SECOND DIVISION
[G.R. Nos. 227201-02. February 12, 2018.]
PHILIPPINE BANK OF COMMUNICATIONS, petitioner, vs.COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, respondent.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Second Division, issued a Resolution dated12 February 2018which reads as follows: ITAaHc
"G.R. Nos. 227201-02 (Philippine Bank of Communications v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue)
After a judicious study of the case, the Court resolves to DENY the instant petition and AFFIRM the March 21, 2016 Decision 1 and September 9, 2016 Resolution 2 of the Court of Tax Appeals (CTA) En Banc in CTA EB Nos. 1194 and 1199 for failure of petitioner Philippine Bank of Communications (petitioner) to sufficiently show that it is entitled to the refund of the additional amount of P2,072,352.81 as claimed in its petition.
As correctly ruled by the CTA En Banc, petitioner was able to prove its entitlement to a refund only for the amount of P34,783,511.66 out of its original total claim of P44,562,995.05. Case law explains that "[t]he CTA has developed an expertise on the subject of taxation because it is a specialized court dedicated exclusively to the study and resolution of tax problems. As such, its findings of fact are accorded the highest respect and are generally conclusive upon this Court, in the absence of grave abuse of discretion or palpable error," 3 which was not, however, shown in this case.
In addition, the Court notes that petitioner raised factual issues which are generally proscribed in a Rule 45 petition under the Rules of Court. 4 While the lower tribunal's gross misapprehension of facts is an exception to this rule, petitioner, however, failed to attach the material portions of the record (i.e., its Annual and Amended Income Tax Returns, General Ledger, and BIR Forms), which not only contravenes Section 4 5 of the same rule, but more so, renders the Court incapable of determining if the CTA En Banc had indeed misapprehended the facts.
And finally, as respondent Commissioner of Internal Revenue pointed out, petitioner only raised for the first time in its petition its specific factual arguments for the claim of P2,072,352.81 and that the same were never pointed out in its pleadings filed before the CTA En Banc, as in fact, its Motion for Partial Reconsideration before the latter court was adjudged to be a mere rehash of its original P44,562,995.05 refund claim.
For all these reasons, the Court denies the instant petition.
SO ORDERED. (CAGUIOA, J., on official business)"
Very truly yours,
MA. LOURDES C. PERFECTODivision Clerk of CourtBy:(SGD.) TERESITA AQUINO TUAZONDeputy Division Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1.Rollo, pp. 42-57. Penned by Presiding Justice Roman G. Del Rosario with Associate Justices Juanito C. Castañeda, Jr., Lovell R. Bautista, Erlinda P. Uy, Caesar A. Casanova, Esperanza R. Fabon-Victorino, Cielito N. Mindaro-Grulla, and Amelia R. Cotangco-Manalastas concurring. Associate Justice Ma. Belen M. Ringpis-Liban was on leave.
2.Id. at 60-63. Penned by Presiding Justice Roman G. Del Rosario with Associate Justices Juanito C. Castañeda, Jr., Lovell R. Bautista, Erlinda P. Uy, Caesar A. Casanova, Cielito N. Mindaro-Grulla, Amelia R. Cotangco-Manalastas, and Ma. Belen M. Ringpis-Liban concurring. Associate Justice Esperanza R. Fabon-Victorino was on official business.
3.Eastern Telecommunications Philippines, Inc. v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, 693 Phil. 464, 475 (2012); citations omitted.
4. See Fortune Tobacco Corporation v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, 762 Phil. 450, 459 (2015).
5. SEC. 4. Contents of petition. — The petition shall be filed in eighteen (18) copies, with the original copy intended for the court being indicated as such by the petitioner and shall x x x (d) be accompanied by a clearly legible duplicate original, or a certified true copy of the judgment or final order or resolution certified by the clerk of court of the court a quo and the requisite number of plain copies thereof, and such material portions of the record as would support the petition; x x x (Emphases supplied)