COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE v. PANAY POWER CORPORATION

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES Court of Tax Appeals QUEZON CITY En Bane COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL CTA EB NO. 2911 REVENUE, Petitioner, (CTA Case No. 10499) -versus- Present: RINGPIS-LIBAN, P.J, BACORRO-VILLENA, MODESTO-SAN PEDRO, REYES-FAJARDO, CUI-DAVID, FERRER-FLORES, and ANGELES,JJ P romulg ate d : PANAY POWER CORPORATION, FEB 0 3 2026 ,.p Respondent. 0 X ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- X RESOLUTION MODESTO-SAN PEDRO, J.: For the Court' s resolution is petitioner's Motion for Reconsideration (Re: Decision promulgated on 30 September 2025), filed on October 13, 2025, with respondent' s Comment/Opposition [Re: Petitioner 's Motion for Reconsideration], filed on October 30, 2025, assailing this Court's Decision, dated September 30, 2025. As observed by respondent, the bulk of petitioner' s arguments are mere rehashes of the contentions he raised in his Petition fo r Review, contentions f thoroughly discussed and rej ected in the assailed Decision. The Court need not rehash Our own explanations of said contentions' untenability here. See Roque v. Commission on Election , G.R. No. 188456 (Resolution), f ebruary I0, 20 I0; see also Shangri-La International Hotel Management, Ltd. v. Developers Group a.(Companies, Inc., G. R. No. 159938 (Resolution), January 22, 2007; see also Ortigas and Company Limited Partnership v. Velasco, G. R. Nos. I09645 & I 12564 (Resolution), Marc h 4, 1996.

RESOUTIO'i CTA EBNo. 2911 (CTA Cas~! No. 10-t99) Page 2 ofJ The only novel point raised in the Motion is petitioner's claim that respondent failed to exhaust administrative remedies when it filed its Petition for Review before the Court of Tax Appeals in Division on May 17, 2021, despite only filing its administrative claim on September 18, 2020. Drawing from Ampil, Jr. v. COMELEC2 ("Ampil") he insists that the Court in Division can only take cognizance of judicial claims for refund when the taxpayer has exhausted administrative remedies. The argument is flawed on two levels. First, May 17,2021 is 241 days after September 18, 2020. This is longer than even the 180+30 day grace period for appeals from other administrative rulings made by petitioner. The idea that petitioner was not given ample time to decide on respondent's administrative claim thus has no basis in fact. Second, while Ampil covers administrative exhaustion in general, the applicable jurisprudence for filing judicial claims specifically is Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Carrier Air Conditioning Philippines. Inc} where the Supreme Court declared that this Court can take cognizance of judicial claims so long as an administrative claim was filed previously, no matter how short the interval between the two. This is due to the specific wording of the National Internal Revenue Code of 1977, as amended, at the time. Thus, even assuming arguendo that respondent had filed its judicial claim a mere day after its administrative claim, rather than the generous 241 days given in reality, the Court in Division could still take cognizance of the claim. Petitioner's argument is consequently without legal basis as well. Exclusively containing arguments that (a) were already refuted in the assailed Decision; and/or (b) lack factual and legal basis, the Motion is bereft of merit and must be denied. ACCORDINGLY, petitioner's Motion for Reconsideration (Re: Decision promulgated on 30 September 2025), filed on October 13, 2025, is hereby DENIED for lack of merit. The assailed Decision, dated September 30,2025, is AFFIRMED. SO ORDERED. MARIARO Assoc ate J stice 344 SCRA 358. 372 (2000). G.R. No. 226592. July 27. 2021.

RESOLL"TIO~ CTA EBNo_ 2911 (CTA Case No_ 10-J.99} Page 3 of3 WE CONCUR: ~. ~ t-.. 'I ------ MA. BELEN M. RINGPIS-LIBAN Presiding Justice ' JEAN MAn~~-VILLENA ~ciate Justice ~ ~f.~ -fa/c-to4J MARIAN IVYliJ. REYE#-FAJAIIDO Associate Justice ~ LANEE S. CUI-DAVID Associate Justice ES HENRY/lt;.NGELES Associate Justice