PHILIPPINE MINING DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION v. THE COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE AND THE OIC-ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, LARGE TAXPAYERS SERVICE, IN THEIR OFFICIAL CAPACITIES AS OFFICERS OF THE BUREAU OF INTERNAL REVENUE

Republic of the Philippines COURT OF TAX APPEALS Quezon City EN BANC PHILIPPINE MINING CTA EB NO. 1 900 DEVELOPMENT (CTA Case No. 9292) CORPORATION, Petitioner, -versus- Present: DEL RO_SARIO, P.J., THE COMMISSIONER OF CASTANEDA, JR., INTERNAL REVENUE AND UY, THE OIC-ASSISTANT FABON-VICTORINO, COMMISSIONER, LARGE MINDARO-GRULLA, TAXPAYERS SERVICE, IN RINGPIS-LIBAN, THEIR OFFICIAL MANAHAN, CAPACITIES AS BACORRO-VILLENA, and OFFICERS OF THE MODESTO-SAN PEDRO, JJ. BUREAU OF INTERNAL REVENU E, Respondents. Promulgated: DEC 06 2019 x--- - - - ----------------------------------------- ~~:;i;~:;::.x RESOLUTION MINDARO- GRULLA, J.: This resolves the petitioner's "Motion for Reconsideration" assailing the Court En Bane's October 16, 2019 Decision, the dispositive portion of which states: "WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Petition for Review docketed as CTA EB No . 1900 is DEN IED for lack of merit. Accordingly, the Decision dated April 6, 2018, rendered by the Second Division of this Court in CTA Case No. 9292, and its Resolution dated July 5, 2018 are AFFIRMED . No pronouncement as to costs. SO ORDERED . " In assailing this Court's Decision, petitioner reiterates its previous argument that the Court has jurisdiction over the case.

Philippine Mining Development Corporation vs. The Commissioner of Internal Revenue and the OIC-Assistant Commissioner, Large Taxpayer Service, in their official capacities as officers of the Bureau of Internal Revenue CTA EB No. 1900 (CTA Case No. 9292) RESOLUTION Page 2 of 3 We resolve to deny petitioner's "Motion for Reconsideration". Unless and until modified by the Supreme Court En Bane, the interpretation of PD No. 242 in the case of Power Sector Assets and Liabilities Management Corporation vs. Commissioner of Internal Revenue1 (PSALM Case) should be applied in determining the proper forum with jurisdiction to resolve disputes, claims and controversies solely between or among the departments, bureaus, offices, agencies and instrumentalities of the National Government. In the instant case, petitioner Philippine Mining Development Corporation is a GOCC, while respondent CIR represents the Bureau of Internal Revenue, another government agency. Clearly, this is a dispute solely between two government entities, and as such, following the ruling in the PSALM Case, this Court's Division has no jurisdiction. After a careful examination of petitioner's motion for reconsideration, the Court finds that the argument raised in said motion had already been sufficiently passed upon and fully discussed not only by the Second Division's Decision dated April 6, 2018 and Resolution dated July 5, 2018 but also by this Court En Bane's Decision dated October 16, 2019. In sum, We find that no substantial argument was raised to merit reconsideration of our Decision promulgated on October 16, 2019. WHEREFORE, the "Motion for Reconsideration Re: Decision" is DENIED for lack of merit. SO ORDERED. ~ N.M~~.. {~ CIELITO N. MINDARO-GRULLA Associate Justice 1 G.R. No. 198146, August 8, 2017.

Philippine Mining Development Corporation vs. The Commissioner of Internal Revenue and the OIC-Assistant Commissioner, Large Taxpayer Service, in their official capacities as officers of the Bureau of Internal Revenue CTA EB No. 1900 (CTA Case No. 9292) RESOLUTION Page 3 of 3 WE CONCUR: Presiding Justice ~~C-~lg_� ERL~P.UY JlJANITO C. CASTANEtt'A, JR. Associate Justice Associate Justice ~.~ ~- L__ MA. BELEN M. RINGPIS-LIBAN Associate Justice c~�?./.h~~A~--- cATHERINE T. MANAHAN Associate Justice MARIA RO

U.EI>UBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES Court of Tax Appeals QUEZON CITY En Bane PHILIPPINE MINING CTA EB NO. 1900 DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, (CTA Case No. 9292) Petitioner, Present: DEL ROSARIO, P.J., CASTANEDA, JR., -versus- UY, FABO N-VICTORINO, MINDARO-GRULLA, RINGPIS-LIBAN, THE COMMISSIONER OF MANAHAN, INTERNAL REVENUE AND THE BACORRO-VILLENA, and OIC-ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, MODESTO-SAN PEDRO, JJ. LARGE TAXPAYERS SERVICE, IN THEIR OFFICIAL CAPACITIES AS OFFICERS OF THE BUREAU OF Promulgated: INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent. DEC 06 201~ a: ~lj'l~ X --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------~---------?:_____ X ' DISSENTING OPI N IO N MODESTO-SA N PEDRO, J.: I respectfully dissent from the Decision penned by honorable Associate Justice Cielito N. Mindaro-Grul la, denying the instant "Motion for Reconsideration Re: Decision" for lack of jurisdiction pursuant to Presidential Decree No. 242 ("PD 242 "), and the case ofPower Sector Assets and Liabilities Management Corporation v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue ("PSALM Case "). 1 Similar to my position in previous cases involving the same issue of whether this Court has jurisdiction over disputes and claims solely between the Bureau of Internal Revenue ("BIR") and another government entity, it is my humble opinion that the Court of Tax Appeals ("CTA") has jurisdiction over the present case, by v irtue of the 1997 National Internal Revenue Code, and Republic Act No. ("RA ") 1125, as amended by RA 9282, which provide for the exclusive appellate jurisdiction of the CTA over decisions or G. R. No. 198146, 8 August 20 17.

IJISSENTING OPINION CTA EB NO. 1900 (CTA Case No. 9292) Page 2 of2 inactions by the Commissioner ofinternal Revenue involving internal revenue taxes. In matters involving tax disputes, PD 242, which is merely a general law that deals with the administrative settlement of disputes solely between or among government entities, must give way to RA 9282, a specialized law enacted to precisely deal with tax issues and controvcrsies.2 It is only logical that the CTA should have exclusive jurisdiction to decide on these matters3 since it already developed the necessary expertise on the subject of taxation as it is a specialized court dedicated exclusively to the study and resolution of tax problems.4 Further, the Supreme Court already declared that not all controversies solely between or among government entities fall under the provisions of PD 242. Following the ejusdem gencris rule on statutory construction, disputes that are subject to administrative settlement under PD 242 "must relate to the interpretation and application ofstatutes, contracts or agreements, or any other cases of similar naturc."5 Considering that tax disputes and controversies arc neither similar nor analogous to the given enumeration, settlement of tax issues between the BIR and another government entity is not covered by PD 242. Premises considered, I therefore vote to grant the instant "Motion for Reconsideration Rc: Decision" and reverse the Decision dated 16 October 2019. Respectfully submitted. 2 PNOCv. CA, et. a/., G.R. No. 109976,26 April2005. See Dissenting Opinion ofJustice Mariano del Castillo, PSALM Case. Macario Lim Gaw, Jr. v. C/R, G.R. No. 222837,23 July 2018. Orion Water District, et. a/. v. GSIS, G. R. No. 195382, 15 June 20/6.