COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE v. SR METALS, INC.

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES COURT OF TAX APPEALS Quezon City ENBANC COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL CTA EB NO. 2049 REVENUE, (CTA Case No. 9253) Petitioner, Present: -versus- DEL ROSARIO, P.L, CASTANEDA, JR., UY, RINGPIS-LIBAN, MANAHAN, BACORRO-VILLENA, and MODESTO-SAN PEDRO, SR METALS, INC., ~~~t282o Respondent. )( - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - RESOLUTION BACORRO-VILLENA, L_: Before the Court is a Motion for Reconsideration] (MR) filed by petitioner Commissioner of Internal Revenue (CIR) against the Court's Decision2 dated 31 January 2020, dismissing his Petition for Review.3 The dispositive portion of the Decision reads: WHEREFORE, the foregoing considered, petitioner's Petition for Review filed on 02 May 2019 is hereby DISMISSED for lack of merit. Accordingly, the 14 November 2018 Decision and the 03 April 2019 Resolution of the Special Third Division in CTA Case No. 9253, Fi led 19 Fe bruary 2020, Rollo, pp. 11 2-11 7. Id ., pp. 94-1 02. Dated 02 May 201 9, id., pp. 7-22. \

CTA EB NO. 2049 (CTA Case No. 9253) CIR v. SR Metals, Inc. RESOLUTION X�-------------------------------- X entitled SR Metals, Inc. v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, are AFFIRMED. SO ORDERED. As petitioner admits, he presents no new arguments in his MR. Nevertheless, We do agree with him that such fact alone does not make his motion necessarily any less valid, though the same contentions leave this Court yet again, unconvinced. Petitioner continuously contends in his motion that respondent, SR Metals, Inc. (SRMI) should be liable to pay for deficiency income taxes for calendar year (CY) 2012 due the Board oflnvestment's (BOI) withdrawal of the latter's Income Tax Holiday (ITH) incentive during said year. He moors his contentions on two grounds: First, SRMI had failed to fulfill all the necessary requirements to avail of the ITH incentive pursuant to the Rule IX of the Implementing Rules and Regulations of Executive Order No. 2264 (E.O. 226) otherwise knowns as, the Omnibus Investment Code particularly, the submission of its Certificate of Entitlement (COE) to the Bureau of Internal Revenue (BIR). Second, on the decision of this Court's Second Division in CTA Case No. 9256, entitled SR Metals, Inc. v. Commissioner ofInternal Revenue, promulgated on 15 May 2018, involving the same parties which denied SRMI's Petition for Review on the ground of the latter's failure to provide the BIR with its COE. 4 RULE IX CONDITIONS FOR AVAILMENT OF INCENTIVES IN GENERAL SECTION I. Compliance with Obligations. - The enterprise shall observe and abide by the provisions of the code and its implementing rules and regulations, and take adequate measures to ensure that its obligations thereunder as well as those of its officers, employees, and stockholders are faithfully discharged. SECTION 5. Delinquent Enterprises.- No availment of incentives may be allowed an enterprise delinquent in compliance with any of the terms and conditions of registration, including such reports and statistical data which may be required by the Board.

CTA EB NO. 2049 (CTA Case No. 9253) CIR v. SR Metals, Inc. RESOLUTION X------------------------------- --X As already discussed in the assailed Decision, petitioner's petition was denied on the principle of stare decisis et non quieta movere.5 In sum, the Court of Appeals (CA) in its decision6 in SR Metals, Inc. v. Board of Investments (SRMI v. BOI), reinstated respondent's ITH incentive, and the Supreme Court later affirmed this in Board of Investments v. SR Metals, Inc. (BOI v. SRMI)l. The Supreme Court held thus: All told, the Court finds that the withdrawal of respondent's ITH incentive was without any basis, and thus, affirms the ruling of the CA reversing and setting aside the resolutions embodied in petitioner's letters dated May 24, 2012 and August 12, 2013. As a general rule, factual findings of administrative agencies are not interfered with; an exception, however, is when said findings are not supported by substantial evidence, such as in the instant case.8 Needless to say, maxims of judicial stability leave Our hands tied to rule otherwise. Neither could the Court's Second Division be faulted for initially deciding in favor of the CIR on this issue in CTA Case No. 9256, since the latter's decision was promulgated months prior to the Supreme Court's decision in BOI v. SRMI which placed the proverbial final nail in the coffin as regards the issue of SRMI's entitlement to the ITH. With the above, the Court finds this matter to have been fully addressed in the assailed Decision and thus, We see no cogent reason to further belabor Ourselves to a lengthy discussion on the binding authority that Supreme Court decisions have on lower courts. The principle of stare decisis et non quieta movere is entrenched in Article 8 of the Civil Code, to wit: ART. 8. Judicial decisions applying or interpreting the laws or the Constitution shall form a part of the legal system of the Philippines. It enjoins adherence to judicial precedents. It requires our courts to follow a rule already established in a final decision of the Supreme Court. That decision becomes a judicial precedent to be followed in subsequent cases by all courts in the land. The doctrine of stare decisis is based on the principle that once a question of law has been examined and decided, it should be deemed settled and closed to further argument. Amelia D. De Mesa. et a/. v. Pepsi Cola Products Phils., Inc., eta/., G.R. Nos. 153063-70, 19 August 2005. 6 Exhibit "'P-13", Division Docket, pp. 253-271. G.R. No. 219927,03 October 2018. ld., emphasis supplied.

CTA EB NO. 2049 (CTA Case No. 9253) CIR v. SR Metals, Inc. RESOLUTION X-------------------------------- -X WHEREFORE, the foregoing considered, petitioner's Motion for Reconsideration on 19 February 2020 is hereby DENIED. Accordingly, the Court's Decision on 31 January 2020 is thus, AFFIRMED. SO ORDERED. "' JEAN JVI.tuua WE CONCUR: ROMAN G. DEL ROSARIO Presiding Justice ~~;t-c.~~~/ ~ ERLI~UY fuANITO C. CASTANEDA, JR. Associate Justice Associate Justice c~ r.A,~'-- ~� ~ ~'-..._ CATHERINET.MANAHAN MA. BELEN M. RINGPIS-LIBAN Associate Justice Associate Justice