GINEBRA SAN MIGUEL INC. v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES COURT OF TAX APPEALS QUEZON CITY THIRD DIVISION GINEBRA SAN MIGUEL, CTA Case No. 11052 INC., Members: Petitioner, - versus - MANAHAN, Chairperson, REYES-FAJARDO, and ANGELES, fl. COMMISSION ER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Promulgated: l~ espondent. SEP 0 9 2025 JL ?.:-- - - - - - X - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - ~ lj() P.= ~- �- -- - - --X RESOLUTION REYES-FAJARDO, J.: For the Court's resolution is respondent Commissioner of Internal Revenue (CIR)'s Motion for Reconsideration (Re: Decision dated March 21, 2025) 1 posted on AprillO, 2025, w hich seeks the reversal of the Cour t's Dec is ion prmnulgated on March 21, 2025,2 granting petitioner Gincbra San Miguet Inc.'s Petition for Review. The dispositive port io n rcads:3 "WH EREFORE, in light of the foregoing considerations, the Petition for Review is GRANTED. Respondent Commissioner of Internal Reve nue is ORDERED to refund or issue a tax credit certifical(' in fa vor of petitioner GSMI amounting to f>66,370,125.28, representing erroneously and illegally collected basic excise tax on the remova ls of alcohol for the period from January 23, 2020 to February 9, 2020. Motion for l{t'consideralion, Docket, pp. 442-455. Decision, l)ockl'l, pp. 417-437. 3 Id. at p. -t37.

RESOLUTION CTA CASE NO. 11 052 SO ORDERED." Respond('nl submits that the Court erred In granting petitioner's clai m for refund. He argues that petitioner failed to exhaust adn1ini strative remedies before elevating this case before the Court.4 By way of Connnen t,5 petitioner retorts that respondent's Motion for Reconsidemliou contains mere reiterations of arguments already submitted to and pronounced without merit by the Court. Additionally, petitioner ripostes that the doctrine of exhaustion of administrative r(' medies finds no application in this case. We dec idl'. The Court fi nds no compelling reason to reverse or modify the assailed Decision. The argume nts forwarded by respondent have already been passed upon and discussed at len gth by the Court. Any further discussion w ill o nly be um1ecessarily repetitive. The pronou ncement in Social Justice Society (S]S) Officers, et al. v. Lim,6 is ins tru cti ve: �nwgroun ds relied on being mere reiterations of the issues alread y p~:1ssed upon by the Court, there is no need to "cut and paste" per tin ent portions of the Decision or re-w rite the ponencia in accordann' w ith the outline of the instant motion. /\s succinctly put by then Chief Justice Andres R. Narvasa in Ortigas and Co. Ltd. Partnership v. Judge Velasco on the effect and disposi tion of a motion for reconsideration: The filing of a m otion for reconsideration, authorized by Rul e 52 of the Rules of Court, does not impose on the Court the obligC~tion to deal individually and specifically w ith the grounds rel ied 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 4 Motion fo r RPconside ration, Docket, pp. 442 - 455. s Comme nt (R(': lotion for Reconsideration da ted AprilS, 2025), Docket, unpaginated. Personally <I IHI Piectronicall y filed on May 1, 2025 and May 15,2025, respectively. 6 G.R. Nos. IR7R16 & 187916, March 10,2015.

RESOLUTION CTA CASE NO. 11 052 useless formality or ritual invariably involving merely a reiteration of the reasons already set forth in the judgment or final order for rejecting the arguments advanced by the mova nt; and it would be a needless act, too, with respect to issues raised for the first time, these being, as above stated, deemed wa ived because not asserted at the first opportunity. It suffices for the Court to deal generally and summarily with the n1.otio n for reconsideration, and merely state a legal ground fo r its denial (Sec. 14, Art. VIII, Constitution); i.e., the motion contains merely a reiteration or rehash of arguments alread y submitted to and pronounced without merit by the Court in its judg ment, or the basic issues have already been passed upon, or the motion discloses no substantial argum en t o r cogent reason to warrant reconsideration or modi ficatio n of the judgment or final order; or the arguments in the motion are too unsubstantial to require consideration, etc. WHEREFO RE, pre1nises considered, respondent's Motion for Reconsideration (Re: Decision dated March 21, 2025) is DENIED for lack of merit. The Decision promulgated on March 21, 2025 is AFFIRMED. SO ORDERED . ~�7-/~~- CATHERINE T. MANAHAN Associate Justice M~ ARIAN~6~1-~UA-. f.~ .. ~~ REYEg-FAJA'RDO Associate Justice HENRY l . tGELES Associate Justice