COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE v. SAN MIGUEL BREWERY INC.

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES COURT OF TAX APPEALS QUEZON CITY ENBANC COMMISSIONER OF CTA EB No. 2890 INTERNAL REVENUE, (CTA Case No. 8955) Petitioner, Members: -versus- DEL ROSARIO, P.J., RINGPIS-LIBAN, MANAHAN, BACORRO-VILLENA, MODESTO-SAN PEDRO, REYES-FAJARDO, CUI-DAVID, FERRER-FLORES, and ANGELES, JJ. SAN MIGUEL BREWERY, Promulgated: INC., Respondent. SEP 29 ~ , X- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - .. ( !_ ~r-~ . RESOLUTION CUI-DAVID, J.: For the Court's resolution is petitioner's Motion for Reconsideration (Re: Decision promulgated 26 November 2024}, filed by personal service on December 11, 2024 and via email on December 12, 2024, with respondent's Comment on/Opposition to "Motion for Reconsideration....." dated December 2, 2024 of Commissioner of Internal Revenue, filed via personal service and email on January 30, 2025. In the instant Motion, petitioner seeks the reversal of the Court's Decision dated November 26, 2024, which denied its Petitionfor Review. The dispositive portion of the Decision reads: . WHEREFORE, in light of the foregoing, the instant Petition for Review is DENIED for lack of m erit. ~

RESOLUTION CTA EB No. 2890 (CTA Case No. 8955) Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. San Miguel Brewery, Inc. x------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------x Accordingly, the Assailed Decision dated September 14, 2023, and the Assailed Resolution dated February 22, 2024, in CTA Case No. 8955 are AFFIRMED. SO ORDERED. Petitioner argues that the nullification of the P20.57 per liter excise tax rate specified in Revenue Memorandum Circular (RMC) No. 90-2012 and Revenue Regulation (RR) No. 17-2012 does not fall under the special jurisdiction of the Court of Tax Appeals (CTA). Petitioner states that his decision in the exercise of his quasi-legislative power is appealable to the Secretary of Finance, then eventually to regular courts and not to the CTA. Petitioner also contends that respondent failed to exhaust administrative remedies when the latter did not seek the review of the Secretary of Finance. Petitioner further states that there was no erroneous payment of excise tax. He maintains that there was no reclassification of San Mig Light (SML) because it has always been classified as a variant of an existing brand. Petitioner also argues that respondent should be estopped from questioning the classification of SML as a variant of San Miguel Pale Pilsen, citing respondent's prior payment, its publication, its advertisements, the product's packaging, among others. In its Comment, respondent alleges that petitioner's Motion for Reconsideration is a pro forma motion. We resolve. At the onset, the Court notes that petitioner's Motion for Reconsideration merely reiterates arguments that have already been thoroughly considered, resolved, and addressed in the assailed Decision. It is well-settled that a motion for reconsideration containing mere reiterations or rehashes of grounds and arguments previously considered, weighed, and resolved by the court before the Decision sought to be reconsidered is rendered does not require a new judicial determination. 1 Thus, there is no necessity to discuss and rule again on these grounds since "this would be a useless formality of ritual invariably involving 1 People v. Agacer. G.R. No. 177751 (Resolution), January 7, 2013 [Per J. Del Castillo, Special First Division] citingv People v. Larraiiaga, G.R. Nos. 138874-75, July 21, 2005 [Per Curiam. En Bane]; ..Uadelefne .Hendo::a-Ong v. Han. Sandiganbayan. eta!., G.R. Nos. 146368-69 (Resolution), October \8.2004 fPer J. Quisumbing. Special Second Division].

RESOLUTION CTA EB No. 2890 (CTA Case No. 8955) Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. San Miguel Brewery, Inc. X------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------X merely a reiteration of the reasons already set forth in the judgment or final order for rejecting the arguments adva..11ced by the movant. "2 In Shangri-La International Hotel Management v. Developers Group of Companies, Inc., 3 the Supreme Court emphasized that it is incumbent upon the movant to convince the Court that certain findings or conclusions are contrary to law, as follows: The bulk of the aforementioned grounds is a mere rehash of movant's previous arguments. While DGCI is correct in stating that a motion for reconsideration, by its very nature, may tend to dwell on issues already resolved in the decision sought to be reconsidered and that this should not be an obstacle for a reconsideration, the hard reality is that movant has failed to raise matters substantially plausible or compellingly persuasive to warrant the desired course of action. Considering that the grounds presently raised have been sufficiently considered, if not squarely addressed, in the subject Decision, it behooves movant to convince the Court that certain findings or conclusions in the Decision are contrary to law. As it is, however, the instant motion does not raise any new or substantial legitimate ground or reason to justify the reconsideration sought. It is already settled that if the issues raised in a motion for reconsideration are mere reiterations of those already passed upon and adjudged unmeritorious by the Court, these cannot be regarded as substantial and do not require further discussion. Any additional discourse would be unnecessary and repetitive.4 Accordingly, the Court affirms its ruling in the assailed Decision, finding that the Court in Division validly obtained jurisdiction over the Petition filed by respondent; that the CTA has jurisdiction to rule on the validity of RMC No. 90-2012, as settled by the Supreme Court in Banco De Oro v. Republic, 5 and (Rcsolut~on), Lt~'fl more recently applied in Manila Peninsula Hotel, Inc. v. People v. Agacer, G.R. No. 177751 January 7, 2013 [Per J. Del Castillo, Special First Division] citin\ . / People v. Larraiiaga. G.R. Nos. 138874-?J, July 21. 2005 [Per Cunam, En Bane] and Ort1gas Land Co. Partnership v. Judge Velasco, G.R. Nos. 109645 and 112564 (Resolution), March 4, 1996 [Per J. "Narvasa, Third Division]. G.R. No. 159938 (Resolution), January 22,2007 [Per J. Garcia. First Division]. See Social Justice Society (SJS) Officers v. Lim, G.R. Nos. 187836 & 187916 (Resolution), March 10. 2015. (Per J. Perez, En Bane]. citing Ortigas & Co. Ltd. Fartnersl7lp v. Velasco. G.R. Nos. 109645 & 112564 (Resolution). August 15. 1997 [Per Curiam, En Bane]. G.R. No. 198756 (Resolution). August 16.2016 [Per J. Leonen. En Bane].

RESOLUTION CTA EB No. 2890 (CTA Case No. 8955) Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. San Miguel Brewery, Inc. X------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------X Commissioner ofInternal Revenue; 6 and that, as a result of the nullification of RMC No. 90-2012, respondent is entitled to a refund of excise taxes paid based on the higher rate imposed under said RMC. WHEREFORE, in light of the foregoing, petitioner's Motion for Reconsideration (Re: Decision promulgated 26 November 2024) is DENIED for lack of merit. SO ORDERED. ~(j/VIrj LANEE S. ~~~-"i>AVID Associate Justice WE CONCUR: Presiding Justice ON LEAVE MA. BELEN M. RINGPIS-LIBAN Associate Justice ?~ /. ~�~ . 4 - - CATHERINE T. MANAHAN Associate Justice r G.R. No. 229338, April 17,2024 [Per J. Caguioa, Third Division].

RESOLUTION CTA EB No. 2890 (CTA Case No. 8955) Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. San Miguel Brewery, Inc. X------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------X ~~f. ~L-r~M~ MARIAN Iv.i:JF. RE~S-FXJARDO Associate Justice c~J.'~~ES Associate Justicy HENRY j/~GELES Associate Justice