COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE v. STEFANINI PHILIPPINES INC.

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES Court of Tax Appeals QUEZON CITY En Bane COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL CTA EB NO. 3169 REVENUE, (CTA Case No. 10595) Petitioner, Present: -versus- DEL ROSARIO, P.J., RINGPIS-LIBAN, MANAHAN, BACORRO-VILLENA, MODESTO-SAN PEDRO, REYES-FAJARDO, CUI-DAVID, FERRER-FLORES, and ANGELES,JJ Promulgated: STEFANINI PHILIPPINES, INC., Respondent. SEP 30 2025 X ----------------------------------------------------------------------- RESOLUTION Before the Court are (1) a Petition for Review, filed on June 16, 2025, assailing the Amended D ecision, rendered by this Court's Special Second Division on May 7, 2025; and (2) petitioner's Compliance, fi led on June 20, 2025, via which he submitted a Certified True Copy of the assailed Amended Deci s ion . The Petition must be dismissed. Under Rule 8, Section 1 of the Revised Rules of the Court of Tax Appeals, as amended ("RRCTA"), a party must fi le a motion for reconsideration before the Court in Division before raising a Petition for Review before the Court En Bane:

RESOU TIO:\ CT/\ E/3 No. 3169 (CTA Cas.: \Jo. 10:'9:') Pagt:: 2 of-1- SECTION I. Review of cases in the Court en bane. - 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. A Petition for Review before the Court En Bane that assails a ruling of the Court in Division but is not preceded by a Motion for Reconsideration or New Trial must consequently be dismissed. This applies to rulings rendered via Amended Decisions as well, as declared by the Supreme Court in Asiatrust Development Bank, Inc. v. Commissioner ofInternal Revenue ("Asiatrust"): 1 Thus. in order for the CTA En Bane to take cognizance of an appeal via a petition for review, a timely motion for reconsideration or new trial must first be filed with the CTA Division that issued the assailed decision or resolution. Failure to do so is a ground for the dismissal of the appeal as the word ��musC indicates that the filing of a prior motion is mandatory. and not merely directory. The same is true in the case of"an amended decision. Section 3, Rule 14 of the same rules defines an amended decision as "[a]ny action modifying or reversing a decision of the Court en bane or in Division:� As explained in CE Luzon Geothermal Power Company. Inc. v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue. an amended decision is a different decision. and thus, is a proper subject of"a motion/or reconsideration. (Citations omitted; italics supplied.) From the above, because an Amended Decision ofthe Court in Division is a different decision, it must first be questioned by a Motion for Reconsideration before the matter can be raised to the Court En Bane. The stance was given additional nuance in the case of Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Commission on Elections2 There, the High Court explained that an Amended Decision that simply "clarifies" the Court's ruling, such as by correcting a typographical error, is not a distinct ruling and thus need not be challenged by a Motion for Reconsideration. When the amendments to a prior ruling are substantial, however, then the Amended Decision is considered a different decision. The Supreme Court even offered CE Luzon Geothermal Power Co., Inc. v. Commissioner ofInternal Revenue3 as an example of the latter, stating that an Amended Decision which re- evaluates evidence and consequently modifies the amount ofrefimd awarded is substantial enough to warrant of a Motion for Reconsideration. G.R. Nos. 201530 & 201680�81. April 19.2017. G.R. Nos. 244155 & 247508. May II. 2021. G.R. Nos. 200841-42. August 26.2015.

CT;\ U3 No. 3169 (CTA Cas..:: No_ 10595) Pag..:: 3 of -I Finally, the requirement for a Motion for Reconsideration to precede a Petition filed before the Court En Bane was recently affirmed in Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Script2010, Inc.,� directly citing Asiatrust. The application of the above jurisprudence to the case at bar is straightforward and obvious. First, the Amended Decision significantly modified the refunded amount, after recalculating it in a manner it found more faithful to existing jurisprudence. Considering that the Court in Division changed the jurisprudence it used and thus its interpretation of how the refundable amount should be calculated, the Amended Decision is substantial, not a mere clarification of its previous stance, and should have been assailed via a Motion for Reconsideration first. Second, by petitioner's own admission, he filed his Motion for Extension of Time To File Petition for Review after receipt of the assailed Amended Decision, before proceeding to file the present Petition. He did not file a Motion for Reconsideration before the Court in Division to challenge its ruling. He thus failed to comply with the mandate of Rule 8, Section I ofthe RRCTA. The present Petition must thus be dismissed. ACCORDINGLY, petitioner's Petition for Review is hereby DISMISSED for failure to comply with procedural requirements. The Compliance is NOTED without action. SO ORDERED. Presiding Justice ~.~ '1--- MA. BELEN M. RINGPIS-LIBAN Associate Justice G.R. No. 266641. February 17, 2025.

RESOL!TIO' CTA EB No. 3169 (CTA Case 1\o_ 10595) Page -1- of-1- Associate Justice ( ' M~ ARI~ANrIV'~ J F.-REh~S� -FAA~AARDO Associate Justice LAN~~VID Associate Justice Associate Justice HENRY /!ri:NGELES Associate Justice