COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE v. HALLIBURTON WORLDWIDE LIMITED - PHILIPPINE BRANCH

I~EPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES COURT OF TAX APPEALS QUEZON CITY En Bane COMMISSIONER OF CTA EB NO. 2873 INTERNAL REVENUE, {CTA Case No. 10139) Petitioner, Members: -versus - RINGPIS-LIBAN, Acting P.J, MANAHAN, BACORRO-VILLENA, MODESTO-SAN PEDRO, REYES-FAJARDO, CUI-DAVID, FERRER-FLORES, and ANGELES, JJ HALLIBURTON WORLDWIDE Promulgated: LIMITED - PHILIPPINE QCf 1Lt 2025 BRANCH, ~~---------r------~r-~ Respondent. x-- --------------------------------------- - --------- x DECISION MODESTO-SAN PEDRO, J. : Before the Com1 En Bane is a Petition for Review docketed as CTA EB No. 2873, assailing the Decision dated July 26, 2023 ("Assailed Decision"), and Amended Decision dated January 24, 2024 ("Assailed Amended Decision"), promulgated by this Com1's Special Second Division, the dispositive pm1ions of which respectively read: Decision dated July 26, 2023: WHEREFORE. in light of the forego ing. the instant Petition fo r Review is PARTIALLY GRANTED. Accordingly, respondent is ORDERED to issue a tax cred it certificate in favor of petitioner in the additional amo unt of Seven Million y-'

DECISION CTA EB No_ 2873 (CTA Case No 10139) Six Hundred Sixty-Nine Thousand Five Hundred and Eighty Pesos and Nineteen Centavos (P7,669,580.19). representing petitioner's unutilized input VAT attributable to its zero-rated receipts for the lst, 2nd, 3rd and 4th quarters of CY 2017. SO ORDERED. Amended Decision dated January 24, 2024: WHEREFORE. premises considered. respondent's Motion jin� Rec:onsiderotion (Decision ol July 26. 2023) is hereby DENIED. Petitioner's Motion for Partial Reconsideration and Correction (Re: Decision dated July 26. 2023) is PARTIALLY GRANTED. Accordingly, the dispositive portion of the Decision dated July 26. 2023. is amended as follows: WHEREFORE, in light of the foregoing. the instant Petition for Review is PARTIALLY GRANTED. Accordingly. respondent is ORDERED to refund in favor of petitioner in the additional amount of Seven Million Six Hundred Sixty-Nine Thousand Five Hundred and Eighty Pesos and Nineteen Centavos (P7,669,580.19). representing petitioner's unutilized input VAT attributable to its zero- rated receipts for the I st. 2nd, 3rd and 4th quarters of CY 2017. SO ORDERED. SO ORDERED. The Parties Respondent Halliburton Worldwide Limited-Philippine Branch is a corporation duly organized and existing under the laws of Cayman Islands. Its primary purpose is "to engage in the business of providing oilfield services and products, such as well completion, drilling, cementing, logging, well testing, perforating, production testing and workover, stimulation services and licensing of software and consulting services, and importation and provision of oilfield equipment and technology to the oil and gas industries." It is registered with the Bureau oflnternal Revenue ("BIR") as a Value- added tax (Vi\.T) taxpayer with Tax Identification Number ("TIN") 266-369- 565. Its office is at Pearlbank Center, 146 Valero Street, Salcedo Village, Makati City/ '

DECISIO' CTA�BNo.2873(CTACast!No 10139) Petitioner is the Commissioner of the BIR, the government agency in charge of, among others, the assessment and collection of all national internal revenue taxes, fees, and charges. 1 The Facts The relevant antecedent facts of the case as narrated in the Assailed Decision are as follows: 2 On March 29. 2019, petitioner filed with Revenue District Office ("RDO") No. 53B an Application for Tax Credits/Refund (BIR form 1914). requesting the refund of P 12,23 7,83 3.00 representing its unutil ized input VAT for the I' 1 to 4111 quarters of calendar year ("CY') 2017 attributable to zero-rated sales. The Notice to Comply dated April 14. 2019 was then issued to petitioner by the BIR through Mr. Ignacio T. Camba, Jr. ("RDO Camba, Jr."). Revenue District O�licer of RDO No. 53 B. requesting petitioner to submit certain documents to facilitate the verification and processing of its claims for VAT refund. subject to the limitations set forth under the law. In response. petitioner filed on June 26. 2019 a Reply to the Bureau of Internal Revenue (BIR)-Notice to Comply dated April 14. 2019 to facilitate the Application for Value-Added Tax (VAT) Refund for Taxable Year (TY) 2017 dated June 25. 2019. submitting certain documents to substantiate its claim. On June 28, 2019. petitioner received a Letter ("Denial Letter") signed by RDO Camba, Jr.. stating that petitioner's claim for refund was denied for non-compliance with the requirements enumerated in the Notice to Comply it received on April 14.2019.. Subsequently. Regional Director Glen A. Geraldina issued a letter dated July 2. 2019. denying petitioner's claim for VAT refund for failure to substantiate its claim as evidenced by its failure to comply with the Revised Checklist of Mandatory Requirements for Claims for VAT Refund. under Revenue Memorandum Circular ("RMC") No. 17-2018. On July 26, 2023, the Court's Special Second Division promulgated the Assailed Decision, partially granting respondent's claim for refund of its unutilized input VAT attributable to its zero-rated for the 1" to 4th quatiers of calendar year ("CY") 2017 in the amount ofi'7,669,580.19. On August 17, 2023, both pa1iics filed their respective motions for reconsideration on the Assailed Decision.3 Ilowever, on January 24, 2024, the......--- 1 The Parties. Assailed Decision, p.1. 2 /d.at2to3 . �J Assailed Amended Decision. p. I.

DECISIO'i CTA �13 No_ 2873 (CT:\ Case No. 10139) Page -IoriO Assailed Amended Decision was promulgated, denying petitioner's motion, but partially granting respondent's motion. Proceedings Before this Court Petitioner filed a Motion for Extension of Time to File Petition for Review on February 13, 2024 via an accredited courier. This was received by the Court on February 16, 2024 and was docketed as CTA EB No. 2873:1 In the Minute Resolution, dated February 20, 2024,5 the Court, subject to the condition that the motion for extension was filed on time, granted petitioner a non-extendible period of 15 days from February 13, 2024, or until February 28, 2024, within which to file his Petition for Review. Petitioner filed his Petition for Review on February 28, 2024, again via accredited courier, which was received by the Cowi on February 29, 2024 6 Respondent filed its Comment (Re: Petition for Review dated 26 February 2024) on July 15, 2024.7 In the Minute Resolution, dated August 15, 2024,8 this Cowi En Bane submitted the case for decision. The Assigned Error Petitioner raises the issue before the Court: WHETHER OR NOT RESPONDENT IS ENTITLED TO A REFUND OR ISSUANCE OF TCC IN THE AMOUNT OF P7.669.580.19, representing its excess or unutilized input ~A'!)9> the 1" to 4'" quarters of CY 2017 attributable to zero-rated salesy 4 Rollo. pp. I to 5. !d. at 6. 6 !d. at 7 to 80. 7 !d. at 87 to 96. s !d. at 97. 9 !d. at 10.

DECISIO'I CTA LB No. 2873 (CTA Cast: No. I0139 l Page5nf10 Arguments of the Parties Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner argues that the 90-day period to act on a taxpayer's claim for refund should be reckoned from the date of submission of the official receipts or invoices and other documents in support of the application filed in accordance with Section 112(A) and (B) of the National Internal Revenue Code, as amended ("the Tax Code"). In particular, petitioner asse11s that the 90-day period to act on respondent's claim for refund must commence from the date that the additional documents requested are submitted by respondent on June 25, 2019 and not from the date of filing the application for refund on March 29, 2019. Based on this, the Petition for Review, on the ground of petitioner's inaction, filed by respondent before the Court's Special Second Division was prematurely filed on July 26, 2019 and must have been dismissed. Respondent �s arguments: Respondent, on the other hand, argues that it submitted all the relevant documents supp011ing its claim for refund upon filing of its application on March 29, 2019, which is the correct reckoning point of the 90-day period for petitioner to act thereon based on Section 112(C) of the Tax: Code, jurisprudence, Revenue Memorandum Circular ("RMC ") No. 54-2014 and Revenue Regulations ("RR ") No. 1-20 17_ Since petitioner did not render a decision on its claim for refund until June 27, 2019, the end of the 90-day period of petitioner to act thereon, respondent timely filed its Petition for Review before the Court's Special Second Division on July 26, 2019. Our Ruling The present Petition for Review must be dismissed. Section 2(a)(l), Rule 4 of the Revised Rules of the Court of Tax Appeals 10 ("RRCTA") provides that the Court En Bane shall exercise exclusive appellate jurisdiction to review by appeal the Decisions or resolutions on motions for reconsideration or new trial of the Com1 in Divisions in the exercise of its exclusive appellate jurisdiction over cases arising from administrative agencies (i.e. the BIR) thus:~ 10 A.M. No_ 05-11-07-CTA. November 22, 1005.

DECISIO" CTA EB No_ 2873(CT:\ Case No. 10139) Page 6 or 10 SECTION 2. Cases Within the Jurisdiction of the Court En Bane. �- The Court en bane shall exercise exclusive appellate jurisdiction to review by appeal the following: (a) Decisions or resolutions on motions for reconsideration or new trial of the Court in Divisions in the exercise of its exclusive appellate jurisdiction over: (1) Cases arising from administrative agencies- Bureau of Internal Revenue, Bureau of Customs. Department of Finance, Department of Trade and Industry, Department of Agriculture; In relation thereto, Section 1, Rule 8 of RRCTA provides that in cases falling under the exclusive appellate jurisdiction of the Court En Bane, the petition for review of a decision or resolution of the Court in Division must be preceded by the filing of a timely motion for reconsideration or new trial with the Division. On the other hand, Section 3(b) of the same provides that a party adversely affected by a decision or resolution of a Division of the Court on a motion for reconsideration or new trial may appeal to the Court by filing before it a petition for review within fifteen days from receipt of a copy of the questioned decision or resolution. Upon proper motion and the payment ofthe full amount of the docket and other lawful fees and deposit for costs before the expiration of the reglementary period herein fixed, the Court may grant an additional period not exceeding 15 days from the expiration of the original period within which to file the petition for review. As such, in order for this Court to acquire jurisdiction in the instant case, the petition for review by the aggrieved party must be filed before the Couti Fn !Jane within IS days from the date of receipt of the Court in Division's resolution on the party's timely motion for reconsideration or new trial on the decision of said CoU!i acting in division. However, said 15-day period to file petition for review before the Comi En Bane may be extended by a period not exceeding 15 days from the expiration of the original period within which to file the petition for review. In this case, petitioner received the Assailed Amended Decision on his timely filed motion for reconsideration on January 29, 2024, giving it until February 13, 2024 to file a petition for review before this Court. However, petitioner instead filed a Motion for Extension of Time to File Petition for Review on February 13, 2024 in order to avail of the additional 15 days from the expiration of the original 15-day period to file the petition for review on February 13, 2024. This was granted by the Court on February 20, 2024, giving petitioner until February 28, 2024 to file his petition. At first glance, it is notable that petitioner did not file a motion for reconsideration on the Assailed Amended Decision prior to filing a petition for review before the Court En Bane. On the basis of this lapse, the instanty----

DECISI01\ CTA EB No. 2873 (CTA C<Jsc No. !0139) Petition should have already been dismissed for non-compliance with Section I, Rule 8 of RRCTA as pronounced in Asiatrust Development Bank, Inc. v. Commissioner ofInternal Revenue. 11 However, since the Assailed Amended Decision herein is a mere correction of the dispositive portion of the Assailed Decision, without delving again on the merits ofthe case, a new motion for reconsideration prior to filing a petition for review before the Couti En Bane is no longer necessary as clarified in Commissioner ofInternal Revenue vs. Commission on Elections. 12 Nevetiheless, the present Petition must be dismissed for failure to file it within the reglementary period provided under the RRCTA. As earlier stated, Section 3(b) of RRCTA provides that a party has 15 days from receipt of the questioned decision or resolution to file a petition for review before the Court En Bane, which is extendible by another 15 days after the initial period has expired. In this case, petitioner availed of the extension of 15 days to file his petition for review before the Court En Bane, specifically granting him until February 28, 2024 to do so. Indeed, the Petition for Review was filed on February 28, 2024, albeit via an accredited courier. Relatively, Section 3(c). Rule 13 ofthe 2019 Amendments to the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure 13 allows the filing of pleadings and other submissions by sending them by an accredited courier where the date of mailing shall be considered as the date of their filing, thus: SECTION 3. ivlanner o(Filing. -- The filing of pleadings and other court submissions shall be made by: (a) Submitting personally the original thereoL plainly indicated as such. to the court: (b) Sending them by registered mail; (c) Sending rhem hy accredired courier; or (d) Transmitting them by electronic mail or other electronic means as may be authorized by the [c]ollli in places where the court is electronically equipped. In the first case, the clerk of court shall endorse on the pleading the date and hour of llling.ln the second and rhird cases, rhe dole o[lhe mailing ~ of motions. pleadings, [and other court submissions, and] payments or,...- " G.R. Nos. 201530 and 201680-81. April 19. 2017. " G.R. Nos. 244155 and 247508. May II. 2011. 1 ~ As adopted by the Court of Tax Appeals in its En Bane Resolution No. 9-2020.

DECISION Cr/\FHNo.2873(CTACas~.:No_l0139) Page 8 of !0 deposits, as shown by the post office stamp on the envelope or the registry receipt, shall be considered as the date of'theirfiling, payment, or deposit in court. The envelope shall be attached to the record of the case, In the fourth case, the date of electronic transmission shall be considered as the date of tiling. (Italics, Ours.) However, with respect to initiatory pleadings Section 14 thereof requires that it be filed through conventional modes (i.e. personal filing or by registered mail), to wit: SECTION 14. Conventional Service or Filing a( Orders, Pleadings and Other Documents. --- Not1rithstanding the fi!regoing. the following orders. pleadings, and other documents must be served or filed personally or hy registered mail when allowed. and shall not be served or filed electronically. unless express permission is granted by the [c]ourt: (a) lnitiatmy pleadings and initial responsive pleadings. such as an ans\\rer; (b) Subpoena. protection orders. and writs; (c) Appendices and exhibits to motions. or other documents that are not readily amenable to electronic scanning may, at the option of the party filing such, be filed and served conventionally: and (d) Sealed and confidential documents or records. (Italics, Ours.) In Barroso vs. Commission on Audit, 14 ("Barroso case") it is ruled that the foregoing provision does not allow the filing of initiatory pleadings via private courier regardless of accreditation. Under such circumstance, the petition should be treated as if filed via ordinary mail where the date of actual receipt is deemed the date of filing, albeit posted much earlier. Given that a Petition for Review before the Couti En Bane is an initiatory pleading, it must thus be !lied either personally or by registered mail in accordance with Section 14, Rule 13 of the 2019 Amendments to the 1997 Rules ofCivil Procedure. However, in this case, the Petition for Review was filed through an accredited courier on February 28, 2024. We note that there were prior issuances of this Court which allowed the filing of initiatory pleadings through other modes as in CTA En Bane Resolution No. 3-2023 dated March 14, 2023, which continued the guidelines under CT!I En Bane Resolution No. 4-2021 dated February 24, 2021. However, these other modes pe1iain only to filing by electronic mail. It was only on September l, 2024 when the filing of initiatory pleadings via accredited courier was allowed under CT!I Fn Bane Resolution No. 8-2024y--- 1 ~ G.R. Nos.1.53253. April27. 202!.

DECISIOl'< CTA EB No_ 2873 (CTA Case No_ 10139) Page 9of 10 Thus, at the time the Petition for Review herein was filed, there were only two acceptable modes of filing: personally or through registered mail. Since the instant Petition was filed merely via accredited courier on February 28,2024, the actual date ofreceipt thereof by the Comi on February 29, 2024 shall be treated as the date of filing pursuant to the Barroso case. Thus, the Petition filed on February 29, 2024 was belatedly filed, effectively divesting this Court of its jurisdiction thereon. It is settled that the right to appeal is not a natural right or a part of due process; it is merely a statutory privilege, and may be exercised only in the matter and in accordance with the provisions of law. A party who seeks to avail of the right must, therefore, comply with the requirements of the rules, failing which the right to appeal is invariably lost. 15 Further, the Comi is well aware ofthe judicial mandate that rules prescribing the time which cetiain acts must be done, or certain proceedings taken, are absolutely indispensable to the prevention of needless delays and the orderly and speedy discharge of judicial business. 16 With the procedural lapse committed by petitioner, the outright dismissal of instant Petition is thus warranted. ACCORDINGLY, the instant Petition for Review 1s hereby DISMISSED for lack ofjurisdiction. SO ORDERED. WE CONCUR: ~.~~'~ �- h;' <...... MA. BELEN M. RINGPIS-LIBAN Associate Justice 15 Rudrigue::::y Cabangon v. People. G.R. No. 257933 (Notice). March 14.2022. 16 Latogan v. People, G.R. No. 238298. January 22. 2020.

DECISION CTAEBNo.2873(CTACnscNo. 10139) Page IOofiO c~�7-~ CATHERINE T. MANAHAN Associate Justice , JEAN MAR~Ic7~a~teOJ-usVticIe LLENA )1\- 9:w f. ~ -~'p.d1Y MARIAN IVYIF. REY~S-FA.JARDO Associate Justice AiundM~- LANEE S. cui-nAVID Associate Justice ON LE,,VE CORAZON G. FERRER-FLORES Associate Justice HENRY d~;.NGELES Associate Justice CERTIFICATION Pursuant to Article VIII, Section 13 of the Constitution, it is hereby certified that the conclusions in the above Decision were reached in consultation before the case was assigned to the writer of the opinion of the Court. ~.~ h"~ MA. BELEN M. RINGPIS-LIBAN Acting Presiding Justice