Filminera Resources Corp. v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue

SECOND DIVISION [C.T.A. CASE NOS. 8528 & 8576. December 9, 2014.] FILMINERA RESOURCES CORPORATION , petitioner , vs . COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE , respondent . RESOLUTION CASTAEDA, JR. , J p : For this Court's resolution is petitioner's Motion for Reconsideration of the Decision dated 25 September 2014 filed on October 13, 2014, with respondent's Comment (To Petitioner's Motion for Partial Reconsideration of the Decision dated 25 September 2014) filed on November 5, 2014. The dispositive portion of the assailed Decision reads: " WHEREFORE , premises considered, the instant Petition for Review is hereby DENIED for insufficiency of evidence." The subject Decision denied petitioner's claim for refund or tax credit of its alleged unutilized input value-added tax (VAT) attributable to zero-rated sales for failure to prove that its buyer, Phil. Gold Processing and Refining Corporation (PGPRC), exports 100% of its products. Citing the case of BPI Family Savings Bank vs. Court of Appeals, et al. 1 petitioner requests that this Court would admit the documentary evidence attached to its Motion for Reconsideration to form part of the records. The attached documents are as follows: TSacAE 1. Tax Credit Certificate with ITS TCC Trans No. 121-13-00030 issued on September 23, 2013 to petitioner in the amount of Forty-Six Million Six Hundred Forty Thousand Ninety-Five Pesos and 66/100 (P46,640,095.66) for the period covering October 1, 2010 to December 31, 2010; and 2. Board of Investment Certification dated January 27, 2010 certifying that PGPRC exported 100% of its total sales volume/value for the calendar year 2009. Petitioner also prays for the issuance of a Resolution/Decision ordering respondent to refund or issue a tax credit certificate in its favor in the total amount of P115,255,096.40 representing its unutilized input VAT attributable to its zero-rated sales during the period January 1, 2010 to June 30, 2010. It should be stressed that technical rules of procedure are not ends in themselves but are primarily designed to aid in the administration of justice. This is because, after all, the paramount consideration remains the ascertainment of truth. 2 In the case of BPI Family Savings Bank vs. Court of Appeals, et al. , 3 the Supreme Court allowed the appreciation of the exhibit submitted after trial which were attached to the Motion for Reconsideration filed before the CTA. In the said case, the Highest Tribunal pointed out that the law creating the Court of Tax Appeals specifically provides that proceedings before it shall not be governed strictly by the technical rules of evidence; and that the paramount consideration remains the ascertainment of truth. This is in line with the avowed policy that the rules shall be liberally construed in order to promote their objective of securing a just, speedy, and inexpensive determination of every action and proceeding before the Court. 4 cSEAHa The Supreme Court however held in the case of Dizon vs. Court of Tax Appeals and Commissioner of Internal Revenue 5 that this Court must not consider evidence which was not been formally offered. Thus, in the interest of substantial justice and to give petitioner the final opportunity to prove its claim for refund, petitioner is allowed to present and formally offer the documents mentioned and attached to the instant Motion for Reconsideration , subject to this Court's final evaluation and/or appreciation. WHEREFORE , let this case be set for hearing for the presentation of the documents cited and attached to the present Motion for Reconsideration on February 9, 2015 at 9:00 a.m. Meanwhile, the resolution of petitioner's Motion for Reconsideration , with respondent's Comment is hereby HELD IN ABEYANCE until further orders from the Court. ADaEIH SO ORDERED . (SGD.) JUANITO C. CASTAEDA, JR. Associate Justice Court of Tax Appeals Caesar A. Casanova and Amelia R. Cotangco-Manalastas, JJ., concur. Footnotes 1. G.R. No. 122480, April 12, 2000. 2. Philippine Phosphate Fertilizer Corporation vs. Commissioner of Internal Revenue , G.R. No. 141973, June 28, 2005. 3. G.R. No. 122480, April 12, 2000. 4. Section 2 of Rule 1 of the Revised Rules of the Court of Tax Appeals. 5. G.R. No. 140944, April 30, 2008.