Philippine Airlines, Inc. v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue

THIRD DIVISION [C.T.A. CASE NO. 7677. October 15, 2012.] PHILIPPINE AIRLINES, INC. , petitioner , vs . COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE and COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS , respondents . [C.T.A. CASE NO. 7685. October 15, 2012.] PHILIPPINE AIRLINES, INC. , petitioner , vs . COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE and COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS , respondents . [C.T.A. CASE NO. 7746. October 15, 2012.] PHILIPPINE AIRLINES, INC. , petitioner , vs . COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE and COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS , respondents . RESOLUTION PALANCA-ENRIQUEZ , J p : This resolves: 1) respondent Commissioner of Custom's "Consolidated Motion for Reconsideration (of the Decision dated August 24, 2012)" filed on September 13, 2012; and HAECID 2) petitioner PAL's "Comment (on respondent CIR's Motion for Reconsideration)" filed on October 05, 2012. The motion is anchored on the following grounds: 1) the exemption from taxes granted to petitioner by PD No. 1590 was repealed by RA No. 9334; and 2) petitioner's allegation that the subject catering and commissary supplies are not available in reasonable quantity, quality or price is unreliable and so deserves scant consideration. Petitioner counter argues that before the franchise can be amended, altered or repealed by competent authority, the latter must have a special law or decree enacted or issued that shall specifically modify, amend, or repeal this franchise or any section or provision thereof; and it submitted the Judicial Affidavit of Victor Santos to prove that the alcohol and tobacco products were not available locally at reasonable price. The motion is devoid of merit. Section 24 of PD No. 1590 provides: "Sec. 24. This franchise, as amended, or any section or provision hereof may only be modified, amended, or repealed expressly by a special law or decree that shall specifically modify, amend, or repeal this franchise or any section or provision thereof." Pursuant to the above provision, for PD No. 1590 or any section or provision thereof to be amended, there must be an express modification, amendment or repeal by a special law which must specifically modify, amend or repeal the franchise or any section or provision thereof. A careful reading of RA No. 9334 shows that there is nothing in the said law which specifically referred to PD No. 1590 and modified, amended or repealed the tax exemption privilege of petitioner under Section 13 thereof. Finding no compelling reason or substantial argument to compel a reversal of our Decision dated August 24, 2012, we have no alternative but to deny the motion. ScaATD WHEREFORE , premises considered, respondent Commissioner of Custom's "Consolidated Motion for Reconsideration (of the Decision dated August 24, 2012)" is hereby DENIED for lack of merit. SO ORDERED . (SGD.) OLGA PALANCA-ENRIQUEZ Associate Justice Lovell R. Bautista, J., concurs. Amelia R. Cotangco-Manalastas, J., is on leave.