Chevron Holdings, Inc. v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue

FIRST DIVISION [C.T.A. CASE NOS. 7776 & 7813. September 7, 2012.] CHEVRON HOLDINGS, INC. [formerly CALTEX (ASIA) LIMITED] , petitioner , vs . COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE , respondent . RESOLUTION This resolves petitioner's "Motion for Reconsideration" (of the decision of this Court promulgated on June 6, 2012) filed on June 29, 2012, with respondent's "Comment" , filed on July 20, 2012 and petitioner's "Reply [to Respondent's Comment dated July 18, 2012]" filed on August 6, 2012. caHIAS In its Motion for Reconsideration, petitioner raised the following grounds in support of the motion: xxx xxx xxx I. Chevron Holdings relied in good faith that an appeal is perfected if both the administrative and judicial claims for refund are filed within two years from filing of the VAT return, based on the controlling jurisprudence and interpretation by this Honorable Court existing at the time of filing of petitioner's administrative claim and at the time of the filing of the petitions for review. II. Judicial decisions applying or interpreting the laws shall form part of the legal system of the Philippines. III. This Honorable Court gave due course to judicial claims for refund filed by taxpayers similarly situated to petitioner. IV. Supreme Court decisions in KEPCO Philippines Corporation v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue (636 SCRA 166) promulgated on November 24, 2010 contradicts the Aichi case promulgated on October 6, 2010. V. In highly meritorious cases and exceptional cases, the general rule that jurisdiction is conferred by law and not by the consent of the parties may be set aside. VI. The doctrine in Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Aichi Forging Company of Asia, Inc. should be applied prospectively. cSTHAC xxx xxx xxx In its Comment, respondent avers: xxx xxx xxx I. Petitioner cannot take refuge in the jurisprudence mentioned, as reliance therein would constitute misapplication of alleged precedents. II. Jurisdiction over the subject matter is conferred by law. The cause of action had already prescribed. Hence, the Honorable Court never acquired jurisdiction. III. Petitioner's invocation of equal protection clause is illogical. IV. Aichi doctrine is not affected by Kepco Ruling as they are not on all fours. V. The Atlas Consolidated Doctrine only applies to the National Internal Revenue Code of 1977 and not the National Internal Revenue Code of 1997, as amended. VI. Petitioner's assertion that Aichi Doctrine should be applied prospectively is erroneous. The Aichi Doctrine applies at the implementation of the National Internal Revenue Code of 1997. VII. Tax refunds are construed strictissimi juris. aCcADT xxx xxx xxx In its Reply petitioner states: xxx xxx xxx Petitioner's reliance on the cited cases is not a misapplication of judicial precedents. In highly meritorious and exceptional cases, the general rule that jurisdiction is conferred by law and not by the consent of the parties may be set aside. This Honorable Court gave due course to judicial claims for refund filed by taxpayers similarly situated to petitioner. Supreme Court decisions in KEPCO Philippines Corporation v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue (636 SCRA 166) promulgated on November 24, 2010 contradicts the Aichi case promulgated on October 6, 2010. The doctrine in Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Aichi Forging Company Asia, Inc. should be applied prospectively. Petitioner was able to prove its entitlement to the tax refund claim. xxx xxx xxx The Court finds no merit in Petitioner's Motion for Reconsideration. In assailing this Court's decision, petitioner basically rehashed some of its arguments sufficiently passed upon and discussed by this Court. The interpretation placed upon Section 112 (D) [now Section 112 (C)] of the NIRC in the Aichi case retroacts to the date of the enactment of the said law on January 1, 1998 following the well-settled rule that "the Court's interpretation of the law is part of that law as of the date of its enactment since the court's interpretation merely establishes the contemporary legislative intent that the construed law purports to carry into effect. 1 Until and unless the Supreme Court reverses its own ruling, this Court is obliged to apply the prevailing jurisprudence as enunciated in the cited relevant cases. By tradition in our system of judicial administration, the Supreme Court, as the final Arbiter of any justiciable controversy, 2 has the last word on what the law is. There is only one Supreme Court whose decision all other courts should take bearings. 3 In fact, it is the duty of lower courts to obey the decisions of the Supreme Court and render obeisance to its status as the apex of the hierarchy of courts. 4 Applying the above cited cases, the case of Commissioner of Internal Revenue vs. Aichi Forging Company of Asia, Inc. is applicable to the case before us. Consequently, we find no valid justification to compel a modification or reversal of our Decision promulgated on June 6, 2012. DSITEH WHEREFORE , premises considered, petitioner's "Motion for Reconsideration" is hereby DENIED for lack of merit. SO ORDERED. Ernesto D. Acosta, P.J. and Esperanza R. Fabon-Victorino, J., concur. Erlinda P. Uy, J., is on Official Business. Footnotes 1. Philippine Constitution Association, et al. vs. Enriquez, et al., G.R. No. 113105, August 19, 1994 citing People vs. Licera, 65 SCRA 270 (1975). 2. Dante Nacuray, et al. vs. NLRC, G.R. Nos. 114924-27, March 18, 1997. 3. Commissioner of Internal Revenue vs. Michel J. Lhuiller Pawnshop, Inc., G.R. No. 150947, July 15, 2003 citing the case of GSIS vs. Court of Tax Appeals. 4. Commission on Higher Education vs. Atty. Dasig, G.R. No. 172776, December 17, 2008.