Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Oriental Assurance Corp.

EN BANC [C.T.A. EB CASE NO. 1482. November 29, 2017.] (C.T.A. Case No. 8582) COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE , petitioner , vs. ORIENTAL ASSURANCE CORPORATION , respondent . [C.T.A. EB CASE NO. 1487. November 29, 2017.] (C.T.A. Case No. 8582) ORIENTAL ASSURANCE CORPORATION , petitioner , vs. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE , respondent . DECISION CASTAEDA, JR. , J p : Before this Court are the Petitions for Review filed by petitioner Commissioner of Internal Revenue (CIR) on July 12, 2016, docketed as CTA EB No. 1482, and by petitioner Oriental Assurance Corporation (OAC) on July 12, 2016, docketed as CTA EB No. 1487. These petitions were consolidated by the Court En Banc on September 22, 2016, thus, CTA EB No. 1487 was consolidated with CTA EB No. 1482, the case bearing the lower docket number. 1 These petitions assail the March 7, 2016 Decision 2 and the June 22, 2016 Amended Decision 3 rendered by the CTA Third Division in the case entitled "Oriental Assurance Corporation v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue" docketed as CTA Case No. 8582. The CTA Third Division ruled that OAC validly availed the benefits under the Tax Amnesty Program under RA No. 9480, 4 thus, the assessment for deficiency DST covering the year 2005 was cancelled. On the other hand, the assessments for deficiency Withholding Tax Compensation (WTC),Expanded Withholding Tax (EWT),and Final Withholding VAT for taxable year 2005 were upheld in part. The dispositive portion of the March 7, 2016 Decision states: " WHEREFORE ,in view of the foregoing, the present Petition for Review is hereby PARTIALLY GRANTED .The assessment issued by respondent [CIR] against petitioner [OAC] for taxable year 2005 covering deficiency DST in the amount of Php137,791,709.56 is hereby CANCELLED and WITHDRAWN .However, the assessments issued by respondent [CIR] for taxable year 2005 covering deficiency WTC, EWT and final withholding VAT are hereby UPHELD IN PART .Accordingly, petitioner [OAC] is hereby ORDERED TO PAY the deficiency WTC, EWT and final withholding VAT in the total amount of Thirty Five Million Three Hundred Ninety-Five Thousand Thirty-Four and 8/100 Pesos (Php35,395,034.08) ,inclusive of the 25% surcharge imposed under Section 248(A)(3) of the 1997 NIRC ,as amended, computed as follows: Type of Tax Basic Tax 25% Surcharge Total Withholding Tax on Compensation P961,862.33 P240,465.58 P1,202,327.91 Expanded Withholding Tax 9,818,821.43 2,454,705.36 12,273,526.79 Final Withholding VAT 17,535,343.50 4,383,835.88 21,919,179.38 Total P28,316,027.26 P7,079,006.82 P35,395,034.08 In addition, petitioner [OAC] is also ORDERED TO PAY : 1. Deficiency interest at the rate of twenty percent (20%) per annum on the basic deficiency WTC, EWT and final withholding VAT computed from the dates indicated below until full payment thereof pursuant to Section 249(B) of the 1997 NIRC ,as amended: Type Tax Basic Tax Deficiency interest Computed from Withholding Tax on Compensation 961,862.33 January 15, 2006 Expanded Withholding Tax 9,818,821.43 January 15, 2006 Final Withholding VAT 17,535,343.50 January 10, 2006 2. Delinquency interest at the rate of twenty percent (20%) per annum on the amount of Php35,395,034.08, representing the basic deficiency WTC, EWT and final withholding VAT and the corresponding twenty-five percent (25%) surcharge; and on the twenty percent (20%) deficiency interest which have accrued as aforestated in Item (1),computed from October 31, 2012 until full payment thereof pursuant to Section 249(C) of the 1997 NIRC, as amended . SO ORDERED ." 5 The dispositive portion of the assailed Amended Decision states: "In view of the foregoing, respondent's [CIR] "Motion for Partial Reconsideration (Re: Decision promulgated 7 March 2016)" is hereby DENIED for lack of merit; and petitioner's [OAC] "Motion for Partial Reconsideration" is hereby PARTIALLY GRANTED .The assessments issued by respondent [CIR] for taxable year 2005 covering deficiency WTC, EWT and final withholding VAT are hereby UPHELD IN PART .Accordingly, petitioner [OAC] is hereby ORDERED TO PAY deficiency WTC, EWT and final withholding VAT in the total amount of Thirty Two Million Five Hundred and Five Thousand Three Hundred Ninety-Four and 12/100 Pesos (Php32,505,394.12) ,inclusive of the 25% surcharge imposed under Section 248(A)(3) of the 1997 NIRC ,as amended, computed as follows: Type of Tax Basic Tax 25% Surcharge Total Withholding Tax on Compensation P961,182.08 P240,295.52 P1,201,477.60 Expanded Withholding Tax 7,507,789.71 1,876,947.43 9,384,737.14 Final Withholding VAT 17,535,343.50 4,383,835.88 21,919,179.38 Total P26,004,315.29 P6,501,078.83 P32,505,394.12 In addition, petitioner [OAC] is also ORDERED TO PAY : 1. Deficiency interest at the rate of twenty percent (20%) per annum on the basic deficiency WTC, EWT and final withholding VAT computed from the dates indicated below until full payment thereof pursuant to Section 249(B) of the 1997 NIRC, as amended: Tax Type Basic Tax Deficiency Interest Computed from Withholding Tax on Compensation P961,182.08 January 15, 2006 Expanded Withholding Tax 7,507,789.71 January 15, 2006 Final Withholding VAT 17,535,343.50 January 10, 2006 2. Delinquency interest at the rate of twenty percent (20%) per annum on the amount of Php32,505,394.12 representing the basic deficiency WTC, EWT and final withholding VAT and the corresponding twenty five percent (25%) surcharge; and on the twenty percent (20%) deficiency interest which have accrued as aforestated in Item (1),computed from October 31, 2012 until full payment thereof pursuant to Section 249(C) of the 1997 NIRC, as amended. SO ORDERED." 6 In CTA EB No. 1482 [filed by CIR]: CIR prays that the assailed Decision and the assailed Amended Decision be partially reconsidered and set aside, and another one be rendered ordering [OAC] to pay deficiency documentary stamp tax and withholding tax on compensation for taxable year 2005, plus 25% surcharge and 20% deficiency and delinquency interest for late payment until fully paid pursuant to Sections 248 and 249 of NIRC of 1997, as amended. Other relief just and equitable under the premises are likewise prayed. 7 In CTA EB No. 1487 [filed by OAC]: OAC prays that the assailed Decision and the assailed Amended Decision be reversed and set aside with respect to the basic deficiency tax assessments in the amounts identified below as shown in the Amended Decision: Withholding Tax on Compensation P961,182.08 Expanded Withholding Tax P7,507,789.71 Final Withholding VAT P17,535,343.50 Total P26,004,315.29 and the corresponding alleged surcharge, deficiency interest and delinquency interest. Other reliefs and remedies may deem just and equitable are likewise prayed for. 8 THE FACTS The facts of the case as found by the CTA Third Division, as stated in the assailed Decision: 9 The present case has its roots from the Letter of Authority ("LOA") dated June 7, 2006 and received by petitioner from the BIR, informing the former that BIR examiners were authorized to examine petitioner's books of accounts and other accounting records for all internal revenue taxes for the period from January 1, 2005 to December 31, 2005. The BIR sent petitioner its letter dated June 8, 2006 requesting the latter to prepare and submit for verification several documents in connection with the examination of its internal revenue taxes for the calendar year 2005. On August 2, 2006, even before petitioner could comply with the LOA, petitioner received a Second Request for Presentation of Records from the BIR dated July 31, 2006. On February 22, 2008, petitioner availed of the benefits under the Tax Amnesty Program ("TAP") under RA No. 9480, otherwise known as "An Act Enhancing Revenue Administration and Collection by Granting Amnesty on all Unpaid Internal Revenue Taxes Imposed by the National Government for the Taxable Year 2005 and Prior Years." Petitioner received an undated Post Reporting Notice ("PRN") from the BIR informing it that after an investigation pursuant to the LOA, a recommendation for deficiency income tax, VAT withholding and DST were made against it for taxable year 2005. On September 2, 2008, petitioner received a Preliminary Assessment Notice ("PAN") dated July 31, 2008 from the BIR, with an assessment for deficiency WTC, EWT, VAT Withholding and DST for taxable year 2005. Petitioner received on December 22, 2008 an undated Formal Letter of Demand ("FLD") informing it that after investigation, it was found that there were allegedly due from petitioner deficiency WTC, EWT, VAT Withholding and DST for calendar year 2005. On October 31, 2012, petitioner received the Final Decision on Disputed Assessment ("FDDA") from the BIR dated October 17, 2012 stating that after re-investigation, the deficiency tax assessments of WTC, VAT Withholding and DST are proper; with respect to EWT, the same was adjusted by the BIR on account of an erroneous double take-up of items. Hence, petitioner was left with no recourse but to seek redress from the Court on November 29, 2012 through the present Petition for Review. xxx xxx xxx On February 4, 2013, respondent filed the required Answer, interposing the following Special and Affirmative Defenses: xxx xxx xxx Petitioner and respondent filed their respective Pre-trial Briefs on March 26, 2013 and March 21, 2013. On May 17, 2013, the parties filed their Joint Stipulation of Facts and Issues ("JSFI"),thus, a Pre-Trial Order was issued on June 7, 2013. On November 13, 2013, petitioner filed its Formal Offer of Evidence, which was resolved by the Court in its Resolution dated January 13, 2014. On March 17, 2014, respondent filed her Formal Offer of Documentary Exhibits (with Motion to Admit) by registered mail, which was resolved by the Court in its May 29, 2014 and December 18, 2015 Resolutions. In compliance to the above May 29, 2014 Resolution of the Court granting the parties a period of thirty (30) days from receipt thereof to file their respective memoranda, petitioner and respondent then filed their Memoranda on July 17, 2015, and February 23, 2015, respectively. On March 6, 2015, the Court promulgated a Resolution submitting the case for Decision, hence, this Decision. On March 7, 2016, the CTA Third Division partially granted petitioner's Petition for Review. The assessment issued by CIR against OAC for taxable year 2005 covering deficiency DST in the amount of Php137,791,709.56 was cancelled and withdrawn. However, the assessments issued by CIR for taxable year 2005 covering deficiency WTC, EWT and final withholding VAT were upheld in part. Both parties filed their respective Motions for Partial Reconsideration as well as their respective Comments/Opposition on the motions. On June 22, 2016, an Amended Decision was issued by the CTA Third Division. CIR's "Motion for Partial Reconsideration (Re: Decision promulgated 7 March 2016)" was denied for lack of merit; and OAC's "Motion for Partial Reconsideration" was partially granted. The amended portions pertain to Withholding Tax on Compensation and Expanded Withholding Tax. A copy of the said Amended Decision was received by the Bureau of Internal Revenue and by the Office of the Solicitor General on June 28, and June 27, 2016, respectively. 10 The counsel of OAC received a copy of the said Amended Decision on June 27, 2016. 11 On July 12, 2016, CIR filed a Petition for Review [CTA EB No. 1482].On the other hand, OAC filed by registered mail its Petition for Review [CTA EB No. 1487] on July 12, 2016, which was received by the Court on July 21, 2016. Anent CTA EB No. 1482, OAC filed its "Comment (On Petition for Review)" on September 2, 2016. With respect to CTA EB No. 1487, CIR filed his "Comment (re: Petition for Review)" on September 6, 2016. On September 22, 2016, CTA EB No. 1487 was consolidated with CTA EB No. 1482, the case bearing the lower docket number. On October 10, 2016, this Court noted CIR's "Manifestation" filed on October 6, 2016 stating that he is adopting the arguments raised in his Petition for Review in CTA EB No. 1482 and Comment (Re: Petition for Review) in CTA EB No. 1487 as his Memorandum. On November 14, 2016, OAC filed its Memorandum. On December 6, 2016, this case was submitted for decision. Hence, this Decision. ISSUES CTA EB 1482 : CIR enumerates the following issues: WHETHER OR NOT THE THIRD DIVISION OF THE HONORABLE COURT ERRED WHEN IT CANCELLED THE ASSESSMENT FOR DEFICIENCY DOCUMENTARY STAMP TAX (DST) IN THE AMOUNT OF P137,791,709.56 FOR TAXABLE YEAR 2005. THE HONORABLE COURT LIKEWISE ERRED WHEN IT MODIFIED THE DEFICIENCY ASSESSMENTS FOR WITHHOLDING TAX ON COMPENSATION (WTC),EXPANDED WITHHOLDING TAX (EWT) AND FINAL WITHHOLDING VAT FOR TAXABLE YEAR 2005. CTA EB 1487 : OAC's petition is based on the following grounds: A. OAC IS NOT LIABLE FOR DEFICIENCY VAT WITHHOLDING. REVENUE REGULATIONS NO. 4-07 EXPRESSLY STATES THAT PREMIUMS ON REINSURANCE POLICIES ARE NOT SUBJECT TO VAT. THERE IS NO QUESTION THAT OAC HAS PAID VAT ON THE INSURANCE PREMIUMS IT RECEIVED IN 2005 AND BIR HAS NOT ASSESSED ANY DEFICIENCY VAT ON SAID PREMIUMS. a) RR No. 4-07 may and must be given retroactive effect as it is an interpretative regulation. The revocation of previous Revenue Regulations imposing VAT withholding tax on reinsurance premiums of non-resident, non-life insurance companies, may be given retroactive effect. b) There is no dispute that OAC paid VAT on all insurance premiums it received. This is neither questioned by the BIR nor the subject of any assessment. Part of said insurance premiums were paid or "ceded" to the non-resident reinsurance companies which were already subjected to VAT . B. COMMISSIONS PAID ON REINSURANCE IS NOT SUBJECT TO WITHHOLDING TAX. THEY ARE GIVEN BY THE REINSURANCE COMPANY AND ARE THUS NOT SUBJECT TO WITHHOLDING TAX. C. THE BIR HAS NO BASIS TO CONCLUDE BY INFERENCE THAT THE INCREASE IN DEFERRED ACQUISITION COSTS OF PHP15,561,120 IN 2005 REPRESENTS PAYMENTS NOT SUBJECTED TO EWT. D. OAC IS NOT LIABLE FOR EXPANDED WITHHOLDING TAX ON CERTAIN ITEMS WHICH ARE NOT PAYMENTS MADE TO SUPPLIER OF GOODS AND SERVICES. a.) Contrary to the findings of the Honorable Third Division, association and monthly club dues and sponsorships are not payments for purchases of services, thus, are not subject to 2% EWT under Revenue Regulations No. 02-98, as amended. b.) Payments made by petitioner to the Insurance Institute for Asia and Pacific, Inc. (IIAP),a non-stock, non-profit organization, are not subject to 2% EWT. c.) Similarly, taxpayers cannot withhold taxes on payments of plane tickets purchased from airlines through the internet. d.) The imposition of 2% EWT on association and pool dues under "Other Expense" is subject to the same principle as payments made to associations and clubs. E. THE IMPOSITION OF DEFICIENCY INTEREST AND DELINQUENCY INTEREST IS IMPROPER. THE PRESENT TAX CODE CLEARLY LIMITS THE IMPOSITION OF INTEREST ONLY TO ONE. THE IMPOSITION OF BOTH DEFICIENCY AND DELINQUENCY INTEREST WILL RESULT TO DOUBLE TAXATION. THIS COURT'S RULING The petitions are dismissed. After a careful review of the records, this Court finds that both parties directly filed petitions for review in the CTA En Banc questioning the Amended Decision dated June 22, 2016. No motion assailing said Amended Decision was filed by either party in the CTA Third Division. Based on second paragraph of Section 18 of Republic Act (RA) No. 1125, as amended by RA No. 9282, "[a] party adversely affected by a resolution of a Division of the CTA on a motion for reconsideration or new trial, may file a petition for review with the CTA en banc ." "[A]n amended decision is a different decision," as explicitly stated by the Supreme Court (SC) in the consolidated Supreme Court cases entitled Asiatrust Development Bank, Inc. v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, 12 and Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Asiatrust Development Bank, Inc. 13 ( "Asiatrust" case).Also, the SC ruled that an appeal to the CTA En Banc must be preceded by the filing of a timely motion for reconsideration or new trial with the CTA Division. We quote pertinent portions of the said decision, as follows: " An appeal to the CTA En Banc must be preceded by the filing of a timely motion for reconsideration or new trial with the CTA Division . Section 1, Rule 8 of the Revised Rules of the CTA states: SECTION 1. Review of cases in the Court en banc . In cases falling under the exclusive appellate jurisdiction of the Court en banc ,the petition for review of a decision or resolution of the Court in Division must be preceded by the filing of a timely motion for reconsideration or new trial with the Division. Thus, in order for the CTA En Banc to take cognizance of an appeal via a petition for review, a timely motion for reconsideration or new trial must first be filed with the CTA Division that issued the assailed decision or resolution. Failure to do so is a ground for the dismissal of the appeal as the word 'must' indicates that the filing of a prior motion is mandatory, and not merely directory . The same is true in the case of an amended decision .Section 3, Rule 14 of the same rules defines an amended decision as '[a]ny action modifying or reversing a decision of the Court en banc or in Division.' As explained in CE Luzon Geothermal Power Company, Inc. v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue , an amended decision is a different decision, and thus, is a proper subject of a motion for reconsideration . In this case, the CIR's failure to move for a reconsideration of the Amended Decision of the CTA Division is a ground for the dismissal of its Petition for Review before the CTA En Banc .Thus, the CTA En Banc did not err in denying the CIR's appeal on procedural grounds. Due to this procedural lapse, the Amended Decision has attained finality insofar as the CIR is concerned. The CIR, therefore, may no longer question the merits of the case before this Court. Accordingly, there is no reason for the Court to discuss the other issues raised by the CIR. As the Court has often held, procedural rules exist to be followed ,not to be trifled with, and thus, may be relaxed only for the most persuasive reasons." (Emphases Ours). In the Asiatrust case, the Supreme Court (SC) ruled that: (1) an amended decision is a different decision; (2) in order for the CTA En Banc to take cognizance of an appeal via a petition for review, a timely motion for reconsideration or new trial must first be filed with the CTA Division that issued the assailed decision or resolution; (3) failure to file a motion is a ground for the dismissal of its Petition for Review before the CTA En Banc ;and (4) due to this procedural lapse, the Amended Decision has attained finality with respect to the party which failed to file the motion. Applying the Asiatrust case, the CTA En Banc cannot take cognizance of Petitions for Review assailing the amended decision without prior motions for reconsideration or new trial filed with the CTA Third Division that issued the assailed Amended Decision. In this case, both parties failed to file a motion. As a consequence, the assailed Amended Decision has attained finality with respect to both parties. The failure to file a motion is a ground for the dismissal of its Petition for Review before the CTA En Banc . Based on the foregoing discussions, the CTA En Banc shall dismiss these consolidated cases. We reiterate that all rulings of the SC on questions of law are conclusive and binding on all courts. All courts must take their bearings from the decisions of the SC. 14 The SC, by tradition and in our system of judicial administration, has the last word on what the law is; it is the final arbiter of any justifiable controversy. There is only one SC from whose decisions all other courts should take their bearings. 15 Assuming for the sake of argument that the consolidated cases were not dismissed, still there is no merit to the allegations of both parties in their respective petitions. We find that the CTA Third Division already considered these arguments in the assailed Decision and in the assailed Amended Decision. CTA EB 1482 : In Philippine Health Care Providers, Inc. v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue , 16 (PHCPI case) the SC reiterates the ruling in Philippine Banking Corporation v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue , 17 that "DST is one of the taxes covered by the tax amnesty program under RA 9480." In the PHCPI case, "petitioner's liability for DST for the taxable years 1996 and 1997 was totally extinguished by its availment of the tax amnesty under RA 9480." Considering that OAC availed of the tax amnesty under RA 9480, this Court agrees with the CTA Third Division's cancellation of the assessment for deficiency documentary stamp tax in the amount of P137,791,709.56 for taxable year 2005. On the other hand, this Court agrees with the findings of the CTA Third Division that withholding taxes are not covered by the tax amnesty under RA 9480. CTA EB 1487 : No retroactive application of RR No. 4-07 OAC argues that RR No. 4-07 may and must be given retroactive effect as it is an interpretative regulation; and that the revocation of previous Revenue Regulations imposing VAT withholding tax on reinsurance premiums of non-resident, non-life insurance companies, may be given retroactive effect. OAC's arguments lack merit. "The principle is well entrenched that statutes, including administrative rules and regulations, operate prospectively only, unless the legislative intent to the contrary is manifest by express terms or by necessary implication." 18 In the instant case, the said RR 4-07 explicitly states that: SECTION 27. Effectivity . These Regulations shall take effect after fifteen (15) days following its publication in any newspaper of general circulation or in the Official Gazette. A mere reading of the said provision shows that the effectivity of RR 4-07 is prospective. We reiterate with approval the reasoning of the CTA Third Division in the assailed Decision, as follows: "It must be emphasized that RR No. 4-07, which was dated on February 7, 2007 and is to take effect after fifteen (15) days following its publication. Publication was made on March 22, 2007, hence, it became effective only on April 6, 2007. Considering the fact that the taxable year covered by the present assessment is 2005, the said RR cannot be applied to the said premiums . As to RMC No. 11-96, this was deemed revoked by RR No. 14-02, which took effect on October 1, 2002, for being inconsistent thereto. Section 4.114 of RR No. 2-98, as amended by RR No. 14-02, expressly provides that services rendered to local insurance companies, with respect to reinsurance premiums payable to non-resident insurance or reinsurance companies are subject to VAT at the rate of ten (10%)." (Emphasis Supplied). On the retroactivity of administrative rules, the Supreme Court explicitly states that "an administrative rule interpretative of a statute and not declarative of certain rights and corresponding obligations, is given retroactive effect as of the date of effectivity of the statute." 19 In the instant case, there is a change in the tax treatment of reinsurance premiums payable to non-resident insurance or reinsurance companies. Applying RR 4-07 retroactively would take vested rights of the CIR upon the tax due under RR No. 14-02, thus, RR No. 4-07 cannot be given retroactive application. OAC failed to present enough proof to convince the Court In Republic of the Philippines, represented by the Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Team (Phils.) Energy Corporation (formerly Mirant (Phils.) Energy Corporation) , 20 the Supreme Court ruled that "it is fundamental that the findings of fact by the CTA in Division are not to be disturbed without any showing of grave abuse of discretion considering that the members of the Division are in the best position to analyze the documents presented by the parties." Anent, the commissions paid on reinsurance, OAC failed to present documentary evidence to disprove CIR's findings. We quote the following: "The Court maintains that petitioner [OAC] failed to provide documentary evidence to disprove respondent's finding that the commissions it paid was not subjected to 10% EWT in the amount of Php8,604,705.82. However, the amount is reduced to Php6,711,199.10 because it was proven that the amount per Alphalist is Php60,257,427.00. On this merit, the EWT on Commission expense is reduced to Php6,711,199.10, x x x" 21 With respect to the increase in deferred acquisition costs in 2005, the CTA Third Division exhaustively discussed the same and We agree. Pertinent portions of the assailed Decision are quoted below: "Note 2 of petitioner's audited AFS for 2005 and 2004 defines Deferred Acquisition Costs as follows: 22 Acquisition Costs Costs that vary with and are primarily related to the acquisition of new and renewal insurance contracts such as commissions, certain underwriting and policy issue costs, and inspection fees are deferred and charged to expense in proportion to the premium revenue recognized. The resulting net unamortized acquisition costs are accounted for as Deferred Acquisition Costs and shown in the Assets section of the balance sheets. From the foregoing, it may be inferred that the amount of Php15,561,120.00 represents costs such as commissions, certain underwriting and policy issue costs and inspection fees incurred and/or paid by petitioner relative to acquiring new customers in the year 2005 but such costs remained unamortized as of the end of 2005. Since petitioner failed to present documents that would show the actual nature of these costs, the same shall be considered as purchases of services subject to 2% EWT under Section 2.57.2 (M) of RR No. 02-98, as amended ." 23 (Emphasis Supplied) Anent the alleged plane tickets purchased through the internet, We reiterate with approval the findings of the CTA Third Division, as follows: "Petitioner [OAC] maintains that this account includes purchases of plane tickets through the internet, hence, it cannot withhold tax at the time of purchase; and that it cannot be presumed that said purchases were made from regular suppliers. The Court's findings remain. A verification of the evidence submitted shows that the income payments exceeding Php10,000.00 and income payments below Php10,000.00 but for which no supporting invoices/receipts were presented to prove that the same were made from non-regular suppliers, being in the nature of purchases of services, are subject to 2% EWT. Petitioner [OAC] submitted only an internally generated excel file summary of petty cash purchases ." 24 (Emphasis Supplied) As regards the payments made by OAC to the Insurance Institute for Asia and the Pacific, Inc. ("IIAP"),this Court reiterates the findings of the CTA Third Division, as follows: "Petitioner [OAC] further insists that its payment to Insurance Institute for Asia and Pacific, Inc. should not be subject to 2% EWT because it is a non-stock, non-profit organization. However, petitioner [OAC] failed to prove the same ." 25 With respect to association and monthly club dues and sponsorships, and pool dues, the imposition of 2% EWT is correct as clarified in RMC No. 72-04, 26 as follows: "Q23. Is the payment for membership dues of the TTC/GO/LT to country clubs and/or sports club and the like considered service subject to the 2% EWT under RR 17-2003? A23. Yes, membership fees are considered services subjected to the 2% EWT. However, when the payee-club or organization is a non-stock, non-profit organization not subject to income tax, hence, payment is not subject to EWT upon presentation of proof of exemption issued by the BIR." (Emphasis Supplied) Imposition of deficiency and delinquency interests are proper The allegation of OAC that the imposition of deficiency interest and delinquency interest is improper lacks merit. Pertinent to this is Sec. 249 of the 1997 NIRC, as amended, which reads: SEC. 249. Interest. (A) In General. There shall be assessed and collected on any unpaid amount of tax ,interest at the rate of twenty percent (20%) per annum ,or such higher rate as may be prescribed by rules and regulations, from the date prescribed for payment until the amount is fully paid. (B) Deficiency Interest. Any deficiency in the tax due , as the term is defined in this Code, shall be subject to the interest prescribed in Subsection (A) hereof, which interest shall be assessed and collected from the date prescribed for its payment until the full payment thereof . (C) Delinquency Interest. In case of failure to pay : (1) The amount of the tax due on any return to be filed, or (2) The amount of the tax due for which no return is required, or (3) A deficiency tax, or any surcharge or interest thereon on the due date appearing in the notice and demand of the Commissioner ,there shall be assessed and collected on the unpaid amount, interest at the rate prescribed in Subsection (A) hereof until the amount is fully paid ,which interest shall form part of the tax." (Emphases Supplied.) This Court quotes with approval portions of the assailed Amended Decision, thus: "It can be gathered from the above that deficiency interest of 20% per annum shall be assessed and collected from the date prescribed for its payment until the full payment thereof; and that delinquency interest of 20% per annum shall be assessed and collected in case of failure to pay a deficiency tax, or any surcharge or interest thereon, and that this delinquency interest shall form part of the tax. Clearly, if a taxpayer fails to pay a deficiency tax, or any surcharge or interest thereon, on the due date appearing in the notice or demand, delinquency interest and deficiency tax interest are to be simultaneously assessed and collected. Hence, the Court finds no basis for petitioner's argument." Based on the foregoing, there is no reason to set aside the findings and conclusions of the CTA Third Division in the assailed Decision and assailed Amended Decision. WHEREFORE ,the Petition for Review of Oriental Assurance Corporation in CTA EB No. 1487, and the Petition for Review of Commissioner of Internal Revenue in CTA EB No. 1482 are DISMISSED . SO ORDERED. (SGD.) JUANITO C. CASTAEDA, JR. Associate Justice Lovell R. Bautista, Erlinda P. Uy, Caesar A. Casanova, Esperanza R. Fabon-Victorino, Cielito N. Mindaro-Grulla and Catherine T. Manahan, JJ. ,concur. Roman G. del Rosario, P.J. ,see Concurring and Dissenting Opinion. Ma. Belen M. Ringpis-Liban, J. ,with due respect, pls. see Concurring & Dissenting. Separate Opinions DEL ROSARIO , P.J.,concurring and dissenting opinion : I concur with the ponencia in dismissing the Petition for Review filed by the Commissioner of Internal Revenue (CIR) in CTA EB No. 1482. With due respect, I am, however, constrained to withhold my conformity on the outright dismissal of the Petition for Review filed by Oriental Assurance Corporation (OAC) in CTA EB No. 1487 on the purported ground that OAC failed to file a motion for reconsideration of the Court in Division's Amended Decision. Motion for Reconsideration of an Amended Decision I am not unaware of the pronouncement in Asiatrust Development Bank, Inc. vs. Commissioner of Internal Revenue/Commissioner of Internal Revenue vs. Asiatrust Development Bank, Inc. (Asiatrust) 1 which in esse declared that a Motion for Reconsideration of an Amended Decision must be filed prior to the filing of a Petition for Review before the Court En Banc . The pronouncement in Asiatrust ,however, should not be construed or applied in a way where the rule prohibiting the filing of a second motion for reconsideration is totally ignored . A careful perusal of the Asiatrust case reveals that the Supreme Court, in declaring that a motion for reconsideration of an amended decision is a condition precedent to an appeal to the Court En Banc ,is confined to its finding that the CIR failed to file a motion for reconsideration of the Court in Division's amended decision, which granted an entirely new relief in favor of Asiatrust. Whether it was proper for Asiatrust to file a motion for reconsideration of the amended decision is not an issue resolved therein. Interestingly, the Asiatrust case cites CE Luzon Geothermal Power Company, Inc. vs. Commissioner of Internal Revenue 2 (CE Luzon case) where the Supreme Court did not declare as fatal the non-filing by CE Luzon of a motion for reconsideration of the amended decision which increased the amount of refund granted in favor of CE Luzon from P14 Million to P17 Million. The facts of the case (which are similar to the present case) reveal that CE Luzon directly appealed the Court in Division's amended decision before the Court En Banc even as it remained unsatisfied with the increased amount of refund granted in its favor. Truth to tell, the Supreme Court, despite CE Luzon's non-filing of a motion for reconsideration of the Court in Division's amended decision before filing an appeal with the Court En Banc ,proceeded to rule on the substantive aspect of CE Luzon's claim .On the other hand, with regard to the CIR who filed a motion for reconsideration of the Court in Division's amended decision, the Supreme Court ruled that the same does not constitute a second motion for reconsideration since, in so far as the CIR is concerned ,the amended decision which modified and increased CE Luzon's entitlement to a refund or tax credit certificate, is a different decision which is the proper subject of a motion for reconsideration on the part of the CIR .The pronouncement of the Supreme Court is quoted hereunder: "At the outset, the Court deems it proper to address CE Luzon's claim that the CIR filed a "second" motion for reconsideration of the CTA Division's January 19, 2010 Amended Decision .Considering that a second motion for reconsideration is a prohibited pleading and, thus, did not toll the period to file an appeal, CE Luzon maintained that the June 24, 2009 Decision had long become final and executory. Under Section 3, Rule 14 of the Revised Rules of the Court of Tax Appeals, an amended decision is issued when there is any action modifying or reversing a decision of the CTA En Banc or in Division. Pursuant to these parameters, it is clear that the CIR's motions for partial reconsideration i.e. ,(a) motion for partial reconsideration of the June 24, 2009 Decision; and (b) motion for partial reconsideration of the January 19, 2010 Amended Decision assailed separate and distinct decisions that were rendered by the CTA Division. Notably, its amended decision modified and increased CE Luzon's entitlement to a refund or tax credit certificate in the amount of 17,277,938.47. Essentially, it was therefore a different decision and, hence, the proper subject of a motion for reconsideration anew on the part of the CIR .Thus, CE Luzon's procedural objection must fail." (Boldfacing supplied) From the foregoing, it is clear that the pronouncement in the Asiatrust case should not be construed in a way where the rule against the filing of a second motion for reconsideration is nullified . Section 3, Rule 14 of the Revised Rules of the Court of Tax Appeals ("RRCTA") merely specifies the proper 'denomination' of the Court's action modifying or reversing a previously issued Decision. Thus, the provision reads: "SEC. 3. Amended Decision. Any action modifying or reversing a decision of the Court en banc or in Division shall be denominated as Amended Decision ." (Boldfacing supplied) The fact that an amended decision is eventually issued does not necessarily deviate from its nature, which may in certain instances, be strictly a mere resolution of a motion for reconsideration .If the amended decision results from a re-evaluation of the parties' respective positions which the Court originally rejected but which it eventually considered as meritorious (in whole or in part),I submit that a second motion for reconsideration of the amended decision is unwarranted. To allow a second motion for reconsideration raising the same ground which the amended decision already considered would render the proscription against a second Motion for Reconsideration meaningless even as it would result to unnecessary delay in the disposition of cases. Section 7, Rule 15 of the RRCTA is clear on this aspect, viz. : "SEC. 7. No second motion for reconsideration or new trial. No party shall be allowed to file a second motion for reconsideration or for new trial or decision, final resolution or order." Parenthetically, it would be inconsistent to the concept of speedy determination of controversies to allow much more require a party litigant to rehash, amplify or recycle in a second Motion for Reconsideration matters and arguments, which it had already presented in a first motion for reconsideration and which, necessarily have been considered in the amended decision .After all, the movant should have embodied in the first motion for reconsideration all supporting arguments relative to the assailed original decision pursuant to Section 3, Rule 15 of the RRCTA. 3 Relative to the parties' initial motions for partial reconsideration of the Court in Division's original Decision and the eventual filing of their respective Petitions for Review with the Court En Banc ,records disclose the following: March 7, 2016 Court in Division promulgated its original Decision partially granting OAC's Petition for Review and ordering OAC to pay deficiency withholding tax on compensation (WTC),expanded withholding tax (EWT) and final withholding VAT (FWVAT) in the total amount of Php35,395,034.08 ,inclusive of the 25% surcharge, plus 20% deficiency interest and 20% delinquency interest. March 28, 2016 CIR filed his Motion for Partial Reconsideration of the Court in Division's original Decision. April 6, 2016 OAC filed its Motion for Partial Reconsideration of the Court in Division's original Decision. June 22, 2016 Court in Division promulgated the assailed Amended Decision which denied CIR's Motion for Partial Reconsideration and partially granted OAC's Motion for Partial Reconsideration ;directing OAC to pay deficiency WTC, EWT and FWVAT in the reduced amount of Php32,505,394.12 ,inclusive of the 25% surcharge, plus 20% deficiency interest and 20% delinquency interest. July 12, 2016 CIR filed his Petition for Review with Court En Banc ,which was docketed as CTA EB No. 1482. OAC filed its Petition for Review with the Court En Banc ,which was docketed as CTA EB No. 1487. Based on the above-mentioned factual antecedents, I submit that the ponencia correctly dismissed the Petition for Review filed by the CIR. The assailed Amended Decision has by now attained finality in view of the CIR's failure to file a timely Motion for Reconsideration thereof before the Court in Division before filing a Petition for Review before the Court En Banc ,pursuant to the Supreme Court's pronouncement in Asiatrust. The Court En Banc is prevented from taking cognizance of the CIR's appeal. The only adjudicatory power left for the Court En Banc is to dismiss the Petition for Review filed by the CIR. With respect to OAC's Petition for Review, it is my humble submission that OAC correctly invoked the jurisdiction of the Court En Banc by filing the present Petition for Review to assail the Amended Decision of the Court in Division. OAC clearly observed the condition precedent required under Sec. 1, Rule 8 of RRCTA 4 when it filed its Motion for Partial Reconsideration of the March 7, 2016 Decision within fifteen (15) days from its receipt of the said Decision. The Amended Decision already considered the arguments raised in OAC's Motion for Partial Reconsideration. Thus, OAC may not file another Motion for Reconsideration to assail the Amended Decision since the Court in Division already made a favorable action on its Motion for Partial Reconsideration , albeit not in the total amount as prayed for in OAC's Petition for Review before the Court in Division. A motion for reconsideration by OAC assailing the Court in Division's Amended Decision would be in the nature of a second motion for reconsideration, the filing of which is prohibited under Section 7, Rule 15 of the RRCTA . In fine, the assailed Amended Decision has not attained finality insofar as OAC is concerned. It is, therefore, proper for the Court En Banc to assume jurisdiction over OAC's Petition for Review. Letter of Authority After carefully reviewing the records, I submit that the deficiency tax assessments against OAC should be cancelled and set aside for being intrinsically void. Records disclose that the disputed assessment sprung from the Letter of Authority (LOA) No. 2000-00096278 dated June 7, 2006, issued by the CIR, through Melinda I. Ordoyo, OIC, Large Taxpayers Service, which authorized Revenue Officers (RO) Melinda M. Rugayan and Flor Jasmin R. Soriano, under Group Supervisor Madelyn T. Sacluti, to examine the books of accounts and other accounting records of OAC for all internal revenue taxes for taxable year 2005. 5 In a Memorandum of Assignment with Referral No. D-61-05-08 dated May 27, 2008, signed by Albino M. Galanza, Chief LT Audit & Investigation Division I, the audit and investigation of OAC for taxable year 2005, under LOA No. 2000-00096278, was re-assigned to RO Saidamen T. Marohombsar and Group Supervisor Melinda Ann Perez . 6 Notably, there is nothing in the parties' Joint Stipulation of Facts and Issues, 7 the Pre-Trial Order, 8 and their respective Exhibits which would show that a new LOA was issued in favor of RO Marohombsar and Group Supervisor Perez . While OAC failed to raise the issue of lack of authority of RO Marohombsar and Group Supervisor Perez to conduct the audit, I am of the view that the Court is not precluded from considering this issue as the absence of a valid LOA renders an assessment intrinsically void. A void assessment bears no fruit, 9 and it is settled that estoppel cannot operate to give an effect to an assessment which is void ab initio . On this point, the teachings in Acebedo Optical Company, Inc. vs. The Honorable Court of Appeals 10 are most enlightening: "x x x. The fact that petitioner acquiesced in the special conditions imposed by the City Mayor in subject business permit does not preclude it from challenging the said imposition, which is ultra vires or beyond the ambit of authority of respondent City Mayor. Ultra vires acts or acts which are clearly beyond the scope of one's authority are null and void and cannot be given any effect. The doctrine of estoppel cannot operate to give effect to an act which is otherwise null and void or ultra vires ." Moreover, in Commissioner of Internal Revenue vs. Lancaster Philippines, Inc. , 11 the Supreme Court reiterated and confirmed the CTA's power and jurisdiction to resolve the issue on the authority of the ROs to conduct the audit, albeit the same was not raised by the parties in their pleadings or memoranda, viz. : "On whether the CTA can resolve an issue which was not raised by the parties, we rule in the affirmative. Under Section 1, Rule 4 of A.M. No. 05-11-07-CTA, or the Revised Rules of the Court of Tax appeals, the CTA is not bound by the issued specifically raised by the parties but may also rule upon related issues necessary to achieve an orderly disposition of the case. The text of the provision reads: 'SECTION 1. Rendition of judgment. x x x In deciding the case, the Court may not limit itself to the issues stipulated by the parties, but may also rule upon related issues necessary to achieve an orderly disposition of the case.' The above section is clearly worded. On the basis thereof, the CTA Division was, therefore, well within its authority to consider in its decision the question on the scope of authority of revenue officers who were named in the LOA even though the parties had not raised the same in their pleadings or memoranda .The CTA En Banc was likewise correct in sustaining the CTA Division's view concerning such matter." (Boldfacing supplied) For want of valid LOA, Lancaster ultimately resolved to declare the assessment void, viz. : "In sum, and considering the foregoing premises, we find no cogent reason to overturn the assailed decision and resolution of the CTA. As the CTA decreed, Assessment Notice LTAID II IT-98-00007, dated 11 October 2002, in the amount of P6,466,065.50 for deficiency income tax should be cancelled and set aside. The assessment is void for being issued without valid authority .Furthermore, there is no legal justification for the disallowance of Lancaster's expenses for the purchase of tobacco in February and March 2008." (Boldfacing and underscoring supplied) In other words, although the parties did not specifically put into issue the authority of RO Marohombsar and Group Supervisor Perez to continue the investigation that ultimately led to the issuance of the present disputed tax assessment, I submit that the Court has the authority to rule upon matters which are vital in the disposition of the case; otherwise, the Court would abdicate its primary objective which is the just resolution of disputes brought before it. 12 In the present case, the crux of the controversy revolves around whether OAC may be held liable for deficiency income tax subject of the assessment issued by the CIR. The issue about the RO's authority to conduct audit necessarily relates thereto as its absence makes the assessment a nullity .The importance of RO's authority to conduct the audit cannot be over-emphasized as it goes into the issue of the validity of the assessment. On this score, the Supreme Court's pronouncement in Medicard Philippines, Inc. vs. Commissioner of Internal Revenue 13 on the matter of the authority of ROs who conducted the audit and examination of the taxpayer is instructive, viz. : " The absence of an LOA violated MEDICARD's right to due process An LOA is the authority given to the appropriate revenue officer assigned to perform assessment functions .It empowers or enables said revenue officer to examine the books of account and other accounting records of a taxpayer for the purpose of collecting the correct amount of tax. An LOA is premised on the fact that the examination of a taxpayer who has already filed his tax returns is a power that statutorily belongs only to the CIR himself or his duly authorized representatives . Section 6 of the NIRC clearly provides as follows: xxx xxx xxx Based on the afore-quoted provision, it is clear that unless authorized by the CIR himself or by his duly authorized representative, through an LOA, an examination of the taxpayer cannot ordinarily be undertaken .The circumstances contemplated under Section 6 where the taxpayer may be assessed through best-evidence obtainable, inventory-taking, or surveillance among others has nothing to do with the LOA. These are simply methods of examining the taxpayer in order to arrive at the correct amount of taxes. Hence, unless undertaken by the CIR himself or his duly authorized representatives, other tax agents may not validly conduct any of these kinds of examinations without prior authority . xxx xxx xxx In this case, there is no dispute that no LOA was issued prior to the issuance of a PAN and FAN against MEDICARD. Therefore no LOA was also served on MEDICARD. The LN that was issued earlier was also not converted into an LOA contrary to the above quoted provision. Surprisingly, the CIR did not even dispute the applicability of the above provision of RMO 32-2005 in the present case which is clear and unequivocal on the necessity of an LOA for the assessment proceeding to be valid. x x x. In the case of Commissioner of Internal Revenue vs. Sony Philippines, Inc. ,the Court said that: Clearly, there must be a grant of authority before any revenue officer can conduct an examination or assessment. Equally important is that the revenue officer so authorized must not go beyond the authority given. In the absence of such an authority, the assessment or examination is a nullity .(Emphasis and underscoring ours) xxx xxx xxx x x x. In fact, apart from being a statutory requirement, an LOA is equally needed even under the BIR's RELIEF System because the rationale of requirement is the same whether or not the CIR conducts a physical examination of the taxpayer's records: to prevent undue harassment of a taxpayer and level the playing field between the government's vast resources for tax assessment, collection and enforcement, on one hand, and the solitary taxpayer's dual need to prosecute its business while at the same time responding to the BIR exercise of its statutory powers. The balance between these is achieved by ensuring that any examination of the taxpayer by the BIR's revenue officers is properly authorized in the first place by those to whom the discretion to exercise the power of examination is given by the statute . That the BIR officials herein were not shown to have acted unreasonably is beside the point because the issue of their lack of authority was only brought up during the trial of the case .What is crucial is whether the proceedings that led to the issuance of VAT deficiency assessment against MEDICARD had the prior approval and authorization from the CIR or her duly authorized representatives. Not having authority to examine MEDICARD in the first place, the assessment issued by the CIR is inescapably void ." (Citations omitted; boldfacing and underscoring supplied) In the aforequoted case, the Supreme Court declared as void the disputed assessment for lack of an LOA authorizing the ROs to examine the taxpayer's books of account and other accounting records . In this case, it is undisputed that RO Marohombsar and Group Supervisor Perez the revenue officer and group supervisor who continued the audit and investigation of OAC's books of accounts and other accounting records for taxable year 2005 are not named in LOA No. 2000-00096278 .RO Marohombsar admitted in his Judicial Affidavit 14 that the audit of OAC's books for the year 2005 was assigned to him pursuant to Memorandum of Assignment with Referral No. D-61-05-08 dated May 27, 2008, to wit: "9Q: Under what authority you conducted the audit of all internal revenue taxes of the petitioner? 9A: I was authorized through a Memorandum of Assignment with Referral No. D-61-05-08 dated May 27, 2008. It was assigned to me following the re-assignment per LTAID I Industry Grouping as of April 16, 2008, whereby the revenue officers who were authorized under the Letter of Authority (LOA) to conduct the audit on all the revenue taxes of petitioner was (sic) transferred to another Industry Grouping. 10Q: I have with me a document denominated as Memorandum of Assignment with Referral No. D-61-05-08 dated May 27, 2008, found in page 433 of the BIR Records and to be marked as Exhibit "1" for the respondent, can you please identify it and tell what is the relation of this document to the Memorandum of Assignment that you mentioned? 10A: That is the same Memorandum of Assignment that I just mentioned. 11Q: I have with me a document entitled LOA No. 96278 dated June 07, 2006, found in page 13 of the BIR Records and to be marked as Exhibit "2" for the respondent, can you identify it and tell what is the relation of this document to the LOA you mentioned earlier? 11A: That is the same letter of authority I am referring to." Notably, there is nothing in RO Marohombsar's testimony that confirmed the issuance of a new LOA in his favor. LOA No. 2000-00096278, which was identified by RO Marohombsar in his Judicial Affidavit, is the very same LOA that was issued to ROs Rugayan and Soriano and Group Supervisor Sacluti .Memorandum of Assignment with Referral No. D-61-05-08 is categorical in stating that the basis of RO Marohombsar and Group Supervisor Perez's authority to audit OAC is the LOA wherein their names do not appear , viz. : "Referred to you herewith is/are the enclosed paper(s)/entire docket(s) of ORIENTAL ASSURANCE CORPORATION ,relative to the investigation on all internal revenue taxes pursuant to Letter of Authority No. 96278 dated June 7, 2006 for taxable year 2005, for re-assignment per LTAID I Industry Grouping as of April 16, 2008." (Boldfacing supplied) Indeed, the absence of a new LOA authorizing Revenue Officers Marohombsar and Group Supervisor to continue the audit of OAC for taxable year 2005 rendered the assessment issued pursuant thereto void . Unless and until modified by the Supreme Court En Banc ,the doctrines laid down in Medicard and Lancaster should be applied in determining the validity of assessments issued against taxpayers sans any LOA, albeit the issue on the absence thereof is belatedly, if not at all, raised by the taxpayer. Indeed, the Supreme Court, by tradition and in our system of judicial administration, has the last word on what the law is; it is the final arbiter of any justiciable controversy. There is only one Supreme Court from whose decisions all other courts should take their bearings. 15 All told, I VOTE to: (i) DISMISS the Petition for Review filed by the Commissioner of Internal Revenue in CTA EB No. 1482 for lack of jurisdiction; (ii) GRANT the Petition for Review filed by Oriental Assurance Corporation in CTA EB No. 1487; (iii) REVERSE and SET ASIDE the March 7, 2016 Decision and June 22, 2016 Amended Decision of the Court in Division; (iv) CANCEL and SET ASIDE the Formal Letter of Demand and Assessment Notices Nos. WC-05-000143, EWT-05-000246, VAT-05-000275, DST-05-000178, all dated December 19, 2008, issued against Oriental Assurance Corporation, for being void ab initio . RINGPIS-LIBAN , J.,concurring and dissenting opinion : I concur with the ponencia's discussion upholding the findings of the Court in Division in both the assailed Decision and assailed Amended Decision. However, it is with due respect, that I dissent from the majority decision which dismissed the petitions of both parties for their failure to seek reconsideration of the Assailed Amended Decision dated June 22, 2016. For the orderly administration of justice, I maintain my position that the ruling laid down by the Supreme Court in Asiatrust Development Bank, Inc. v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue 1 should only be applied in instances of similar factual milieu. This is obviously not the case here. On this score, I adopt my Concurring Opinion in Philam Properties Corporation v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue , 2 which expound on why Asiatrust should not be applied in each and every case, as dictated by sound procedural rules. The relevant portions are quoted below: Before the Court En Banc could take cognizance of a Petition for Review concerning a case falling under its exclusive appellate jurisdiction, the litigant must sufficiently show that it sought prior reconsideration or moved for a new trial with the concerned division, following Section 1, Rule 8 of the Revised Rules of the Court of Tax Appeals. This has always been the rule, and it still is. Said section provides, to wit: " RULE 8 PROCEDURE IN CIVIL CASES SECTION 1. Review of cases in the Court en banc . In cases falling under the exclusive appellate jurisdiction of the Court en banc, the petition for review of a decision or resolution of the Court in Division must be preceded by the filing of a timely motion for reconsideration or new trial with the Division. (n)" On July 13, 2015, the Third Division (Court in Division) promulgated a Decision denying Philam's claim for refund or issuance of a tax credit certificate for insufficiency of evidence. .. xxx xxx xxx On August 04, 2015, Philam filed a Motion for Reconsideration alleging that its claim was fully substantiated. On December 03, 2015, the court in Division issued an Amended Decision partially granting Philam's Motion for Reconsideration and ordering the Commissioner of Internal Revenue (CIR) to issue a tax credit certificate in the amount of Php612,287.61. Thereafter, the CIR filed a Motion for Reconsideration on the Amended Decision, which was denied by the court in Division in a Resolution. Subsequently, Philam filed the instant Petition with this Court. Hence, as borne by the records of the case, it is very clear that Philam already sought prior reconsideration with the court in Division before it filed a Petition for Review with the Court En Banc . The mandatory requirement under Section 1 of Rule 8 of the Revised Rules of the Court of Tax Appeals was already complied with. I am not unaware of the recent pronouncement of the Supreme Court in Asiatrust Development Bank, Inc. v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue .However, I humbly stress and emphasize that the factual milieu of the said case differs significantly from the case at bar. Asiatrust not on all fours with the instant case and should not be applied to the same. At first glance, the facts of Asiatrust and this case may seem similar for in both cases, an amended decision was promulgated by the court in division partially granting the motion for reconsideration to the original decision. A perusal of the case however discloses that prior to the issuance of the amended decision, the court set a hearing for the presentation of the originals of the documents attached to Asiatrust's motion for reconsideration, documentary exhibits were presented and marked, a witness was recalled, and a supplemental formal offer of evidence was filed. Otherwise stated, a formal hearing was held which became the foundation of the amended decision in Asiatrust. Therefore, it is only proper that the Commissioner of Internal Revenue in Asiatrust file a motion for reconsideration to the amended decision as to the findings made by the Court in division during the hearing. In contrast with the case at bar, the only basis for the court in Division's Amended Decision dated December 03, 2015 was Philam's Motion for Reconsideration dated August 04, 2015. No hearing was set nor additional evidence presented. Moreover, to insist that Philam file a motion for reconsideration of the Amended Decision would only force Philam to reiterate its argument in its Motion for Reconsideration to the original decision, i.e. ,that its claim for refund was fully substantiated, which was already passed upon and resolved by the court in Division in its Amended Decision. Otherwise stated, to apply the rule in Asiatrust to include all situations involving issuance of an Amended Decision despite the fact that the issues to be raised in the "second motion for reconsideration" were already included in the motion for reconsideration filed and passed upon by the court when it promulgated the Amended Decision would set a dangerous and mischievous precedent. A second motion for reconsideration which contains mere iterations and reiterations of the same points and arguments over and over again becomes, in effect, a mere dilatory strategy and consequently nothing more than pro forma. To reiterate, the use of precedents should not be mechanical. Application of a particular doctrine is appropriate only in cases involving similar facts. When the facts vary, one should analyze and re-examine if the same doctrine would still apply. As aptly put by the Supreme Court in Philippine Carpet Manufacturing v. Ignacio B. Tagyamon : "Under the doctrine of stare decisis ,when a court has 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 in which the facts are substantially the same, even though the parties may be different. Where the facts are essentially different, however, stare decisis does not apply, for a perfectly sound principle as applied to one set of facts might be entirely inappropriate when a factual variant is introduced .(Emphasis supplied)" In this case, both parties filed their respective Motions for Partial Reconsideration 3 to the Assailed Decision dated March 7, 2016. No hearing was set nor additional evidence presented. All these pertained to evidence already existing in the record. Unlike Asiatrust ,there was no new evidence to be considered. The Assailed Amended Decision, therefore, resulted from a reevaluation of both the Commissioner of Internal Revenue's (CIR's) and the Oriental Assurance Corporation's (OAC's) respective positions which the Court originally rejected in part, but which later on, after reconsideration, found meritorious. To oblige the parties to each file a motion for reconsideration of the Assailed Amended Decision would only result in reiterated arguments that have already been propounded in their Motions for Partial Reconsideration of the assailed Decision, all of which have already been passed upon and resolved by the Court in Division in its Assailed Amended Decision. Hence, I am of the humble opinion that Asiatrust does not apply in this case, and that outright dismissal of both parties' respective Petitions for Review is unwarranted. In view of the foregoing, I vote that the Court TAKE COGNIZANCE of the CIR's Petition for Review in CTA EB No. 1482 and OAC's Petition for Review in CTA EB No. 1487. Footnotes 1. Rollo (CTA EB No. 1482),pp. 149-149-A. 2. Rollo (CTA EB No. 1482),pp. 15-74; Rollo (CTA EB No. 1487),pp. 49-108; Penned by Associate Justice Lovell R. Bautista and concurred in by Associate Justice Esperanza R. Fabon-Victorino. Associate Justice Ma. Belen M. Ringpis-Liban took no part. 3. Rollo (CTA EB No. 1482),pp. 75-90; Rollo (CTA EB No. 1487),pp. 110-125; Penned by Associate Justice Lovell R. Bautista and concurred in by Associate Justice Esperanza R. Fabon-Victorino and Associate Justice Ma. Belen M. Ringpis-Liban. 4. "An Act Enhancing Revenue Administration and Collection by Granting an Amnesty on All Unpaid Internal Revenue Taxes Imposed by the National Government for Taxable Year 2005 and Prior Years," dated July 24, 2006, lapsed into law on May 24, 2007. 5. Rollo (CTA EB No. 1482),pp. 72-73; Rollo (CTA EB No. 1487),pp. 106-107. 6. Rollo (CTA EB No. 1482),pp. 88-89; Rollo (CTA EB No. 1487),pp. 123-124. 7. Rollo (CTA EB No. 1482),pp. 9-10. 8. Rollo (CTA EB No. 1487),p. 42. 9. Id. ,pp. 50-61; Rollo (CTA EB No. 1482),pp. 16-27; In the division case, petitioner is OAC and respondent is CIR. 10. Division Docket, Vol. 4, p. 1396. 11. Id. 12. G.R. No. 201530, April 19, 2017. 13. G.R. Nos. 201680-81, April 19, 2017. 14. Systra Philippines, Inc. vs. Commissioner of Internal Revenue , G.R. No. 176290, Resolution, September 21, 2007, 533 SCRA 776, 781. 15. Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Michel J. Lhuillier Pawnshop, Inc. , G.R. No. 150947, July 15, 2003, 406 SCRA 178, citing GSIS v. Court of Appeals , 334 Phil. 163, 175 [1997]. 16. G.R. No. 167330, September 18, 2009. 17. G.R. No. 170574, January 30, 2009. 18. BPI Leasing Corp. v. Court of Appeals, et al. , G.R. No. 127624, Nov. 18, 2003, citing Republic v. Sandiganbayan, 269 SCRA 316 (1997),citing Lee v. Rodil ,175 SCRA 100 (1989) and State Prosecutors v. Muro ,236 SCRA 505 (1994); Al-Amanah Islamic Investment Bank of the Philippines v. Civil Service Commission ,207 SCRA 801 (1992). 19. Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Azucena T. Reyes and vice versa ,G.R. Nos. 159694 and 163581, January 27, 2006, 480 SCRA 385, citing Agpalo, Statutory Construction, (4th ed.,1998) p. 375. 20. G.R. No. 188016, January 14, 2015 citing Sea-Land Service, Inc. v. Court of Appeals , G.R. No. 122605, April 30, 2001, 357 SCRA 441, 445-446. 21. Amended Decision, p. 12. 22. Exhibit "J," Docket, Vol. 3, p. 926. 23. Assailed Decision, pp. 47-48. 24. Amended Decision, p. 9. 25. Amended Decision, p. 8. 26. SUBJECT: Clarification of Issues on the Additional Transactions Subject to Creditable Withholding Tax under Revenue Regulations No. 17-2003 (RR 17-2003),as Amended by RR 30-2003, RR 1-2004 and RR 3-2004. DEL ROSARIO, P.J.,concurring and dissenting opinion: 1. G.R. Nos. 201530 and 201680-81, April 19, 2017. 2. G.R. Nos. 200841-42, August 26, 2015. 3. Section 3. Hearing of the motion. The motion for reconsideration or new trial, as well as the opposition thereto, shall embody all supporting arguments and the movant shall set the same for hearing on the next available motion day. Upon the expiration of the period set forth in the next preceding section, without any opposition having been filed by the other party, the motion for reconsideration or new trial shall be considered submitted for resolution, unless the Court deems it necessary to hear the parties on oral argument, in which case the Court shall issue the proper order. (Boldfacing supplied) 4. Section 1. Review of cases in the Court en banc. In cases falling under the exclusive appellate jurisdiction of the Court en banc, the petition for review of a decision or resolution of the Court in Division must be preceded by the filing of a timely motion for reconsideration or new trial with the Division. (Sec. 1, Rule 8 of RRCTA) 5. Exhibit 2, BIR Records, p. 13. 6. Exhibit 1, BIR Records, p. 433. 7. CTA Division Docket, pp. 311-315. 8. CTA Division Docket, pp. 325-330. 9. Commissioner of Internal Revenue vs. Metro Star Superama, Inc. ,G.R. No. 185371, December 8, 2010. 10. G.R. No. 100152, March 31, 2000. 11. G.R. No. 183408, July 12, 2017. 12. Ramona T. Logronio vs. Roberto Taleseo ,G.R. No. 134602, August 6, 1999. 13. G.R. No. 222743, April 5, 2017. 14. Exhibit 12; CTA Division Docket, pp. 173-177. 15. Development Bank of the Philippines v. NLRC ,March 1, 1995, 242 SCRA 59; Albert v. Court of First Instance of Manila (Branch VI) ,L-26364, May 29, 1968, 23 SCRA 948 cited in the Concurring Opinion of Sandoval-Gutierrez, J., Raul L. Lambino v. The Commission on Elections ,G.R. No. 174153, October 25, 2006. RINGPIS-LIBAN, J.,concurring and dissenting opinion: 1. G.R. Nos. 201530 & 201680-81, April 19, 2017. 2. CTA EB No. 1406, July 07, 2017. 3. Docket, pp. 1304-1319, "Motion for Partial Reconsideration" filed by the CIR; id. ,pp. 1347-1375, "Motion for Partial Reconsideration" filed by Oriental Assurance Corporation.