Diageo Philippines, Inc. v. The Commissioner of Internal Revenue

FIRST DIVISION [C.T.A. CASE NOS. 7846 & 7865. March 27, 2012.] DIAGEO PHILIPPINES, INC. , petitioner , vs .THE COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE , respondent . RESOLUTION UY , J p : Before this Court is petitioner's "Motion for Reconsideration of the Court's Decision dated 16 January 2012" filed on February 9, 2012, without respondent's comment. Petitioner moves for the reconsideration of the Decision dated January 16, 2012, the dispositive portion thereof reads: " WHEREFORE ,premises considered, the consolidated Petitions for Review are hereby DISMISSED for having been belatedly filed. SO ORDERED ." TcAECH In sum, petitioner argues that the doctrine provided in the case of Commissioner of Internal Revenue vs. Aichi Forging Company of Asia, Inc. 1 (Aichi case) should be applied prospectively; otherwise, application thereof in the instant case would impair its vested right to appeal. Petitioner also argues that the non-submission of supporting documents at the administrative level is not fatal to its judicial claim for refund. We disagree. Relative to petitioner's first contention; suffice it to say that the interpretation provided in the Aichi Case should retroact to the date the pertinent law was passed, which in this case, is the National Internal Revenue Code (NIRC), which took effect on January 1, 1998. This is consistent with the rule that the Supreme Court's interpretation of the law is part of the 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. 2 In other words, the Supreme Court's pronouncement in the Aichi Case is merely an interpretation of Section 112 of the NIRC of 1997 and should be followed in all subsequent cases similar to the Aichi Case, pursuant to the doctrine of stare decisis. ADCTac With respect to petitioner's second argument, the same had been passed upon and resolved in the assailed Decision. WHEREFORE ,premises considered, "Motion for Reconsideration of the Court's Decision dated 16 January 2012" is hereby DENIED for lack of merit. SO ORDERED . (SGD.) ERLINDA P. UY Associate Justice Esperanza R. Fabon-Victorino, J., concurs. Ernesto D. Acosta, P.J., is on leave. Footnotes 1. G.R. No. 184823, October 6, 2010. 2. Roco vs. The Executive Secretary ,G.R. No. 113174, August 19, 1994; Taada vs. Guingona ,G.R. Nos. 113766 & 113888, August 19, 1994.