Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Bank of the Philippine Islands

EIGHTH DIVISION [CA-G.R. SP No. 35485. February 27, 2007.] COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE , petitioner , vs . BANK OF THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS and the COURT OF TAX APPEALS , respondents . D E C I S I O N ABDULWAHID , J p : This is a petition for review filed by petitioner Commissioner of Internal Revenue (CIR), assailing the decision dated May 31, 1994 and resolution dated September 26, 1994 in CTA Case No. 4481, entitled " Bank of the Philippine Islands vs. Commissioner of Internal Revenue ." In sum, it is undisputed that from February 28, 1986 to October 8, 1986, private respondent Bank of the Philippine Islands (BPI) sold foreign bills of exchange to then Central Bank of the Philippines for a total value of P1,608,541,900.00. Pursuant to Section 182 of the Tax Code, as amended by Presidential Decree (PD) No. 1994, which allegedly took effect on January 1, 1986, the Commissioner of Internal Revenue (CIR) assessed BPI for deficiency documentary stamp tax amounting to P3,016,316.06. On November 9, 1988, BPI filed its protest on the assessment, but the same was denied per letter from the CIR dated June 7, 1990. On August 9, 1990, BPI filed a petition for review with the Court of Tax Appeals (CTA), insisting that it is not liable for the deficiency documentary stamp tax assessed by the CIR. 1 After hearing, the CTA rendered a decision dated May 31, 1994, in favor of the CIR, holding BPI liable under Section 182 of the Tax Code, as amended by P.D. No. 1994. However, the CTA further ruled that because PD 1994, though officially published in the Official Gazette on December 2, 1985, circulated only on June 18, 1986, the assessment should be computed from the circulation of the amending law. Hence, the CTA held BPI liable for P690,030.00. 2 On motion for reconsideration filed by both parties, the CTA modified its decision by adding that in addition to P690,030.00, BPI shall also be liable for "20% annual interest from August 10, 1990 until fully paid pursuant to Section 249 (a) of the Tax Code." 3 BPI filed a petition for review with the Court of Appeals, which was docketed as CA-G.R. SP No. 35383. 4 CIR, on the other hand, also filed the instant petition for review, which for some reason was not consolidated with BPI's petition for joint resolution. 5 Thus, BPI's petition was resolved by the Court through Justice Arturo B. Buena, affirming the decision of the CTA. 6 BPI filed a motion for reconsideration, but the same was denied per resolution dated December 29, 1998. 7 Thereafter, BPI filed a petition for review on certiorari with the Supreme Court, docketed as G.R. No. 137002, questioning the validity of the decision of the Court of Appeals. 8 Meanwhile, the instant case was raffled to Justice Jainal Rasul, who retired from the Court of Appeals without resolving the issues raised by petitioner CIR. Thus, the instant case was re-raffled to Justice Romeo Callejo, Sr., who temporarily suspended its resolution pending the decision of the Supreme Court in G.R. No. 137002, entitled " Bank of the Philippine Islands v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue ." 9 In the meantime, Justice Callejo Sr. was appointed to the Supreme Court. Hence, this case was re-raffled anew to the undersigned. As directed, petitioner has been informing this Court of the status of G.R. No. 137002 pending with the Supreme Court. 10 On July 27, 2006, the Supreme Court rendered a decision regarding BPI's petition for review on certiorari , i.e. G.R. No. 137002, the dispositive portion of which reads, as follows: 11 WHEREFORE, premises considered, this Court DENIES this petition and AFFIRMS the Decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 57362 ( sic ) 12 dated 14 August 1998, ordering that petitioner Bank of the Philippine Islands to pay Respondent Commissioner of Internal Revenue the deficiency documentary stamp tax in the amount of P690,030.00 inclusive of surcharge and compromise penalty, plus 20% annual interest from 7 June 1990 until fully paid. Costs against petitioner. IDaEHC SO ORDERED. In view of a possible modification of the Supreme Court's decision on motion for reconsideration by BPI, this Court required the parties to either comment on the status of the said decision of the Supreme Court or to submit a copy of the entry of judgment thereof. 13 In compliance therewith, both parties filed their respective comments. Both parties informed this Court that, although the entry of judgment has not yet been issued, the Supreme Court has denied with finality BPI's motion for reconsideration. 14 BPI further stated that this Court may now resolve the instant case since "the issuance of said entry of judgment is now just a matter of formality." 15 After a careful study of this case, we find that the issues raised herein by petitioner CIR had already been resolved in the decision of this Court in CA-G.R. SP No. 35383, which was affirmed by the Supreme Court in the decision in G.R. No. 137002, promulgated on July 27, 2006. In view of the finality of the Supreme Court's decision, we, therefore, resolve to dismiss the instant petition since there is no longer any need to pass upon the same. WHEREFORE, the instant petition is DISMISSED for the reasons discussed herein. SO ORDERED. Dacudao and Tayag, JJ., concur. Footnotes 1. Rollo , pp. 16-18. 2. Rollo , pp. 35-48. 3. Rollo , pp. 49-54, at p. 54. 4. Rollo , pp. 118-131. 5. Rollo , p. 208. 6. Rollo , pp. 162-171. 7. Rollo , p. 173. 8. Rollo , pp. 174-205. 9. Erroneously referred to as " Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Court of Appeals, et al. ", Rollo , p. 224. 10. Rollo , pp. 222-258. 11. Rollo , pp. 260-274, at p. 274. 12. Supposedly, CA-G.R. SP No. 35383. 13. Rollo , pp. 285-288. 14. Rollo , pp. 289-291 (BPI) and pp. 292-293 (CIR). 15. Rollo , p. 290.