OPAL PORTFOLIO INVESTMENTS (FISTC-AMC ASSET MANAGEMENT COMPANY), INC. Formerly Opal Portfolio Investments (SPV-AMC), Inc. v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE

CTA Form No. 8 (For DCC) 1111111111111111111111 11111 11111 1111111111111111111111111 11111 111111111111111111 23-000260-0025 REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES COURT OF TAX APPEALS QUEZON CITY FIRST DIVISION CTA CASE N0.11187 OPAL PORTFOLIO INVESTMENTS [(FISTC-AMC ASSET MANAGEMENT COMPANY)], INC. Formerly Opal Portfolio Investments (SPV-AMC), Inc., Petitioner, NOTICE OF RESOLUTION - versus- COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent. To: OFFICE OF THE SOLICITOR GENERAL 134 Amorsolo Street, Legazpi Vi II age Makati C ity ATTY. SYLVIA R. ALMA JOSE ATTY. AYESHA HANIA B. GUILING-MATANOG ATTY. K ARL KENNY M. RAMO Bureau of Internal Revenue Room 703, Litigation Di vision, BIR National Office Building Sen. M iriam P. Defensor-Sant iago Avenue Dilima n, Quezon C ity TERENCIO R. YU~ANG, JR. & ASSOCI ATES Unit 204, 2ff, Corporate 101 Building Mother Ignacia St. , Brgy. South Triangle Quezon City GREETINGS: You are hereby notified by these presents that on January 30, 2024, a Resolution was rendered in the above-entitled case, copy of which is attached hereto. Quezon City, Philippines, January 31, 2024. Atty. Mar arette Y. G man Executi e Clerk of Court II

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES COURT OF TAX APPEALS Quezon City FIRST DIVISION OPAL PORTFOLIO CTA CASE NO. 11187 INVESTMENTS [FISTC-AMC Members: DEL ROSARIO, P.J. , Chairperson, (ASSET MANAGEMENT BACORRO-VILLENA, and CUI-DAVID, JJ. COMPANY)], INC. Formerly Opal Portfolio Investments (SPV-AMC), Inc., Petitioner, -versus - COMMISSIONER OF -------X INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent. X- - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - RESOLUTION For the Court's resolution is respondent's "Motion for Reconsideration (Re: Resolution Promulgated on 28 September 2023)"1 (MR) filed on 20 October 20232, with petitioner's "Comment (To Respondent's Motion for Reconsideration)" (Comment) filed on 11 December 2023.3 The instant motion seeks reconsideration of this Court's Resolution dated 28 September 20234 (assailed Resolution ) that treated petitioner's Petition for Review5 (petition ) challenging the validity of respondent's issuance of a Warrant of Distraint and/or Levy6 (WDL) and Warrant of Garnishmenf (WOG) against petitioner (collectively referred to as the "assailed warrants") as a Petition Division Docket, pp. 226-245. Received on 25 October 2023. Division Docket, pp. 25 1-256. ld. , pp. 214-225 . Filed on 13 June 2023, id., pp. 7-22. 6 Ex hibit " P-T , id., p. 137. Exhi bit " P-3", id., p. 138.

RESOLUTION CTA Case No. 11187 Opal Portfolio Investments [FISTC-AMC (Asset Management Company)], Inc. Formerly Opal Portfolio Investments (SPV-AMC), Inc. v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue Page 2 ofS x-- - ----- - - - --- ---- ---------------- - - -- - - - - ---- - ------------- - - - -- ----- x for Certiorari under Rule 658 of the Rules of Court, as amended. The dispositive portion of the assailed Resolution reads: WHEREFORE, the foregoing premises considered , petitioner's Petition for Review, treated as a Petition for Certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court, as amended , filed on 13 June 2023, is hereby GRANTED insofar as it prays for the nullification of the assailed warrants. Accordingly, the Warrant of Distraint and/or Levy dated 10 May 2023 and Warrant of Garn ishment dated 15 May 2023 are ANNULLED and SET ASIDE. Consequently, respondent Commissioner of Internal Revenue and his representatives are ORDERED to DESIST from enforcing any collection measures against petitioner. Considering the above pronouncement, petitioner's Verified Motion for the Issuance of Preliminary Injunction filed on 04 July 2023 is hereby rendered MOOT. Respondent's "Motion with Leave of Court to Admit Attached Comment" filed on 18 July 2023 is NOTED without action as the same has been likewise rendered MOOT. SO ORDERED.9 Here, respondent reiterates his or her argument that the Court lacks jurisdiction over the present petition since petitioner's Request for Reconsideration is still pending before respondent. Respondent further challenges the propriety of the cancellation of the WDL dated 10 May 2023 and WOG dated 16 May 2023. Lastly, petitioner argues that this Court should not have treated petitioner's petition as a Petition for Certiorari. 8 RULE 65 Certiorari, Prohibition and Mandamus Section I. Petition.for certiorari. - When any tribunal, board or officer exercising judicial or quasi- judicial fu nctions has acted without or in excess its or his jurisdiction, or with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess ofjurisdiction, and there is no appeal, or any plain, speedy, and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law, a person aggrieved thereby may fi le a verified petition in the proper court, alleging the facts with certainty and praying that judgment be rendered annu ll ing or modify ing the proceedings of such tribunal, board or officer, and granting such incidental reliefs as law and justice may require. The petition shall be accompanied by a certified true copy of the judgment, order or resolution subject thereof, copies of all pleadings and documents relevant and pertinent thereto, and a sworn certification of non-forum shopping as provided in the th ird paragraph of section 3, Rule 46. 9 Supra at note 4.

RESOLUTION CTA Case No. 11187 Opal Portfolio Investments [FISTC-AMC (Asset Management Company)), Inc. Formerly Opal Portfolio Investments (SPV-AMC), Inc. v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue Page 3 ofS x--- ---- ---------- -------------- ----- ----------- ---- ------------ ------- x Petitioner, on the other hand, maintains the Court had convincingly discussed the ratio of its assailed Resolution , and it subscribes to the decision to treat the present petition as a Petition for Certiorari. We resolve. Respondent's arguments are a mere rehash of those previously raised in his or her Comment10 filed on 18 July 2023, which the Court had adequately passed upon in the assailed resolution. As regards the Court's decision to treat the present petition as Petition for Certiorari, We ruled in the assailed Resolution that: While an ordinary appeal or petition for review and a petition for certiorari are distinct legal remedies with different requirements and purposes, a petition for review may be treated as a petition for certiorari if it appears from an examination of the allegations and the relief sought therein that it is a petition for certiorari. What determines the nature of the action and which court has jurisdiction over it are the allegations of the complaint and the character of the relief sought. The cause of action in a complaint is not what the designation of the complaint states, but what the allegations in the body of the complaint define or describe. In Marvin Cruz and Francisco Cruz, in his capacity as Bondsman v. People of the Philippines (Cruz), the Supreme Court explained that the following requisites must be present in order for a petition for certiorari to prosper: An essential requisite for filing a petition for certiorari is the allegation that the judicial tribunal acted with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction. Grave abuse of discretion has been defined as a "capricious or whimsical exercise of judgment that is patent and gross as to amount to an evasion of positive duty or a virtual refusal to perform a duty enjoined by law." In order to determine whether the Court of Appeals erred in dismissing the Petition for Certiorari for being the wrong remedy, it is necessary to find out whether the Regional Trial Court acted with grave abuse of discretion as to warrant the filing of a petition for certiorari against it. 10 Division Docket, pp. 154- 176.

RESOLUTION CTA Case No. 11187 Opal Portfolio Investments [FISTC-AMC (Asset Management Company)], Inc. Formerly Opal Portfolio Investments (SPV-AM C), Inc. v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue Page 4 ofS x------ - ------------- -- -- ----- -------- ----- - --- -- ------------ - -- ---- - -- x Here, petitioner alleges in its petition that the ACIR-LTS had no authority to issue the assailed warrants considering that the latter's decision on its assessment is still on appeal with respondent CIR. Therefore, petitioner sees these issuances as a violation of its right to due process. Clearly, the allegations alone depict that the assailed warrants were issued arbitrarily by the ACIR-LTS in excess of his or her jurisdiction considering that the latter should have been aware of the appeal pending before the CIR. Furthermore, bearing in mind the above discussions, it would seem that there is no other speedy or adequate remedy to prevent the BIR's collection attempts as the Court has already declared that the assailed warrants in this case are not proper subjects of appeal. Treating the petition now as a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the ROC, We shall proceed to determine the timeliness of the instant petition and whether the reliefs sought in the instant motion should be granted .11 The Court maintains that what is controlling under the circumstances is not the petition's caption but the allegations therein. Clear in the above-cited disquisition is that petitioner alleges an arbitrary exercise of power by the Assistant Commissioner of Internal Revenue - Large Taxpayers Service (ACIR-LTS) when the latter issued the WDL and WOG despite the fact that petitioner's case is still pending before the CIR. This preemption of the CIR's actions was clearly beyond the jurisdiction of the ACIR-LTS being respondent's subordinate. All told , aside from respondent's repetitive arguments, the merits of which have already been weighed in the assailed Resolution , respondent also fails to put forth any substantial issue that warrants a reconsideration of Our previous ruling on the matter. It is on these grounds that the Court cannot oblige to grant petitioner's present motion . In Ortigas and Company Limited Partnership v. Judge Tirso Ve/asco12, the Supreme Court held: 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 II Citat ions om itted, emphas is and italics in the original text. 12 G.R. Nos. 109645 & 11 2564, 04 March 1996.

RESOLUTION CTA Case No. 11187 Opal Portfolio Investme nts [FISTC-AMC (Asset Management Com pa ny)], Inc. Formerly Opal Portfolio Investments (S PV-AMC), Inc. v. Commissio r.er of In ternal Revenue x--------------------- ------------------ -- - -- - - --- - -- - --- -- - -- -- -- -- - --x 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 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. WHEREFORE, the foregoing premises considered , respondent's "Motion for Reconsideration (Re: Resolution Promulgated on 28 September 2023)" filed on 20 October 2023 1s hereby DENIED for lack of merit. SO ORDERED. ROMAN G. DEL ROSARIO Presiding Justice ~& LANEE S. CUI-DAVID Associate Justice