Duty Free Philippines Corp. v. Bureau of Internal Revenue

SPECIAL FIRST DIVISION [C.T.A. CASE NO. 9548. November 8, 2019.] DUTY FREE PHILIPPINES CORPORATION , petitioner , vs. BUREAU OF INTERNAL REVENUE, REPRESENTED BY COMMISSIONER CAESAR R. DULAY , respondent . RESOLUTION UY , J p : For resolution is petitioner's " MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION " filed on June 25, 2019, with respondent's " OPPOSITION (re: Petitioner's Motion for Reconsideration dated 21 June 2019) " filed on August 6, 2019, praying that the Court reverse and set aside its Decision dated May 30, 2019, the dispositive portion of which reads: aCIHcD " WHEREFORE , in light of the foregoing considerations, the instant Petition for Review is DISMISSED for lack of jurisdiction. SO ORDERED. " In the Motion , petitioner contends that this Court seriously erred in dismissing the Petition considering that it has jurisdiction over this case. Petitioner avers that this Court's reliance in the case of Power Sector Assets and Liabilities Management Corporation vs. Commissioner of Internal Revenue 1 (" PSALM case") is misplaced, as it is clearly inapplicable here; that this Court has jurisdiction over the instant Petition for Review ; and that this Court can still entertain this case since the same was filed before the Supreme Court promulgated the PSALM case. On the other hand, respondent, in its Opposition , argues that this Court has no jurisdiction over the instant case, hence, the dismissal of the instant Petition for Review assailing the denial of petitioner's alleged claim for refund was proper. THE COURT'S RULING The instant Motion for Reconsideration lacks merit. As already pointed out in the assailed Decision, both the contending parties herein are public entities under the Executive Branch of the Republic of the Philippines. This is an undisputed fact in this case. Thus, Sections 66, 67, and 68, Chapter 14, Book IV of Executive Order (EO) No. 292, otherwise known as the Administrative Code of 1987, and the doctrinal pronouncement of the Supreme Court in the PSALM case interpreting the said provisions, apply. Such being the case, the subject dispute or claim falls under the jurisdiction of the Secretary of Justice, and not of this Court. We likewise do not agree with petitioner's contention that this Court can still entertain the instant case since the same was filed before the Supreme Court promulgated the PSALM case. It must be emphasized that the High Court's interpretation of a statute constitutes part of the law as of the date it was originally passed since it merely establishes the contemporaneous legislative intent that the interpreted law carried into effect. 2 Correspondingly, the interpretation made by the Supreme Court of the provisions of Presidential Decree No. 242 (now Sections 66, 67, and 68, Chapter 14, Book IV of EO No. 292) constitutes as part thereof as of the date of its enactment, not at the date when the PSALM case was promulgated. Thus, at the onset of the instant case, this Court no longer has jurisdiction to entertain the same. WHEREFORE , premises considered, the instant Motion for Reconsideration is DENIED for lack of merit. SO ORDERED. (SGD.) ERLINDA P. UY Associate Justice Roman G. del Rosario, P.J. , concurs. Cielito N. Mindaro-Grulla, J. , is on leave. Footnotes 1. G.R. No. 198146, August 8, 2017. 2. Victorias Milling Co., Inc. vs. Intermediate Appellate Court, et al. , G.R. No. L-66880, 2 August 1991.