PMFTC, Inc. v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue

EN BANC [C.T.A. EB CASE NO. 2613. October 23, 2023.] (C.T.A. Case No. 10110) PMFTC, INC. , petitioner , vs. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE , respondent . RESOLUTION RINGPIS-LIBAN , J p : For resolution of the Court En Banc is petitioner's Motion for Reconsideration (Re: Decision dated 18 May 2023) 1 filed on June 6, 2023 with respondent Commissioner of Internal Revenue's Comment (to Petitioner's Motion for Reconsideration) 2 filed on August 3, 2023. Petitioner's Motion seeks reconsideration of the Decision of the Court En Banc promulgated on May 18, 2023, 3 ("Assailed Decision") denying the Petition for Review for lack of merit and, accordingly, affirmed the judgment of the Second Division ("Court in Division") of this Court in CTA Case No. 10110 dismissing the Petition for Review for lack of jurisdiction. The dispositive portion of the Assailed Decision reads: HTcADC " WHEREFORE , premises considered, the Petition for Review is DISMISSED for lack of jurisdiction. SO ORDERED. " In its Motion , petitioner insists that the provisions of Revenue Regulations (RR) No. 17-2012 and Revenue Memorandum Circular (RMC) No. 90-2012 which have been invalidated by the Supreme Court cannot be the source of legal rights, duties, or protection, even after the lapse of two years. Petitioner likewise claims that the doctrine of operative fact does not apply in this case. It also maintains that this Court should consider the case of Saint Wealth Ltd. v. Bureau of Internal Revenue as the jurisprudence applicable to this case instead of the cases of San Miguel, Meralco , and Metrobank . On the other hand, respondent, in his Comment (to Petitioner's Motion for Reconsideration) submits that as the arguments raised by petitioner in its Motion for Reconsideration have already been exhaustively passed upon by the Court in its Decision dated 18 May 2023, respondent reiterates his Comment/Opposition (to Petitioner's Petition for Review) dated 26 July 2022 and adopts the same as his Comment to the Motion for Reconsideration. After careful evaluation of the arguments raised by petitioner vis--vis the records of the case, the Court En Banc resolves to deny petitioner's Motion for Reconsideration (Re: Decision dated 18 May 2023) for lack of merit. Petitioner failed to raise any compelling reason to warrant the modification much less reversal of this Court's findings. The Court En Banc maintains its position that the two-year prescriptive period under Section 229 is mandatory and jurisdictional and that Section 229 mandatorily applies notwithstanding any supervening cause that may arise after payment. The Court En Banc likewise stands by its ruling in the Assailed Decision that the principle of solutio indebiti cannot suspend the operation of, or supplant the mandatory application of Section 229 in tax refund cases. Lastly, the Court En Banc holds that the case of Saint Wealth Ltd. v. Bureau of Internal Revenue 4 finds no application to the present case considering that it does not involve the question of the proper application of Section 229. WHEREFORE , petitioner's Motion for Reconsideration (Re: Decision dated 18 May 2023) is DENIED for lack of merit. SO ORDERED. Roman G. del Rosario, P.J., Ma. Belen M. Ringpis-Liban, Catherine T. Manahan, Jean Marie A. Bacorro-Villena, Marian Ivy F. Reyes-Fajardo, Lanee S. Cui-David and Corazon G. Ferrer-Flores, JJ. , concur. Maria Rowena Modesto-San Pedro, J. , is on leave Henry S. Angeles, J. , took no part. Footnotes 1. En Banc Docket, pp. 158-173. 2. Id. , pp. 180-182. 3. Id. , pp. 120-135. 4. G.R. Nos. 252965 & 254102, December 7, 2021.