PILIPINAS SHELL PETROLEUM CORPORATION v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES COURT OF TAX APPEALS QUEZON CITY THIRD DIVISION PILIPINAS SHELL PETROLEUM CTA CASE NO. 10891 CORPORATION, Petitioner, Members: -versus- MANAHAN, Chairperson, REYES-FAJARDO, and ANGELES, JJ. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL Promulgated: REVENUE, Respondent. NOV 1 2 2025 X - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -?----.-- - - - -1/-: -'3-,- p-c-. ~ - -. - - X RESOLUTION MANAHAN,J.: For resolution of the Court is respondent's Motion for Partial Reconsideration (Re: Decision promulgated 17 July 2025) personally filed on August 13, 2025 and electronically filed on August 15, 2025, with petitioner's Comment [To Respondent's Motion for Reconsideration dated August 4, 2025] personally and electronically filed on September 11 , 2025. In his Motion, respondent asserts the following: (1) There must be a categorical and express provision of law allowing tax refund; (2) petitioner is liable to pay the excise tax upon the bunker fuel oil it manufactured as soon as they are in existence; and (3) a claim for refund of excise taxes paid is authorized only by Section 130(D) of the 1997 National Internal Revenue Code, as amended (Tax Code) . On the other hand, petitioner counters that respondent merely rehashed his previous arguments in his Answer and memorandum. ~

RESOLUTION CTA CASE NO. 1089 1 After careful consideration, the Court finds the instant motion unmeritorious. The Court agrees with petitioner that the instant motion is a mere rehash of respondent's arguments. In fact, a perusal of the instant motion shows that its contents were merely lifted1 from respondent's Memorandum. In the consolidated cases of Social Justice Society (SJS) Officers, et al., v. Alfredo S. Lim,2 the Supreme Court said that: The filing of a motion for reconsideration, authorized by Rule 52 of the Rules of Court, does n ot impose on th e Court the obligation to dea l individually and specifically with the grounds relied upon therefor, in much the same way that the Court does in its judgment or final order as regards the issues raised a nd submitted for d ecision. This would be a useless formality or ritual invariably involving merely a reiteration of t h e reasons a lready set forth in the judgment or final order for rejectin g the arguments advanced by the movant; and it would be a needless act, too, with respect to issues raised for the first time, these being, as a bove stated, deemed waived because n ot asser ted at the first opportunity. It suffices for the Court to deal generally and summarily with the motion for reconsideration, and merely state a legal ground for its denial (Se c . 14, Art. VIII, Constitution); i.e., the motion contains merely a reiteration or rehas h of arguments alre ady 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 re ason to warrant reconsideration or modification of the judgment or final order; or the arguments i n the motion are too unsubsta ntial to require consideration, etc. (Emphasis supplied) Here, considering that respondent merely copied his previous arguments in his Memorandum, which arguments were already passed upon in the assailed decision, the Court need not belabor to repeat the discussions in the assailed Decision. t Memorandum. Docket, Vol. 3, pp. 112 7- 1132. 2 G.R. Nos. 187836 and 18 79 16 , March 10, 201 5 ~ - -

RESOLUTION CTA CASE NO. 10891 FOR THESE REASONS, respondent's Motion for Partial Reconsideration (Re: Decision promulgated 17 July 2025) is DENIED, for lack of merit. SO ORDERED. ~~7: CATHERINE T. MANAHAN Associate Justice WE CONCUR: ~. I~ VYJf F.�. RE~~ES-..FnA.A~RDO Associate Justice HENRY ~~~GELES Associate Justice