COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE v. MSCI HONG KONG LIMITED

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES COURT OF TAX APPEALS QUEZON CITY ENBANC COMMISSIONER OF CTA EB NO. 2939 INTERNAL REVENUE, (CTA Case No. 9884) Petitioner, Present: - versus- RINGPIS-LIBAN, P.J. , BACORRO-VILLENA, MODESTO-SAN PEDRO, REYES-FAJARDO, CUI-DAVID, FERRER-FLORES, and ANGELES, JJ. MSCI HONG KONG Promulgated: LIMITED, MAY 26 ~~� , � Respondent. a_, ~~- ~-/?--~ ~ X - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - -- - - -- RESOLUTION FERRER-FLORES, J.: For this Court's resolution is petitioner's Motion for Reconsideration (Re: Deci.sion dated 19 November 2025) filed via registered mail on December 9, 2025 1, with respondent's Comment with Manifestation (Re: Motion for Reconsideration dated December 9, 2025)2 on January 27, 2026. In the instant Motion, petitioner prays for the Court En Bane to set aside its Decision dated November 19, 2025 (assailed Decision),3 which dismissed his Petition for Review, the dispositive portion of which reads: ACCORDINGLY, premises considered, the Petition for Review ' i filed on July 8, 2024 is DISMISSED for lack ofjurisdiction. Received by the Court on December 15, 2025 ; Rollo, pp. 139 to 149. 2 Rollo, pp. 154 to 169. 3 Rollo, pp. 116 to 136.

RESOLUTION CTA EB No. 2939 (CTA Case No. 9884) Commissioner ofInternal Revenue vs. MSCJ Hong Kong Limited SO ORDERED. In his Motion, petitioner claims that this Court erred in reckoning the 15-day period to file a Petition for Review from the date of receipt of the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG), as respondent's principal counsel. Petitioner emphasizes that this Court should take judicial notice of the Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) officially entered into by and between the Bureau of Internal Revenue (BIR) and the OSG, as published and circularized by Revenue Memorandum Circular (RMC) No. 25-2010. Said MOA provides that the Commissioner of Internal Revenue (CIR) shall be represented by lawyers from the Litigation Division of the concerned BIR Office and that the BIR handling lawyer shall be the lead lawyer. Thus, considering that the BIR handling lawyers are the lead lawyers and have the responsibility to prepare all pleadings submitted to the Court, it follows that the reckoning date within which to file any pleadings shall be the date when the BIR lawyers received the Court decisions, resolutions, and other Court notices and processes-not the date of receipt of the OSG. Since the BIR lawyers received the assailed Division Resolution denying the CIR's Motion for Reconsideration on June 6, 2024 and a Motion for Extension to File Petition for Review was filed on June 20, 2024, which was granted by the Court, then the Petition for Review was timely filed on July 8, 2024. As such, the Court has jurisdiction over the CIR's Petition. With regard to the merits of his Petition, petitioner maintains that respondent failed to discharge its burden of proving its entitlement to a refund. Respondent, on the other hand, counters that petitioner's arguments have already been exhaustively discussed and passed upon by this Court in its Decision. Respondent avers that the Court correctly ruled that the assailed Division Resolution has already become final as to petitioner as he failed to timely file his Motion for Extension to File Petition for Review. According to respondent, while the BIR lawyers may be the CIR's counsel of record and have the responsibility to prepare pleadings, they do so while remaining under the direct control and supervision of the OSG. Should the OSG be furnished a copy ofthe pleading earlier than the CIR, the OSG can easily notify the latter of the former's receipt of the same, as part of the OSG's responsibility as the primary counsel for the government. Finally, respondent argues that it has adequately proven its entitlement to its claim for refund or issuance of a tax credit certificate for its excess and unutilized input VAT attributable to its zero-rated sales for the four quarters of calendar year (CY) 2016. The instant Motion is bereft of merit. The Comi is not convinced that the CIR's Petition for Review was timely filed before this Court on the basis that the reglementary period for the \

RESOLUTION CTA EB No. 2939 (CTA Case No. 9884) Commissioner ofInternal Revenue vs. MSCI Hong Kong Limited filing thereof should be reckoned from the BIR's receipt of the assailed Division Resolution. Note that the MOA between the OSG and the BIR, where BIR legal officers were deputized by the OSG to appear and handle cases before the Court En Bane, does not, in any way, alter the power and duties of the OSG as the lawyer of the government. The OSG remains as the principal counsel, and, as such, still exercises supervision and control over the deputized BIR legal officers with respect to a case. In this regard, the CIR, a government official acting in official function, is represented both by the OSG as the principal counsel, and the Litigation Division of the BIR, as deputized counsel. At the risk of sounding repetitive, the Supreme Court has settled that the service of legal processes on the principal counsel, and not on the deputized lawyers, is decisive as to the date from which the 15-day period is counted.4 Hence, the Petition for Review should have been filed within 15 days from the date of receipt of the OSG, as principal counsel, on June 3, 20245 or until June 18, 2024.6 As it is, the Motion for Extension to File Petition for Review7 was already belatedly filed on June 20, 2024, and the Petition itself was likewise filed out of time on July 8, 2024. Time and again, the Supreme Court has stressed that procedural rules do not exist for the convenience of the litigants; the rules were established primarily to provide order to, and enhance the efficiency of, our judicial system. While procedural rules are liberally construed, the provisions on reglementary periods are strictly applied, indispensable as they are to the prevention of needless delays, and are necessary to the orderly and speedy discharge of judicial business. The timeliness of filing a pleading IS a jurisdictional caveat that even the Supreme Court cannot trifle with.8 In view of the foregoing, the Court finds it no longer necessary to address the other arguments raised by the CIR nor is there cogent reason to reverse or modifY the assailed Decision. ~ 4 Claudine Monette Baldovino-Torres vs. Jasper A. Torres, G.R. No. 248675, July 20, 2022, citing the cases of National Power Corp. vs. National Labor Relations Commission, G.R. Nos. 90933-61, May 29, 1997 and Commissioner ofCustoms vs. Court of Tax Appeals, G.R. No. 132929, March 27,2000. Notice of Resolution dated May 29,2024, Division Docket- Vol.lll, p. 1338. 6 Since the 30'h day fell on December 30. 2022. a holiday. petitioner had until January 3, 2023, the next working day, to file a motion for reconsideration. Rollo, pp. I to 3. Le Solei/ Int'l. Logistics Co., Inc. vs. Sanchez, G.R. No. 199384 (Resolution), September 9, 2015, citing Labao vs. Flores, G.R. No. 187984, November 15,2010.

RESOLUTION CTA EB No. 2939 (CTA Case No. 9884) Comm;ss;oner ofInternal Revenue vs. MSCJ Hong Kong Limited ACCORDINGLY, the Motion for Reconsideration (Re: Decision dated 19 November 2025) filed by the Commissioner ofintemal Revenue is DENIED for lack of merit. SO ORDERED. WE CONCUR: MA. BELEN M. RINGPIS-LIBAN Presiding Justice Justice ON LEAVE MARIAN IVY F. REYES-FAJARDO Associate Justice ~~ LANEE s. CUI-DAVID Associate Justice HENRY I�GELES Associate Justice