Ibex Philippines, Inc. v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue

EN BANC [C.T.A. EB CASE NO. 1850. July 8, 2020.] (C.T.A. Case No. 8849) IBEX PHILIPPINES, INC. , petitioner , vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE , respondent . RESOLUTION RINGPIS-LIBAN , J p : For resolution is the petitioner's "Motion for Reconsideration (of the Decision dated 28 August 2019)" 1 received by the Court En Banc on September 25, 2019. In the "Motion for Reconsideration (of the Decision dated 28 August 2019)," petitioner states that respondent admits that refund claims filed and pending before 11 June 2014 were not deemed denied upon the expiration of the 120-day period from the filing of the VAT refund application as the applicable policy of the respondent then was that the 120-day period runs upon the submission of complete documents; that the denial of petitioner's judicial claim supposedly for being filed out of time amounts to a retroactive application of Revenue Memorandum Circular No. 54-14 ("RMC 54-14") 2 which is prohibited by law; and that petitioner timely filed its judicial claim within 30 days from respondent's notice of denial through RMC 54-14 which stated that all pending administrative VAT refund claims, including petitioner's VAT refund claim, are deemed denied. On November 7, 2019, the Court En Banc issued a Resolution 3 ordering respondent to file his Comment on petitioner's "Motion for Reconsideration (of the Decision dated 28 August 2019)" within ten (10) days from notice. On February 4, 2020, the Judicial Records Division of this Court issued a Records Verification Report stating that respondent failed to file his Comment on petitioner's "Motion for Reconsideration (of the Decision dated 28 August 2019)." On February 14, 2020, the Court En Banc issued a Minute Resolution submitting petitioner's "Motion for Reconsideration (of the Decision dated 28 August 2019)" for resolution of the Court En Banc . After consideration, the Court En Banc resolves to deny the instant motion. The Court En Banc reviewed the grounds relied upon by petitioner in support of its Motion for Reconsideration but finds no cogent reason to grant the same. The arguments presented in the said motion were already passed upon, discussed and judiciously resolved in the assailed Decision dated August 28, 2019. The Court En Banc reiterates its ruling that the judicial claim shall be filed within a period of thirty (30) days after receipt of the Commissioner of Internal Revenue (CIR)'s decision or ruling or after the expiration of the 120-day period, whichever is sooner. The 30-day period for petitioner to file its Petition for Review should be counted from the expiration of the 120-day waiting period that is on the following dates: HCaDIS Quarterly Return Date Filed Expiration of the 120-day period Expiration of the 30-day period 3rd Quarter 2008 September 30, 2010 January 28, 2011 February 28, 2011 4th Quarter 2008 December 30, 2010 April 29, 2011 May 30, 2011 1st Quarter 2009 March 31, 2011 July 29, 2011 August 30, 2011 2nd Quarter 2009 June 28, 2011 October 26, 2011 November 25, 2011 3rd Quarter 2009 September 28, 2011 January 26, 2012 February 27, 2012 4th Quarter 2009 December 12, 2011 April 10, 2012 May 10, 2012 1st Quarter 2010 March 29, 2011 July 27, 2011 August 26, 2011 2nd Quarter 2010 June 27, 2012 October 25, 2012 November 26, 2012 3rd Quarter 2010 September 26, 2012 January 24, 2013 February 25, 2013 4th Quarter 2010 December 10, 2012 April 9, 2013 May 9, 2013 1st Quarter 2011 March 22, 2013 July 20, 2013 August 19, 2013 2nd Quarter 2011 June 28, 2013 October 26, 2013 November 25, 2013 3rd Quarter 2011 September 27, 2013 January 25, 2014 February 24, 2014 4th Quarter 2011 December 3, 2013 April 2, 2014 May 2, 2014 The Petition for Review was filed before the Court in Division only on July 23, 2014. The petitioner's non-compliance with the mandatory period of 120+30 days is fatal to its claim for refund on the ground of prescription. Hence, the Court in Division has no jurisdiction over the petitioner's judicial claim for refund. It must be stressed that among the ends to which a motion for reconsideration is addressed, one is precisely to convince the Court that its ruling is erroneous and improper, contrary to law or the evidence. 4 If the movant failed to do so, the motion for reconsideration must necessarily fail. Thus, petitioner's "Motion for Reconsideration (of the Decision dated 28 August 2019)" deserves to be denied for failing to present any legitimate argument which could warrant reconsideration of the Court En Banc's Decision dated August 28, 2019. WHEREFORE , premises considered, the petitioner's "Motion for Reconsideration (of the Decision dated 28 August 2019)" is DENIED for lack of merit. The assailed Decision dated August 28, 2019 is AFFIRMED . SO ORDERED. (SGD.) MA. BELEN M. RINGPIS-LIBAN Associate Justice Juanito C. Castaeda, Jr., Erlinda P. Uy, Esperanza R. Fabon-Victorino, Catherine T. Manahan, Jean Marie A. Bacorro-Villena and Maria Rowena G. Modesto-San Pedro, JJ. , concur. Roman G. del Rosario, P.J. , I reiterate my concurring opinion. Footnotes 1. Rollo , CTA EB No. 1850, pp. 103-123. 2. Subject: Clarifying Issues Relative to the Application for Value-Added Tax (VAT) Refund/Credit under Section 112 of the Tax Code, as amended. 3. Ibid. , pp. 126-127. 4. Teodulo M. Coquilla vs. The Hon. Commission on Elections and Mr. Neil M. Alvarez , G.R. No. 151914, July 31, 2002.