TOLEDO POWER COMPANY v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE

CTA Form No. 8 (For DCC) llllllllllllllll llllllll lllllllllllllllll llllllllllllllllllllllllllll 23-000439-0034 REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES COURT OF TAX APPEALS QUEZON CITY FIRST DIVISION CTA CASE N0.11272 TOLEDO POWER COMPANY, Petitioner, -versus- NOTICE OF RESOLUTION COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent. To: OFFICE OF THE SOLICITOR GENERAL 134 Amorsolo St., Legazpi Vi llage Makati City ATTY. AYESHA HAl'IIA B. GU1LING-MATANOG Bureau oflnternal Revenue Room 703, Litigation Division, BIR National Office Bldg. Sen. Miriam P. Defensor-Santiago Avenue Diliman, Quezon City PUNO AND PUNO 33rd Floor, The Podium West Tower 12 ADB Avenue, Ortigas Center Mandaluyong City 1550 GREETINGS: You are hereby notified by these presents that on September 25, 2025, a Resolution was rendered in the above-entitled case, copy of which is attached hereto. Quezon City, Philippines, September 29, 2025. Atty. Mar~a F. Chan-Te Exec~ of Court II

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES COURT OF TAX APPEALS QUEZON CITY FIRST DIVISION TOLEDO POWER COMPANY, CTA CASE NO . 11272 Petitioner, Members: -versus- DEL ROSARio, P.J. , Chairperson, BACORRO-VILLENA, and CUI-DAVID, JJ. COMMISSIONER OF Promulgated: INTERNAL REVENUE, SEP 2 5 ~//.'115/~1 Respondent. X - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - _..-~ - - - - - - - - - - X RESOLUTION CUI-DAVID, J. : This resolves respondent's Motion for Reconsideration (Re: Decision promulgated 17 June 2025), filed on July 7, 2025, with petitioner's Opposition (To the Motion for Reconsideration dated 7 July 2025) filed on July 25, 2025. Respondent seeks the reversal and setting aside of the Decision dated June 17, 2025 (assailed Decision), which disposed of the case as follows: WHEREFORE, the instant Petition is GRANTED. Accordingly, the Decision dated October 23, 2009 in CTA Case No. 747 1 is REVIVED and the Commissioner of Internal Revenue is ORDERED TO REFUND or ISSUE A TAX CREDIT CERTIFICATE in favor of petitioner in the amount of P8,617,425.41, representing its unutilized input VAT attributable to zero-rated sales for the taxable year 2004. SO ORDERED. Respondent argues that the Court erred in reviving the Decision dated October 23, 2009 in CTA Case No. 747 1 and in ordering the refund or issuance of a tax credit certificate in favor of petitioner amounting to P8,617,425.41. Respondent insists

RESOLUTION CTA Case No. 11272 Toledo Power Company v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue x------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------x that petitioner failed to establish the legal requisites for revival of judgment, particularly that the Supreme Court Decision dated August 10, 2015 had attained finality and that the Court in Division's October 23, 2009 Decision had not been executed. Respondent maintains that the burden of proof lies with petitioner to show that the judgment remains unenforced, and asserts that mere allegations are insufficient to justifY revival. In its Opposition, petitioner argues that the present motion lacks merit, as respondent failed to point out any specific errors in the assailed Decision. Petitioner emphasizes that it presented a Certification dated July 6, 2023 issued by the Executive Clerk of Court III, attesting to the absence of a writ of execution in CTA Case No. 7471. This, petitioner claims, shifted the burden to respondent to prove otherwise. Petitioner further asserts that respondent failed to present any documentary or testimonial evidence to establish that the judgment had been executed, whether by writ or voluntary compliance. Citing jurisprudence, petitioner underscores that once the burden shifts, respondent is expected to present readily available evidence from its own records. The absence of such evidence, coupled with the disputable presumption that suppressed evidence would be adverse if produced, supports the conclusion that the judgment remains unenforced. Petitioner further argues that its petition for revival of judgment was timely filed within the ten (10)-year prescriptive period and that the refund claim is now conclusive as to the parties. The motion is unmeritorious. It is well-settled that bare allegations, unsubstantiated by evidence, are not equivalent to proofl and the burden of proof lies with the party asserting a fact.2 Once petitioner has discharged its burden, the burden of evidence shifts to respondent.3 Moreover, as discussed in the assailed Decision, under Article 1144(3)4 of the Civil Code, actions upon a judgment must Real v. Bela, G.R. No. 146224, January 26, 2007lPcr J. Austria-Martinez. Third Division]. Survivors ofAgrichemicals in Gensan (Saging), Inc. v. Standard Fruit Company, eta/., G.R. No. 206005, April 12. 2023 [Per J. Leonen. Second Division]. Sec Winebrenner & fiiigo Insurance Brokers, Inc. v. Commissioner ofInternal Revenue, G.R. No. 206526. January 28, 2015 [Per J. Mendoza, Second Division]. ART. 1144. The following actions must be brought within ten years from the time the right of action accrues�. (1) Upon a written contract: (2) Upon an obligation created by Jaw:

RESOLUTION CTA Case No. 11272 Toledo Power Company v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue x------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------x be brought within ten (10) years from the time the judgment becomes final. The Supreme Court Decision dated August 10, 2015 was recorded in the Book of Entries of Judgments on October 10, 2016. The petition for revival filed on September 18, 2023 was well within the prescriptive period. The Court also finds no merit in respondent's claim that the revival was improper. The Court reiterates Zabarte v. Puyat, 5 which held that once a judgment becomes final and executory, it may be enforced by motion within five (5) years, and thereafter by independent action within ten (10) years. In view of the foregoing, the Court finds no compelling reason to disturb its Decision dated June 17, 2025. WHEREFORE, respondent's Motion for Reconsideration (Re: Decision promulgated 17 June 2025) is DENIED for lack of merit. SO ORDERED. ~Jn1 LANEE s. CUI-DAVID Associate Justice WE CONCUR: (On Leave) ROMAN G. DEL ROSARIO Presiding Justice JEANMA (3) Upon a judgment. (Emphasis supplied) G.R. No. 234636, February 13, 2023 [Per J. Zalameda, First Division] citing Villeza v. German Management and Services, Inc., eta!., G.R. No. 182937, August 8. 2010 [Per J. Mendoza. Second Division]; Piedad, eta!. v. Bobil/es. eta/., G.R. No. 208614, November 27,2017 [Per J. Lconen, Third Division].