CTA Case No. 11804 (Resolution)

CTA Fonn No. 8 (For DCC) lllll ll lllll l lllllll l llllllllllll llllll l lm lll llllll llllllllll 25-000 193- 0024 REPUBLIC OF THE PIDLIPPINES COURT OF TAX APPEALS QUEZON CITY FIRST DIVISION CTA CASE N0. 11804 ORMIN POWER, INC. AND O rtrud T. Yao, Petitioner, -versus- NOTICE OF RESOLUTION COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent. To: OFFICE OF THE SOLICITOR GENERAL 134 Amorsolo Street, Legaspi Village Makati City ATTY. AYESHA BANIA B. GUILING-MATANOG Bureau oflntemal Revenue Litigation Division, Room 703, BIR National Office Building Sen. Miriam P. Defensor-Santiago Avenue Diliman, Quezon City THE LAW FIRM OF DE GUZMAN LEYNES RIVERA AND PARTNERS No. 14 Sgt. Esguerra Avenue Brgy. South Triangle ll 03 Quezon City GREETINGS: You are hereby notified by these presents that on July 10, 2026, a Resolution was rendered in the above-entitled case, copy of which is attached hereto. Quezon City, Philippines, July 13, 2026. r Atty. Maria Jo~Chan-Te Executive Cle~urt III

REPUBLIC OF T HE PHILIPPINE S COURT OF TAX APPEALS QUEZON CITY First Div ision ORMIN POWER, INC., CTA Case No. 11804 represented by Ortrud T. Yao, Members: Petitioner, -versus - RINGPIS-LIBAN, P.J. & Chairperson, REYES-FAJARDO, and COMMISSIONER OF ANGELES,Jl INTERNAL REVEN UE, Promulgated: Respondent 'JUL,l !._~ Z:OO PM X-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------X RESOLUTION O n Iviarch 14, 2025, Petitioner Ormin Power, Inc., represented by O rtrud T. Yao, flied a Petition for Review before this Court, docketed as CTA Case No. 11 804, assailing disputed tax assessmen ts issued by Respondent Commissioner of Internal Revenue (CIR) . O n January 26, 2026, pursuant to Administrative Circular No. 01 -2026 reorganizing the Divisions of this Court, this case was transferred to the First Division chaired by Presiding Justice Ma. Belen M. Ringpis-Liban. O n February 6, 2026, this Division issued a Notice scheduling the Pre- Trial Conference o n April 30, 2026, and directing the parties to submit their respective Pre-Trial Briefs. O n Iviarch 16, 2026, Petitioner, through counsel, filed a Motion to Withdraw Petition for Review, stating that on Iviarch 11, 2026, its Board of Directors resolved to pursue settlement of the tax matter at the administrative level with the Bureau of Internal Revenue (BIR), as evidenced by Board Resolution No. 03-002, Series of 2026, attached thereto as Annex "A." Petitioner accordingly moved for the withdrawal of the P etition for Review and the dismissal of the case witl1out prejudice to the administrative settlement being pursued with the BIR.

On March 26, 2026, Petitioner flied a Manifestation, clarifying that its Motion to Withdraw Petition for Review dated March 16, 2026 should be treated under the correct docket number, CTA Case No. 11804. The Court NOTES the foregoing Manifestation. On April 22, 2026, this Division issued a Minute Resolution noting Petitioner's Manifestation, directing Respondent to file a Comment on the Motion to Withdraw \.vithin five (5) days from notice, holding in abeyance the transmittal of BIR Records, and cancelling the Pre-Trial Conference set on April 30, 2026. On April27, 2026, Respondent, through the Solicitor General and Special Counsel from the BIR Litigation Division, filed a Comment (Re: Motion to Withdraw Petition for Review), interposing no objection to the N!otion and submitting the matter to the sound discretion of this Court. On May 19, 2026, this Division issued a Minute Resolution noting Respondent's Pre-Trial Brief filed on April 23, 2026, and declaring the N!otion to \Vithdraw Petition for Review submitted for resolution in light of Respondent's Comment. . The matter is now ripe for resolution and the Court finds that the Motion .. 1s mentonous. A party has the right to dismiss its own action before a responsive pleading is served, or, thereafter, only upon court approval. Rule 17, Section 1 of the Rules of Court provides that a complaint may be dismissed by the plaintiff by filing a notice of dismissal at any time before service of the answer or of a motion for summary judgment. Upon filing, dismissal is effected without need of court order, and unless d1e notice or stipulation states otherwise, the dismissal shall be without prejudice.' Where, as here, an answer has been flied- Respondent having submitted an Answer Ad Cautelam on July 14, 2025- tl1e dismissal of the action requires leave of court. The Court is satisfied that the grounds invoked by Petitioner are legitimate: the corporate decision to pursue administrative settlement with the BIR is a recognized and reasonable ground for \.vithdrawal, and the motion was flied voluntarily, in good faith, and without intent to delay the proceedings. Respondent itself has interposed no objection and left the matter to the sound discretion of this Court.2 The Court finds no impediment to the grant of d1e Motion. The withdrawal o f tl1e Petition for Review and the consequent dismissal of this case 1Rules of Court, Rule 17, Sec. 1. 2Rules of Court, Rule 17, Sec. 2 (2019 Amendments, A.M. No. 19-10-20-SC, eff. May 1, 2020).

are warranted) sub ject to the condition that the dismissal shall be without prejudice to Petitioner's pursuit of administrative remedies before the BIR. WHEREFORE) premises considered) Petitioner)s Mo tion to Withdraw Petition for Review is hereby GRANTED. Accordingly) this case is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. SO ORDERED. ~. ~" ...___ MA. BELEN M. RINGPIS-LIBAN Presiding Justice t ~ ~ ~ - t~~rfi) MARIAN rVY~. REYES-FAJA<iiDO Associate Justice H ENRY sllf:GE LES Associate Justice