SECOND DIVISION
[G.R. No. 238672. July 9, 2018.]
COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE AND COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, petitioners,vs. PHILIPPINE AIRLINES, INC., respondent.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Second Division, issued a Resolution dated09 July 2018which reads as follows: ICHDca
"G.R. No. 238672 (Commissioner of Internal Revenue and Commissioner of Customs v. Philippine Airlines, Inc.)
After a judicious study of the case, the Court resolves to DENY the instant petition and AFFIRM the Court of Tax Appeals (CTA) En Banc's October 18, 2017 Decision 1 and April 5, 2018 Resolution 2 in CTA EB No. 1433 for failure of petitioners Commissioner of Internal Revenue and Commissioner of Customs to sufficiently show that the CTA En Banc committed any reversible error in partially granting the petition before it and remanding the case to the CTA Division for the determination of the amount of refund due to respondent Philippine Airlines, Inc. (PAL).
Case law states that the issue of PAL's noncompliance with the conditions 3 set in Section 13 4 of Presidential Decree No. (PD) 1590 5 for its imported supplies to be exempt from excise tax, involves factual determinations that are best left to the CTA. 6 Considering that the CTA is a highly specialized body that reviews tax cases, its findings are binding on this Court, absent any showing that they are unsupported by substantial evidence. 7
In the present case, the CTA En Banc had found PAL to have sufficiently established that the alcohol products it imported on various dates from 2007 to 2010 complied with the conditions set in PD 1590. As for the cigarettes, the CTA En Banc agreed with the findings of the CTA Division that PAL failed to prove compliance with the conditions for exemption under PD 1590. Absent any showing that these findings are unsupported by substantial evidence, they are binding before the Court. Finally, the CTA En Banc is not prohibited from remanding the case to the CTA Division for the determination of the amount of refund due to PAL. To stress, the remand does not give PAL another opportunity to present its case but only directs the CTA Division to determine the amount of refund in light of the CTA En Banc's ruling. TCAScE
SO ORDERED."
Very truly yours,
MA. LOURDES C. PERFECTODivision Clerk of CourtBy:(SGD.) TERESITA AQUINO TUAZONDeputy Division Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1.Rollo, pp. 10-32. Penned by Associate Justice Caesar A. Casanova with Presiding Justice Roman G. Del Rosario and Associate Justices Lovell R. Bautista, Erlinda P. Uy, Ma. Belen M. Ringpis-Liban, and Catherine T. Manahan concurring. On the other hand, Associate Justice Esperanza R. Fabon-Victorino filed her Concurring and Dissenting Opinion while Associate Justice Juanito C. Castañeda, Jr. voted to affirm the CTA Division's Decision.
2.Id. at 37-40.
3. In Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Philippine Airlines, Inc. (742 Phil. 84, 96 [2014]), the Court stated that these conditions are: (1) such supplies are imported for the use of the franchisee in its transport/non-transport operations and other incidental activities; and (2) they are not locally available in reasonable quantity, quality and price.
4. SEC. 13. In consideration of the franchise and rights hereby granted, the grantee shall pay to the Philippine Government during the life of this franchise whichever of subsections (a) and (b) hereunder will result in a lower tax:
xxx xxx xxx
(2) All taxes, including compensating taxes, duties, charges, royalties, or fees due on all importations by the grantee of aircraft, engines, equipment, machinery, spare parts, accessories, commissary and catering supplies, aviation gas, fuel, and oil, whether refined or in crude form and other articles, supplies, or materials; provided, that such articles or supplies or materials are imported for the use of the grantee in its transport and nontransport operations and other activities incidental thereto and are not locally available in reasonable quantity, quality, or price;
xxx xxx xxx
5. Entitled "AN ACT GRANTING A NEW FRANCHISE TO PHILIPPINE AIRLINES, INC. TO ESTABLISH, OPERATE, AND MAINTAIN AIR-TRANSPORT SERVICES IN THE PHILIPPINES AND BETWEEN THE PHILIPPINES AND OTHER COUNTRIES"; approved on June 11, 1978.
6.Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Philippine Airlines, Inc., G.R. Nos. 215705-07, February 22, 2017, citing Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Philippine Airlines, Inc., 742 Phil. 84, 96 (2014).
7.Republic v. Philippine Airlines, Inc., 763 Phil. 108, 118 (2015).