PPI HOLDINGS, INC. v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE

CTA Form No.8 (For DCC) 11111111111111111111111111111111 111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111 22-000013-0085 REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES COURT OF TAX APPEALS QUEZON CITY SPECIAL FIRST DIVISION CTA CASE NO. 10723 PPI HOLDINGS, INC., Petitioner, -versus - NOTICE OF RESOLUTION COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent. To: OFFICE OF THE SOLICITOR GENERAL 134 Amorsolo Street, Legazpi Village Makati City ATTY. SYLVIA R. ALMA JOSE ATTY. AYESHA RANlA B. GUILING-MAGTANOG Bureau of Internal Revenue Room 703, Litigation Division, BIR National Office Building Sen. Miriam P. Defensor-Santiago Avenue Di liman, Quezon City ANGARA ABELLO CONCEPCION REGALA & CRUZ 22nd Floor, ACCRALAW Tower Second Avenue comer 30th Street Crescent Park West, Bonifacio Global City 1635 Taguig City GREETINGS: You are hereby notified by these presents that on March 31, 2026, a Resolution was rendered in the above-entitled case, copy of which is attached hereto. Quezon City, Philippines, April 6, 2026. AttyE.xMeacruitiav~.~ ~Co.uCrthIaIIn-Te

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES COURT OF TAX APPEALS QUEZON CITY SPECIAL FIRST DIVISION PPI HOLDINGS, INC., CTA Case No.10723 Petitioner, Members: -versus- BACORRO-VILLENA, Acting Chairperson, and CUI-DAVID,JL COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Promulgated: ~:(JfJIJ Respondent. MAR 3 1 2026; }( - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ~ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - }( RESOLUTION BACORRO-VILLENA, [: For the Court's resolution is respondent Commissioner oflnternal Revenue's (respondent's/CIR's) tcMotion for Reconsideration"1 (MR), filed on 07 November 2025, with petitioner PPI Holdings, Inc.'s (petitioner's) Comment2 filed on 28 November 2025. The MR assails the Court's Decision3 promulgated on 20 October 2025 (Decision) which granted the instant Petition for Review and cancelled the tax assessment against petitioner for calendar year (CY) 2014. The dispositive portion of the Decision reads: WHEREFORE, premises considered, the present Petition for Review filed by petitioner PPI Holdings, Inc. on 13 January 2022 is hereby GRANTED. Accordingly, the deficiency ta}( assessments embodied in the Final Decision on Disputed Assessment dated 22 U December 2021, indicating petitioner's supposed deficiency ta}( ~ liabilities in the aggregate amount of P268,66s,637.25, inclusive of Division Docket, Volume III, pp. 1823-1833. Jd., pp. 1839-1846. Id., pp. 1785-1820.

RESOLUTION CTA Case No. 10723 PPI Holdings, Inc. v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue Page 2 of6 x--------- ---------------- ------------------x interest, for the calendar year 2014, is hereby CANCELLED and SET ASIDE. Consequently, respondent Commissioner of Internal Revenue or any person duly acting on his behalf is hereby ENJOINED and PROHIBITED from collecting the said amount against petitioner. At the outset, the Court notes that while respondent personally filed the MR on 07 November 2025, it was electronically mailed to the Court only on u November 2025,4 which was beyond the twenty four (24)-hour period prescribed in the Court of Tax Appeal's En Bane Resolution Nos. o8-2024s and 01-2025.6 Section 2, paragraph 2 ofEn Bane Resolution No. o8-2024 provides: 2. Manner of transmittal. - The PDF copies must be transmitted by litigants and court users to the official e-mail addresses: When the primary manner of filing is through personal filing, by registered mail, or by accredited courier, in accordance with Rule 13, Section 3 (a), 3 (b), or 3 (c) of the 2019 Amendments to the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, ten (10) paper copies for En Bane cases, and six (6) paper copies for initiatory pleadings or four (4) paper copies for subsequent pleadings for Division cases, shall be filed. The PDF copies must be transmitted within twenty-four (24) hours from such filing ofpaper copies; otherwise, the pleading or court submission shall be deemed as notfiled.7 Thus, respondent's failure to transmit the required soft copy or PDF version of the MR within the prescribed period renders the filing of said pleading procedurally defective. Pursuant to En Bane Resolution Nos. oS-20248 and 01-20259, the MR is deemed not filed and cannot be given legal recognition.t 4 See printout of respondent's electronic mail with the subject "CTA Case No. I0723 , PPI Holdings, Inc. vs Commissioner of Internal Revenue- Motion for Reconsideration", id., p. 1836. Guidelines on Submission of Electronic Copies of Pleadings and Other Court Submissions Before the Court of Tax Appeals Pursuant to A.M. No. I0-3-7-SC and A.M. No. 11-9-4-SC. 6 Interim Guidelines on the Submission of Electronic Copies of Pleadings and Other Court Submissions Before th e Court of Tax Appeals. Emphasis and italics in the original text. Supra at note 5. 9 Supra at note 6.

RESOLUTION CTA Case No. 10723 PPI Holdings, Inc. v. Commissioner of Inte rnal Revenue Page 3 of6 x------------- -- --- --- - ---- - - --- ---- -- ---- -- x Nevertheless, even if the Court exercises its prerogative to relax the rules to serve substantial justice, the MR must still be denied for lack of merit. In the Decision, the Court cancelled the assessment because of respondent's violation of petitioner's right to due process. Specifically, the Court found that petitioner's receiving copy of the final assessment notices (FANs) attached to the Formal Letter of Demand (FLD) did not indicate a due date while respondent's copy that he or she asked petitioner's representative to sign indicates 30 September 2019 as the due date for the payment of the assessment. In his or her MR, respondent mainly argues that obligations arising from law, such as paying taxes, do not require further demand because their demandability is provided by law. Respondent explains that Section 228 of the National Internal Revenue Code (NIRC) of1997, as amended and Section 3.1.4 of Revenue Regulations (RR) No. 12-99, as amended by RR No. 18-2013, specifically provides that a taxpayer has a period of thirty (3o) days from receipt to either pay his deficiency taxes or file a protest. Therefore, even if the FLDIFAN did not indicate a due date, it is understood that it is due within 30 days from receipt. Respondent also advanced his or her view that petitioner was not deprived of its right to due process since due process merely demands that the taxpayer was informed, in writing, of the legal and factual bases of the assessment. In other words, so long as the parties are notified and given the opportunity to explain their side, the requirement of due process is satisfactorily complied with. Lastly, respondent avers that the supposed invalidity of the FLD/FAN does not affect the validity of the FDDA, pursuant to the case of Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Liquigaz Philippines Corp (Liquigaz) .10 On the other hand, petitioner argues that respondent's reliance on the 30-day period to file a protest as basis for the finality and t demandability of the assessment is not supported by law or any jurisprudence. As to respondent's claim that petitioner was accorded due process, petitioner asserts that this contention lacks factual and 10 G. R. Nos. 2 15534 & 2 15557, 18 April201 6.

RESOLUTION CTA Case No. 10723 PPI Holdings, Inc. v. Co mmissioner of Internal Revenu e Page 4 of6 x--- --- --- ---- ----- -- ------ --- ----- - --- - ----x legal basis. While petitioner duly filed a protest to the FLD/FAN, this action was taken to exhaust administrative remedies and did not constitute a waiver of its defense that the deficiency tax assessment is null and void. Lastly, petitioner argues that respondent's reliance on Liquigaz is misplaced as the factual and legal issues therein are materially different from the issue in this case. The FLD/FAN in Liquigaz was found valid while the FLD/FAN in the instant case is void. Thus, a void assessment bears no valid fruit. Respondent's arguments lack merit. First, this Court cannot adhere to respondent's argument that obligations arising from law, such as paying taxes, do not require further demand. As thoroughly discussed in the Decision, the Supreme Court has since ruled that Section 228 of the NIRC of 1997, as amended, requires that the FLDIFAN must contain a definite and fixed date for payment.11 As to respondent's argument that due process merely demands that the taxpayer was informed of the legal and factual bases of the assessment, We have also thoroughly discussed in the Decision that if the FDL/ FAN does not indicate the due date for its payment, then it fails to meet the requirement to inform the taxpayer of the factual basis of the assessment. Lastly, respondent's interpretation and application of Liquigaz to the instant case is distorted. In Liquigaz, the Supreme Court ruled that failure of the Final Decision on Disputed Assessment (FDDA) to state the facts and law on which it is based renders the decision (i.e., the FDDA) void- but not necessarily the assessment (i.e. , the FLD/FAN). However, the reverse is not true. In Liquigaz itself, the Supreme Courtt II See Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Robert Christopher M Carmona, G. R. No. 240328 (Notice), 27 March 20 19; Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Fitness By Design, Inc., G.R. No. 2 15957, 09 November 20 16; Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. T Shuttle Services, G.R. No. 240729, 24 August 2020; Republic ofthe Philippines v. First Gas Power Corporation, G.R. No. 2 I4933, 15 February 2022; Commissioner ofInternal Revenue v. Telstar Manufacturing Corporation, G.R. Nos. 249239,250286 & 24924I-42, 10 February 2025.

RESOLUTION CTA Case No. 10723 PPI Holdings, Inc. v. Commissioner o f Internal Revenue Page 5 of6 X- -- - - - -- ---------- -- ---- - - - - - -- - - - ---- - - - --X cited its pronouncement in Commissioner ofInternal Revenue v. Reyes12 that "[a] void assessment bears no valid fruit." We reiterate the ruling in the Decision that in determining the validity of the assessment, the definiteness of the amount and the deadline for payment, are vital. It is noteworthy that in the MR, respondent did not dispute the Court's finding that the FLD/FAN received by petitioner did not indicate a due date. With the foregoing disquisitions, the Court has gone above its duty. It is settled that the Court can deal generally and summarily with an MR and merely state a legal ground for its denial (i.e., the motion contains merely a reiteration or rehash of arguments already submitted to and pronounced without merit by the Court in its judgment, or the basic issues have already been passed upon, or the motion discloses no substantial argument or cogent reason to warrant reconsideration or modification of the judgment or final order; or the arguments in the motion are too unsubstantial to require consideration, etc.). 13 Finally, it is the movant's duty to convincingly show grounds for a reconsideration of an assailed judgment or order, or at the least give its previous arguments a fresh perspective in such a way that would warrant a re-examination of the case.14 Unfortunately, in the instant case, respondent had failed to do so. WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, respondent's Motion for Reconsideration, filed on 07 November 2025, is hereby DENIED for lack of merit. SO ORDERED. JEANM 12 G.R. Nos. 159694 & 163581 , 27 January 2006. 13 See Ortigas and Company Lim ited Partnership v. Judge Tirso Velasco, et a/., G.R. No. 109645 (Resolution), 04 March 1996. 14 See Shangri-La International Hotel Management, Ltd. , et a!. v. Developers Group ofCompanies, Inc., G.R. No. 159938,22 January 2007.

RESOLUTION CTA Case No. 10723 PPI Holdings, Inc. v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue Page 6 of6 x-------------------------------------------x I CONCUR: LAN~~D Associate Justice