall" in the preceding quotation, which means that the BIR lawyers are required to remain under the control and supervision ofthe OSG. By claiming that the OSG is, in effect, not involved in the case, petitioner is thus claiming that the BIR and OSG are directly and knowingly violating Rule 9, Section 10 of the RRCTA. The fact that it is apparently not "desirable" for the OSG to remain as the primary counsel here is of no moment, inasmuch as a rule's perceived desirability has no effect whatsoever on said rule being mandat01y and required. Neither does this Court En Bane see a good reason to relax technical rules of procedure here, despite doing so in other cases. It is true that the CTA has relaxed such technical rules before when dealing with Petitions for Review that were not fully compliant with the rules. However, such permissiveness cannot be applied when doing so would directly contradict existing jurisprudence. Such jurisprudence can be found here, as the Supreme Court has consistently held that when the OSG deputizes special lawyers, it is the service oflegal processes on the OSG, not on the deputized lawyers, that is decisive. 1 Given this clear and consistent pronouncement from the High~ Baldovino-Torres r. Torres, G.R. No.248675. July 20, 2022: Commissioner C!lCustoms v. Court q(Tax Appeals. G.R. No. 132929, March 27.2000: National Power Corporation v. iVational Labor Relations Commission. G.R. No. 90933�61. May 29. 1997.

RESOUTIO'( CT/\. F.R No. 2831 (CTA Cas~ '\Jo. 10113) Page 3of-t Court, this Court's usual liberality towards procedural rules cannot be extended to this case. As to petitioner's direct arguments against the grant of a refund to respondent, the same are rehashed from arguments previously raised and have consequently already been discussed in the assailed Decision and in the issuances of the Court in Division as either lacking in merit or wholly irrelevant to the case. We thus need not cover them anew here. In short, the Motion fails to show that Our ruling m the assailed Decision was in error. ACCORDINGLY, the instant Motion for Reconsideration (Re: Resolution [sic] Promulgated 12 September 2024), filed on October 7, 2024, is hereby DENIED for lack of merit. SO ORDERED. S 0-SAN PEDRO WE CONCUR: Presiding Justice ~ ~ h--~ MA-. BELEN M. RINGPIS-LIBAN Associate Justice /1~ 7� 4 ...�. C'ATHERINE T. MANAHAN Associate Justice \ {9~ci~te Justice MART~~-VILLENA JEAN

RESOLlTIO'\ CTA F.B No_ 2831 (CTA Case l'o. 10113) Page-t of-t ~~F.~-~~ MARIAN IV#. REYif'S-FAJARDO Associate Justice ~-tf;yi( LANEE S. CUI-DAVID Associate Justice C~N.r. ORES Associate Justic HENRY ~~NGELES Associate Justice