WATERFRONT CEBU CITY CASINO HOTEL, INC. v. BUREAU OF INTERNAL REVENUE

CTA Form No.8 (For DCC) 11111111111111111111111111111111 11111 1111111111 11111111111111111111 1111111111111 25-000003-0032 REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES COURT OF TAX APPEALS QUEZON CITY FIRST DIVISION CTA CASE N0.11714 WATERFRONT CEBU CITY CASINO HOTEL, INC., Petitioner, -versus- NOTICE OF RESOLUTION BUREAU OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent. To: OFFICE OF THE SOLICITOR GENERAL 134 Amorsolo Street, Legazpi Vilage Makati City ATTY. SYLVIA R. ALMA JOSE ATTY. AYESHA RANIA B. GUILING-MATANOG ATTY. ANGELO FRANCIS G. URSABIA Bureau of Internal Revenue Litigation Division, Room 703, BIR National Office Building Sen. Miriam P. Defensor-Santiago Avenue Diliman, Quezon City BALISITAN-DELA CRUZ & LOPEZ LAW Unit 3C, PDCP Bank Centre V.A. Rufino comer L.P. Leviste Streets Salcedo Village, 1227 Makati City GREETINGS: You are hereby notified by these presents that on May 25, 2026, a Resolution was rendered in the above-entitled case, copy of which is attached hereto. Quezon City, Philippines, May 25, 2026. \. Atty. Maria Joh~han-Te Executive Cle III

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES COURT OF TAX APPEALS QUEZON CITY FIRST DIVISION WATERFRONT CEBU CITY CTA Case No. 11714 CASINO HOTEL, INC., Petitioner, Members: -versus- RINGPIS-LIBAN, PJ, Chairperson, REYES-FAJARDO, and ANGELES,IL BUREAU OF INTERNAL Promulgated: REVENUE, Respondent. "fAAY 22 2026 ~z:r~ PI\' x------- -------------------------------------------- x RESOLUTION In its Motion to Withdraw,1 petitioner states that it opted to await the decision of the Commissioner of Internal Revenue (CIR) on the reinvestigation of its request for the abatement of surcharge. According to petitioner, it has yet to receive an update thereon. In view thereof, petitioner prays that the Petition in CTA Case No. 11714 be withdrawn, without prejudice to its rights to avail of the appropriate legal remedies thereafter. � In its Manifestation (Re: Petitioner's Motion to Withdraw dated 14 May 2025,2 respondent states per Memorandum dated November 26, 2025 issued by the Chief of the LT Division Cebu (November 26, 2025 Memorandum), petitioner settled its surcharge for Taxable Year (TY) 2023. Thus, respondent submits the withdrawal prayed for by petitioner to the Court's sound discretion. The Motion is granted. Docket, pp. 188-190. 2 Id., unpaginated.

RESOLUTION CTA Case No. 11714 Page 2 of3 Indeed, for courts to exercise judicial power over a case, an actual case or justiciable controversy is indispensable. Section 1, Article VIII of the 1987 Constitution is on point: Section 1. The judicial power shall be vested in one Supreme Court and in such lower courts as may be established by law. Judicial power includes the duty of the courts of justice to settle actual controversies involving rights which are legally demandable and enforceable, and to determine whether or not there has been a grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction on the part of any branch or instrumentality of the Government.3 Conversely, if there is no actual case or judiciable controversy, courts are devoid of authority to act on a case. Express Telecommunications Co., Inc. v. AZ Communications, Inc.4 confirmed: Courts have no power to act on a matter if there is no actual case or justiciable controversy....The rule holds true even when there had previously been a legal conflict or claim, but it has become moot because a supervening event has rendered the legal issue inexistent. When a case has become moot, there is no longer a conflict of rights that needs to be resolved by the courts. To recall, the Petition in CTA Case No. 11714 impugns respondent's denial of petitioner's request for abatement of surcharge covering Taxable Year (TY) 2023, in the amount of P17,666,866.50.5 Meanwhile, respondent said6 that petitioner paid the surcharge forTY 2023. Despite having been served7 of the Manifestation containing such statement, petitioner made no remark or comment thereon. In Our mind, petitioner's payment of surcharge for TY 2023 signifies its acquiescence with respondent's imposition thereof. Stated differently, by such payment, petitioner conceded on respondent's denial of its request for abatement of the foregoing surcharge. It means 3 Boldfacing ours. 4 G.R. No. 196902, July 13, 2020. 5 Docket, pp. 6-18. 6 Par. 2, Manifestation (Re: Petitioner' s Motion to Withdraw dated 14 May 2025) . Supra note 2. 7 Affidavit of Service, Manifestation (Re: Petitioner's Motion to Withdraw dated 14 May 2025) . Docket, unpaginated. This could be found immediately after page 3 of said Manifestation.

RESOLUTION CTA Case No. 11714 that there are no more rights and obligations to be determined in CTA Case No. 11714, justifying allowance of petitioner's motion. ACCORDINGLY, We RESOLVE to: a. GRANT petitioner's Motion to Withdraw; and b. DEEM as WITHDRAWN, petitioner' s Petition [With Motion for Suspension of Collection of Surcharge], docketed as CTA Case No. 11714. SO ORDERED. ~� ~1 - MA. BELEN M. RINGPIS-LIBAN Presiding Justice ~N-.f"~tYr~.. RE~ ~ES- -FF AJA~ RDO Associate Justice HENR~~NGELES Associate Justice