Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Univation Motor Philippines, Inc.

EN BANC [C.T.A. EB CASE NO. 1236. April 1, 2016.] (C.T.A. Case No. 8420) COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE , petitioner , vs. UNIVATION MOTOR PHILIPPINES, INC. [Formerly, NISSAN MOTOR PHILIPPINES, INC.] , respondent . RESOLUTION CASANOVA , J p : Submitted for resolution is petitioner-Commissioner of Internal Revenue's (CIR) Motion for Reconsideration, filed on November 27, 2015, with respondent's Comment (Re: Motion for Reconsideration dated November 27, 2015) filed on February 22, 2016. Petitioner-CIR, seeks reconsideration of this Court's Decision (the "Assailed Decision"), promulgated on October 28, 2015, and prays that the Assailed Decision be reversed and set aside and another one be rendered denying the claim for refund. In the Assailed Decision, this Court ruled as follows: " WHEREFORE , premises considered, the instant Petition for Review is hereby DENIED for lack of merit. SO ORDERED ." In her Motion, petitioner argues that the "Honorable Court erred in upholding the Decision dated 3 July 2014 and the Resolution dated 22 September 2014 of the CTA First Division, thus, entitling respondent to a refund in the amount of P14,242,888.00 allegedly representing excess and unutilized creditable income taxes withheld for calendar year 2009". Petitioner further argues that both the Stateland Investment Corporation and the PERF Realty Corporation cases borrowed and cited the rationale of the Philam Asset Management, Inc. case which centered on Section 76 as reproduced from Section 69 of the old Tax Code which does not yet contain the 'irrevocable clause', that the Supreme Court applied the doctrine laid down in the Philam case which held that under Section 69 of the Old NIRC, unutilized tax credits may be refunded as long as the claim is filed within the two-year prescriptive period and that such could be refunded 'even if there is' flip-flopping in the taxpayer's preference; that the rationale of the second half of the Philam case (G.R. No. 162004) is the applicable Philam Case and not the cited cases of " Philam Asset Management, Inc. vs. CIR , Stateland Investment Corporation vs. CIR , CIR vs. PERF Realty Corporation , and CIR vs. Mirant (Philippines) Operations Corporation which are not squarely in point." On the other hand, respondent, in its Comment, submits that petitioner failed to provide any cogent and persuasive reason to justify the reversal of the Assailed Decision; that, petitioner's reliance on the Dissenting Opinion of Justice Leonen in Winebrenner case is misplaced. We DENY petitioner's Motion for Reconsideration. After a careful and thorough evaluation of the arguments proffered by petitioner in her Motion for Reconsideration, We find that, except for her arguments based on the dissenting opinion of Justice Leonen in the Winebrenner case, the matters raised therein have already been thoroughly discussed and disposed of in the Assailed Decision. Petitioner failed to present new matters or arguments which may compel Us to reconsider and reverse Our Assailed Decision. As regards petitioner's arguments, which are anchored on Justice Leonen's dissenting opinion in the Winebrenner case, suffice it to state that the same, being the minority view cannot be considered as a judicial precedent. As correctly cited by respondent, the case of H. Harry L. Roque, et al., vs. Commission on Elections, et al. (G.R. No. 188456, February 10, 2010), explains the binding effect of dissenting opinions in this wise: "Significantly, petitioners, in support of their position on the lack of legal framework issue, invoke the opinion of Associate, later Chief, Justice Artemio Panganiban in Loong v. Comelec , where he made the following observations: 'Resort to manual appreciation of the ballots is precluded by the basic features of the automated election system' and 'the rules laid down in the Omnibus Election Code (OEC) for the appreciation and counting of ballots cast in a manual election . . . are inappropriate, if not downright useless, to the proper appreciation and reading of the ballots used in the automated system'. Without delving on its wisdom and validity, the view of Justice Panganiban thus cited came by way of a dissenting opinion. As such, it is without binding effect, a dissenting opinion being a mere expression of the individual view of a member of the Court or other collegial adjudicating body, while disagreeing with the conclusion held by the majority ." (Underscoring supplied) The majority view in the Winebrenner case, which held that the presentation of the Quarterly ITRs for the succeeding taxable period is not essential to the refund of excess CWT, constitutes the binding judicial precedent which must be upheld in cases with similar issues. Thus, by the doctrine of stare decisis , We are compelled to apply the majority view in the Winebrenner case to the instant case. Under the doctrine of stare decisis , "when this Court has once laid down a principle of law as applicable to a certain state of facts, it will adhere to that principle, and apply it to all future cases, where facts are substantially the same, regardless of whether the parties and property are the same" ( Fort Bonifacio Development Corporation vs. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, et al. , G.R. Nos. 175707, 180035 and 181092, November 19, 2004, citing Ty vs. Banco Filipino Saving and Mortgage Bank , G.R. No. 188302, June 27, 2012). HESIcT WHEREFORE , in view of the foregoing, petitioner's Motion for Reconsideration is hereby DENIED for lack of merit. SO ORDERED . (SGD.) CAESAR A. CASANOVA Associate Justice Roman G. del Rosario, P.J., Juanito C. Castaeda, Jr., Lovell R. Bautista, Esperanza R. Fabon-Victorino, Cielito N. Mindaro-Grulla, Amelia R. Cotangco-Manalastas and Ma. Belen M. Ringpis-Liban, JJ. , concur. Erlinda P. Uy, J. , is on leave.