BANGKO SENTRAL NG PILIPINAS v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE

CTA Form No.8 (For DCC) llllllll llllll lll lllllllllllllllllllllll llmllllllllllllllllllll 23-000193-0046 REPUBLIC OF THE PIDLIPPINES COURT OF TAX APPEALS QUEZON CITY SPECIAL FIRST DIVISION CTA CASE NO. 11147 NOTICE OF RESOLUTION BANGKO SENTRAL NG PILIPINAS, Petitioner, -versus- COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent. To: OFFICE OF THE SOLICITOR GENERAL 134 Amorsolo Street, Legazpi Village Makati City ATTY. SHERYLLP.CACAYURAN ATTY. JOHN HANZEL P. FAMA Bureau of Internal Revenue - Revenue Region No. 8B Legal Division, 2nd Floor, BIR Building Sen. Gil Puyat Ave., Makati City OFFICE OF THE GENERAL COUNSEL AND LEGAL SERVICES Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas Room 313, 3rd Floor, Five-Storey Building Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas Complex A. Mabini comer P. Ocampo Sr. Streets Malate, Manila GREETINGS: You are hereby notified by these presents that on March 11, 2026, a Resolution was rendered in the above-entitled case, copy of which is attached hereto. Quezon City, Philippines, March 13, 2026. Atty. Mar~a F. Chan-Te Executi~f Court III

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES COURT OF TAX APPEALS QUEZON CITY SPECIAL FIRST DIVISION BANGKO SENTRAL NG CTA CASE NO. 1 1 147 PILIPINAS Members: Petitioner, -versus- BACORRO-VILLENA, Acting Chairperson, and CUI-DAVID, JJ. COMMISSIONER OF Promulgated: INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent. MAR 1 12026: f.''lhW/ ){- - --------- - --- -- ------- -'~I -- -- ------- -){ RESOLUTION CUI-DAVID, J. : For resolution of the Court is respondent's Motion for Reconsideration filed on November 19, 2025, with petitioner's Comment (Re: Motion for Reconsideration dated 22 October 2025) filed on January 5, 2026. Respondent seeks the reversal of the Court's Decision promulgated on September 24, 2025, granting petitioner's Petition fo r Review. Th e dispositive portion of the assailed Decision reads: WHEREFORE, in light of the foregoing considerations, the present Petition for Review is h ereby GRANTED. Accordingly, respondent is ORDERED TO REFUND petitioner the amount of P70 1,660.8 1, representing the Documentary Stamp Tax erroneously paid on June 29, 2022, in connection with the foreclosure sale of the properties covered by Transfer Certificate of Title Nos. T-123045 toT- 123047, T- 123049 to T-123050, and T-50419. SO ORDERED.

RESOLUTION CTA Case No. 11147 Ba ngko Sentral ng Pilipinas v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue x------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------x In his Motion for Reconsideration, respondent argues that this Court lacks jurisdiction over the claim for refund. He contends that jurisdiction is vested in the Secretary of Justice or the Solicitor General pursuant to Presidential Decree (PD) No. 242, as the case allegedly involves disputes between or among departments, bureaus, offices, agencies, or instrumentalities of the National Government. In its Comment, petitioner counterargues that the Court has jurisdiction over the claim for refund. It asserts that the Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas (BSP) is not a government entity under the Office of the President, as it is an "independent central monetary authority vested with fiscal and administrative autonomy." Hence, PD No. 242 does not apply. The Court resolves. Records reveal that respondent, through the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) and the Bureau of Internal Revenue (BIR) , received the Notice ofDecision on October 7, 2025. Section 11 of Republic Act (RA) No. 1125,1 as amended by RA No. 9282, 2 provides that a party adversely affected by a ruling, order, or decision of a Division of the CTA may file a motion for reconsideration or new trial within fifteen (15) days from notice thereof.3 Accordingly, respondent had fifteen (15) days from October 7, 2025, or until October 22, 2025, to file a Motion for Reconsideration. However, respondent filed the Motion only on November 19, 2025, 28 days late. The Motion for Reconsideration was therefore filed out of time. AN ACT CREATING THE COU RT OF TAX APPEALS. AN ACT EXPANDING THE JURISDICTION OF THE COURT OF TAX APPEALS (CTA), ELEVATING ITS RANK TO THE LEVEL OF A COLLEGIATE COURT WITH SPECIAL JURISDICTION AND ENLARGING ITS MEMBERSHIP, AMENDING FOR THE PURPOSE CERTAIN SECTIONS OF REPUBLIC ACT NO. 1125, AS AMENDED, OTHERW ISE KNOWN AS THE LAW CREATING THE COURT OF TAX APPEALS, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES. SEC. II . Who May Appeal ; Mode of Appeal; Effect of Appeal.- .. .. All other cases involving rulings, orders or decisions fil ed with the CTA as provided for in Section 7 shall be raffled to its Divisions. A party adversely affected by a ruling, order or decision of a Division of the CTA may file a motion for reconsideration or new tri al before the same Division of the CTA within fifteen (15) days from notice thereof: Provide, however, That in criminal cases, the general rule applicable in regular Courts on matters of prosecution and appeal shall likewise apply. (Emphasis supplied)

RESOLUTION CTA Case No. 11 147 Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue x------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------x Given the belated filing of respondent's Motion, the assailed Decision da ted September 24 , 2025 , h as already b ecom e final, executory, and una ppeala ble. The Court is thus divested of jurisdiction t o entertain th e Motion f or R econs iderati on. Even assuming arguendo th a t the Court m ay still p ass upon th e Motion, the s ame shall be denied . The issue of this Court's juris diction in cases b etween the BSP and the Commis sioner of Internal Revenue is not novel. The Court En Bane h a s h a d multiple opportunities t o r esolve this issue. In Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas v. Commissioner ofInternal Re venue,4 the Court En Bane ruled: III. RA 1125. as amended by RA 9282 and RA 9503, is the exception to e;eneral law that is PD 242. PD 242, promulgated on July 9 , 1973, prescribes the procedures in settling administratively the disputes between or among government offices, agencies and instrumentalities, includin g government-own ed or controlled corporations.. .. PD 242 was embodied in EO 292, otherwise known as the "Administrative Code of 1987," which took effect on November 24, 1989, .... Pursuant to the Administrative Code of 1987, the Secretary of Justice, the Solicitor General, or the Govern m ent Corporate Counsel, shall have jurisdiction to administratively settle or adjudicate all disputes and claims solely between government agencies a nd offices, including government- owned or controlled corporations which are under the executive control and supervision of the President of the Philippines, depending on t h e issues an d government agencies involved..... On th e other h and, RA 11 25, as amended by RA 9282, provides for the exclusive appellat e jurisdiction of the CTA over decisions or inactions of the Commissioner of Internal Revenue in cases involving disputed assessm ents, refunds of internal revenue taxes or other matters a ris ing under the NIRC, as a mended. CTA EB Case No. 223 1 (CTA Case No. 9478), April 18, 2022 [Per J. Cui-David, En Bane].

RESOLUTION CTA Case No. 11147 Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue x------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------x In the case of Philippine National Oil Company vs. Court of Appeals, et al. and Philippine National Bank vs. Court of Appeals, et al. ruPNOC Case ))}, the Supreme Court abandoned its pronouncement in Development Bank ofthe Philippines vs. Court of Appeals, et al. ruDBP Case ))), that PD 242 should prevail over RA 1125, and ruled that RA 1125, a special law, is an exception to PD 242, a general law, viz.: ... PD 242 is a general law that deals with administrative settlement or adjudication of disputes, claims and controversies between or among government offices, agencies and instrumentalities, including government-owned or controlled corporations..... On the other hand, RA 1125 is a special law dealing with a specific subject matter - the creation of the CTA, which shall exercise exclusive appellate jurisdiction over the tax disputes and controversies enumerated therein. Following the rule on statutory construction involving a general and a special law previously discussed, RA 1125, on the jurisdiction of the CTA, constitutes an exception to PD 242. Clearly, PD 242 cannot divest CTA of its judicial power to exercise jurisdiction over the present controversy. From the way the relevant provisions in PD 242 are worded, it simply serves as a general rule that all disputes, claims, and controversies between or among government offices and agencies, including government-owned or controlled corporations, under the executive branch, shall be administratively settled or adjudicated by the Secretary of Justice, the Solicitor General or the Government Corporate Counsel, depending on the issues and the government agencies involved. Accordingly, RA 1125, as amended by RA 9282 (enacted in 2004), being a special and later law, prevails over PD 242 (enacted in 1973), a general and earlier law, which was incorporated in EO 292 (enacted in 1989). Further, RA 1125, as amended, works as an exception to PD 242, that is, when it comes to decisions and inaction of the CIR in cases involving disputed assessments, refunds of internal revenue taxes, fees or other charges, penalties in relation thereto, or other matters arising under the NIRC or other laws administered by the BIR, the CTA shall have exclusive appellate jurisdiction. Moreover, Section 17 of RA 9282 has expressly repealed "all laws" inconsistent with or contrary to its provisions. It should be deemed to have repealed the pertinent provisions of PD 242 which are in conflict with RA 1125, as amended by RA 9282, specifically Section 7 thereof on the jurisdiction of the CTA. Thus: ... . (Emphasis in the original, citations omitted)

RESOLUTION CTA Case No . 11147 Ban gko Sen tral n g Pilipinas v. Commission er of Interna l Reven ue x------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------x The Court has consistently adhered to this doctrine in prior En Bane rulings involving the same parties, particularly CTA EB Case Nos. 2680,5 2687,6 and 2732,7 all entitled Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas v. Commissioner ofInternal Revenue. Absent any supervening circumstance or compelling reason to warrant a re-examination of the issue, the Court finds no basis to depart from its settled jurisprudence affirming its jurisdiction over the instant case. WHEREFORE, in light of the foregoing considerations, respondent's Motion for Reconsideration is hereby DISMISSED for lack of jurisdiction. SO ORDERED. L�~~VID Associate Justice !CONCUR: JEAN MA . BACORRO-VILLENA Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas v. Commissioner ofInternal Revenue, CTA EB Case No. 2680 (CTA Case No. I0 I06), April 2, 2024 [Per J. Ringpis-Liban, En Bane]. Bangko Sentrat ng Pilipinas v. Commissioner ofInternal Revenue, CTA �8 Case No. 2687 (CTA Case No. I0083), February 2 1, 2024 [Per J. Modesto-San Pedro, En Bane]. Bangko Sentrat ng Pilipinas v. Commissioner oflnrernal Revenue, CTA EB Case No. 2732 (CTA Case No. I0097), July 19, 2024 [Per J. Ringpis-Liban, En Bane].