CTA Case No. 5196 (Resolution)

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES COURT OF TAX AP PE ALS QUEZO N C ITY AND P HILIPPIN~ ~XPOHT fOH~IGN LOAN GUAHANTEt CORPORAl ION, Petitioner, - versus - C.T.A. CASE NO. 5196 TH E HON. LIWAYWAY VINLONb -C HAl O, Promulgated: COMMI SSIONER OF INTERNAL RtVE NUE, MAY 1'7 1996 ~ Respondent. X- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - X RESOLU I ON At this stage of the trial of herein case, We are supposed to dwe I I on the adm1ssibi l1ty of Respondent's formal offer of ev1dence filed on March 13, 1996. After a more thorough rev1ew of the instant Petition for Re view, however, We have decided to peremptorily t erminate all further proceedings over the same. Our firm resolve is based on the lack of jurisdictio n of th i s Court to entertain the petition. Pet i t ioner has no legal standing to sue before the Court of Tax Appea l s. It must be noted that Petitioner IS a governm ent-o wn ed a nd control led corporation created under its enabling statute, Presidential IJecree No. bbO, as amen ded. ( Petit i on for Review, par. 1 ' p. 1 . CT A rec ords) 480

RESOLUTION - C.T.A. CASE NO. 5196 - 2- In the oase of the Development Bank of the Philippine s vs. Court of Appeals (18 0 SCRA 612-614, 617), the High Tribu na l held, thus ly : "xxx The Court of Appeals sustained the position of the ~ustoms Commissioner that it was grave error for the Court of Tax Appeals to have taken cognizance of the oase in v1ew of the exp I i cit prov 1s ions of President i a I Decree No. 242, pertinently providing that: SECTION 1. Provisions of law to the contrary notwithstanding all disputes , clatms and controversies solely between or among the departments, bureaus, offices, agencies and instrumental ltles of the National Government, including government-owned or control led corporations but excluding constitutional offices or agencies, arising from the interpretatton and application of statutes, contracts or agreements, sha II henceforth be administratively settled or adjudicated as provided hereinafter: Provided, That th1s sha I I not app I y to cases a I ready pending In court at the time of the effectivity of this decree." The appellate Iribunal thus held that the the controversy between the DBP and the been Commissioner of custo ms was not Within of jurisdiction of the CTA and should have 1n decided In accordance with the mode settl ement and adjudication set forth Sectio ns 2 and 3 of P.O. No. 242, VIZ: SEC. 2. I n a I I cases i nvo Iv i ng on Iy questions of Iaw, the same sha I I be submitted to and settled or adjudicated by the Secretary of Justice, as Attorney General and ex officio Iega I adviser of aII government-owned or centro I Ied corporations and entitles, in consonance with section 83 of the Revised Administrative Code. His ruling or determ ina tion of the ques tio n in each case sha I I be 481

RESOLUTION - C . T .A. CASE NO. 5196 - 3- conclusive and binding upon alI the parties c o ncer ned . Sec . 3 . Ca s e s I n v o I v i ng mI xe d questions of law an d of fact or only factua I Issues sha I I be submitted to and s e ttled or adjudicated by: ( a) Ihe Solicitor General , with respect to di s putes or c la1m s or controversie s between or amon g the departments , bure au s, offices and other agencie s of t he National Government; ( b) The Government Corpora t e co unse I, w1th respect to disputes or clai ms or controve r s i es between or among the government-owned or control led corporat i ons or entrties be1ng served by the Office of the Government Corp or ate Counsel; and (c) lhe Secretary of Justice, With r es pect t o a lI other disputes or claims or controvers i es which do not tal I under th e categor1es mentioned in paragraph s <a l and (b) . The Appe I I ate court ru I ed that Sect 1on 7(2) of Repub l ic Ac t No . 1125 - pursuant to which t h e Co u rt of lax Ap peals had therefore been exercising exclusive appellate jUriSdiction ove r decisio ns of t he Commissioner ot Customs i n cases 1nvo I v 1ng I 1ab 1 I i ty for customs d u ties, fees or other money charges, 1nter a/1a -had been superseded by said P.D. No. L42, It being "a s ettled rule of stat utory construction that where there IS 1rreconc 1 labl e repugnancy between t wo statutes anent the s a me subject matter - as there Is be t ween P.O. 242 a nd Sec. 7{2) of A.A. No. 1125 1n regard to the manner of settlement o f disputes Involv i ng customs du t 1es , etc. between government offices, agencies and corpo rations - the one of l ate enact ment , being t he latest expression of th e leg I slat 1ve Wi ll, should prevarl over th e other which is of earl rer e na ctment." ' 48 2

RE SOLUTION - C .T. A. CASE NO . 5196 - 4- Based on the a bove -quoted deci si on, It Is crystal clear t hat a government-owned or co ntr ol led co rp or ation i s not one of those entities or persons covered by the jur isd iction of this Court, it being under the sphere of au thority of the Secretary of Justice or the Solicitor General, as the case may be. To date, the cited pronouncement of the Honorable S up r em e Co u r� t s t 1 I I h o I d s a p p I i cat i o n i n v i e w of t h e f act tha t the same provisions of P.O. No. 242 were reproduced subs tantially in the Admin ist rative Code of 1987 (Executive Order No . 292), the present law governing government structure and funct ion s. Sections 66-67 of Chapter 14 of Book of the Administrative Code of 1987 regarding controversies among government offices and corporations state, thusly: Chapter 14 CONTROVERSIES AMONG GOV~RNM~Nf OFFICES AND CORPORATIONS Sec. 66. How Set:tled. All disputes, cla1ms and controversies. solely between or among the departments, bureaus, offices, agencies and Instrumentalities of the National Government, including government-owned or control led corporations, such as those arising from the interpretation and application of statutes, contracts or agreements , shal I be administratively settled or adjudicated 1n the manner provided on thts Chapter. lhts Chapter sha I I, however, not app Iy to disputes 1 nvo Ivi ng the Congress, the Supreme Court, the Const1tut1onal Commissions, and local governments. 48 3

RE SOLUT ION - C. T.A. CASE NO . 5196 - 5- SEC. 67. Di spu t es I nvolving Questions of Fact and Law. Cases Involving mixed quest 1ons of I aw and of fact or only factual Issue s s hal I be submitted to and settled or adJUdi cated by: (1) The So l1 c1tor General, 1f the dispute , cla 1m or co ntroversy Involves only departments, bureaus, offices and other ag enc1~s uf the Nationa l Government as wei I as government -owned or cont rol led corporations or ent1t1es of whom he IS the pr1nc1pal law officer or general counsel; and (2) The Secretary of Justice, in alI other ca ses not falling under paragraph 11 ) . From the foregoing, there 1s no re as on thererore to dep art from the w1sdom of t he High Court. Appl yi hg the sam e Interpretation. We s1m1 larly t 1nd the Adm1n1strat1ve Cod e of 198"1 essentially repugna nt to :::.ect1on I ot A.A. 1125, the Charter of the Court of rax Appeals . AC CORDINGLY, the 1nstant Petition tor Hev1ew IS hereb y DISMIS tD for lack ot J Ur isdiCtion. SO OHOtRt:D. (._c--\!1..~ (Q\ ) ERNESTO D. ACOSTA MANUt:l K. GRUBA Presiding Judge Associate Judge RAM~. !L~~ f . Ass oci ate Judg:A 4'84