SPECIAL FIRST DIVISION

[G.R. No. 207843. February 14, 2018.]

COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE , petitioner, vs . COURT OF

TAX APPEALS and PETRON CORPORATION , respondents.

RESOLUTION

PERLAS-BERNABE , J : p

For the Court's resolution is a motion for reconsideration 1 led by respondent

Petron Corporation (Petron) on the Court's Decision 2 dated July 15, 2015 which set
aside the Resolutions dated February 13, 2013 3 and May 8, 2013 4 issued by the Court
of Tax Appeals (CTA) in CTA Case No. 8544 and thereby, dismissed the petition for
review 5 before the court a quo for lack of jurisdiction and prematurity.

The Facts

On June 29, 2012, petitioner Commissioner of Internal Revenue (CIR) issued a

Letter 6 interpreting Section 148 (e) of the National Internal Revenue Code 7 (NIRC) and
thereby, opining that " alkylate, which is a product of distillation similar to naphtha, is
subject to tax." 8 In implementation thereof, the Commissioner of Customs (COC)
issued Customs Memorandum Circular (CMC) No. 164-2012. Not long after, and in
compliance with CMC No. 164-2012, the Collector of Customs assessed excise tax on
Petron's importation of alkylate. 9
Petron led a petition for review 1 0 before the CTA, contesting the allegedly
erroneous classi cation of alkylate and the resultant imposition of excise tax arising
from the CIR's interpretation of Section 148 (e) of the NIRC.
On February 13, 2013, the CTA issued the rst assailed Resolution, 1 1 reversing
its initial dismissal of Petron's petition for review and giving due course thereto. 1 2 It
explained that the controversy was not essentially about the constitutionality or legality
of CMC No. 164-2012 but a question on the propriety of the interpretation of Section
148 (e) of the NIRC in reference to the tax treatment of Petron's alkylate importation,
which is within the CTA's jurisdiction to review. 1 3 The CTA also held that the
substantial and grave damage and injury that would be suffered from the threatened
collection of excise tax warranted the non-exhaustion of administrative remedies and
justified Petron's immediate resort to judicial action. 1 4
The CIR led a motion for reconsideration, 1 5 which the CTA denied in the second
assailed Resolution 1 6 dated May 8, 2013. Subsequently, the CIR elevated the matter to
the Court through a petition for certiorari, 1 7 alleging that the CTA had no jurisdiction to
take cognizance of a case involving the CIR's exercise of interpretative or quasi-
legislative functions and that there was yet no nal decision by the COC that was
properly appealable to the CTA.
In the July 15, 2015 Decision, the Court upheld the CIR's position that the CTA
could not take cognizance of the case because the latter's jurisdiction to resolve tax
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2018 cdasiaonline.com
 disputes excluded the power to rule on the constitutionality or validity of a law, rule or
regulation and that, in any case, it was premature to elevate a customs collector's
assessment without a prior protest and an appeal to the COC. 1 8 Accordingly, the Court
ordered the dismissal of Petron's petition for review filed before the CTA. 1 9
Dissatisfied, Petron filed a motion for reconsideration 2 0 dated October 5, 2015.

The Issue before the Court

The sole issue in this case is whether or not the Court's July 15, 2015 Decision,
which ordered the dismissal of Petron's petition for review before the CTA on the
grounds of lack of jurisdiction and prematurity, should be reconsidered.

The Court's Ruling

At the onset, Petron insists that the CTA has jurisdiction to pass upon the validity
of the CIR's interpretative ruling on alkylate, arguing that the CTA may rule on the validity
of a revenue regulation, ruling, issuance or other matters arising under the NIRC and
other tax laws administered by the Bureau of Internal Revenue (BIR). As basis, Petron
cites for the rst time in its motion for reconsideration the Court's ruling in The
Philippine American Life and General Insurance Company v. The Secretary of Finance
and the Commissioner of Internal Revenue 2 1 (Philamlife).
Philamlife is a 2014 case decided by a Division of the Court, which controversy
arose from an unfavorable ruling by the Secretary of Finance that a rmed, through its
power of review under Section 4 of the NIRC, the CIR's denial of a request to be cleared
of liability for donor's tax. Noting the absence of an express provision in the law
concerning further appeals from the Secretary of Finance, the issue framed for
resolution was — "where does one seek immediate recourse from the adverse ruling of
the Secretary of Finance in its exercise of its power of review under Sec. 4?" 2 2
Resolving this issue, the Court in Philamlife held that:
Admittedly, there is no provision of law that expressly provides where
exactly the ruling of the Secretary of Finance under the adverted NIRC provision
is appealable to. However, We nd that Sec. 7(a)(1) of RA 1125, as amended,
addresses the seeming gap in the law as it vests the CTA, albeit impliedly, with
jurisdiction over the CA petition as "other matters" arising under the NIRC or
other laws administered by the BIR. As stated:
Sec. 7. Jurisdiction. — The CTA shall exercise:
a. Exclusive appellate jurisdiction to review by appeal, as herein
provided:
1. Decisions of the Commissioner of Internal Revenue
in cases involving disputed assessments, refunds of
internal revenue taxes, fees or other charges, penalties in
relation thereto, or other matters arising under the National
Internal Revenue or other laws administered by the Bureau
of Internal Revenue. x x x
Even though the provision suggests that it only covers rulings of the
Commissioner, We hold that it is, nonetheless, su cient enough to include
appeals from the Secretary's review under Sec. 4 of the NIRC. 2 3
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2018 cdasiaonline.com
 Corollary to this disposition, however, the Court's Third Division extended its
discussion on the issue regarding the CTA's jurisdiction over the rulings of the CIR, viz.:
Evidently, City of Manila can be considered as a departure from Ursal in
that in spite of there being no express grant in law, the CTA is deemed granted
with powers of certiorari by implication. Moreover, City of Manila diametrically
opposes British American Tobacco to the effect that it is now within the power
of the CTA, through its power of certiorari, to rule on the validity of a particular
administrative rule or regulation so long as it is within its appellate jurisdiction.
Hence, it can now rule not only on the propriety of an assessment or tax
treatment of a certain transaction, but also on the validity of the revenue
regulation or revenue memorandum circular on which the said assessment is
based. 2 4
The foregoing remarks appear to be in direct opposition to the ruling in British
American Tobacco v. Camacho, et al . 2 5 (British American Tobacco ), which is a 2008
case decided by the Court En Banc, cited as basis by the Court in its July 15, 2015
Decision in this case regarding the issue of jurisdiction.
The apparent con icting jurisprudence on the matter involving the Court's 2008
En Banc ruling in British American Tobacco and the Court's Third Division Ruling in
Philamlife has been seemingly settled in the 2016 En Banc case of Banco De Oro v.
Republic of the Philippines 2 6 (Banco De Oro) wherein it was opined that:
Section 7 of Republic Act No. 1125, as amended, is explicit that, except
for local taxes, appeals from the decisions of quasi-judicial agencies
(Commissioner of Internal Revenue, Commissioner of Customs, Secretary of
Finance, Central Board of Assessment Appeals, Secretary of Trade and Industry)
on tax-related problems must be brought exclusively to the Court of Tax
Appeals.
In other words, within the judicial system, the law intends the
Court of Tax Appeals to have exclusive jurisdiction to resolve all tax
problems . Petitions for writs of certiorari against the acts and omissions of the
said quasi-judicial agencies should thus be led before the Court of Tax
Appeals.
Republic Act No. 9282, a special and later law than Batas Pambansa Blg.
129 provides an exception to the original jurisdiction of the Regional Trial
Courts over actions questioning the constitutionality or validity of tax laws or
regulations. Except for local tax cases, actions directly challenging the
constitutionality or validity of a tax law or regulation or administrative issuance
may be filed directly before the Court of Tax Appeals.
Furthermore, with respect to administrative issuances (revenue orders,
revenue memorandum circulars, or rulings), these are issued by the
Commissioner under its power to make rulings or opinions in connection with
the implementation of the provisions of internal revenue laws. Tax rulings, on
the other hand, are o cial positions of the Bureau on inquiries of taxpayers
who request clari cation on certain provisions of the National Internal Revenue
Code, other tax laws, or their implementing regulations. Hence, the
determination of the validity of these issuances clearly falls within
the exclusive appellate jurisdiction of the Court of Tax Appeals under
Section 7(1) of Republic Act No. 1125, as amended, subject to prior
review by the Secretary of Finance, as required under Republic Act No.
8424 . 2 7 (Emphases supplied)

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2018 cdasiaonline.com

 The En Banc ruling in Banco De Oro has since not been overturned and thus,
stands as the prevailing jurisprudence on the matter. Accordingly, the Court is
prompted to reconsider its ruling in this case with respect to the issue of jurisdiction.
However, the Court had also dismissed Petron's petition for review before the
CTA on the ground of prematurity. Unlike in Philamlife where the petition for review was
led before the Secretary of Finance, Petron in this case directly elevated for review to
the CTA the customs collector's computation or assessment , which is not a proper
subject of appeal. To reiterate the Court's decision in the main:
x x x The [Tariff and Customs Code] prescribes that a party adversely affected
by a ruling or decision of the customs collector may protest such ruling or
decision upon payment of the amount due and, if aggrieved by the action of the
customs collector on the matter under protest, may have the same reviewed by
the COC. It is only after the COC shall have made an adverse ruling on the
matter may the aggrieved party file an appeal to the CTA.
x x x There being no protest ruling by the customs collector that was appealed
to the COC, the ling of the petition before the CTA was premature as
there was nothing yet to review . 2 8 (Emphasis supplied)
Nevertheless, Petron has presently manifested that it had already complied with
the protest procedure prescribed under the NIRC, and later on, led an administrative
claim 2 9 for refund and/or tax credit with the BIR on November 21, 2013. 3 0 Records are
bereft of any showing that the CIR had already acted on its claim and hence, Petron
led before the CTA a Supplemental Petition for Review 3 1 to include a claim for refund
and/or tax credit of the excise tax that was levied on its alkylate importation. The CTA
then gave due course to the petition and, as per Petron's manifestation, the parties have
already been undergoing trial. 3 2 Consequently, considering that the CTA had taken
cognizance of Petron's claim for judicial refund of tax which, under Section 7 (a) (1) 3 3
of RA 1125, is within its jurisdiction, the Court nds that these supervening
circumstances have already mooted the issue of prematurity. Thus, in conjunction with
the Banco De Oro ruling that the CTA has jurisdiction to resolve all tax matters (which
includes the validity of the CIR's interpretation and consequent imposition of excise tax
on alkylate), the Court finds it proper to reconsider its decision.
WHEREFORE , the motion for reconsideration is GRANTED . Respondent Petron
Corporation's petition for review docketed as CTA Case No. 8544 is hereby
DECLARED to be within the jurisdiction of the Court of Tax Appeals, which is
DIRECTED to resolve the case with dispatch.
SO ORDERED .
Sereno, C.J., Leonardo-de Castro, Bersamin and Tijam, * JJ., concur.
Footnotes
* Designated member per A.M. No. 17-03-03-SC dated March 14, 2017.
1. Rollo, pp. 371-400.

2. Id. at 360-370. See also Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Court of Tax Appeals, 764 Phil.
195 (2015).

3. Id. at 37-56.
4. Id. at 58-62.

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2018 cdasiaonline.com

 5. Dated September 24, 2012. Id. at 203-236.
6. Not attached to the rollo.
7. Republic Act No. (RA) 8424, entitled "AN ACT AMENDING THE NATIONAL INTERNAL
REVENUE CODE, AS AMENDED, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES," approved on December
11, 1997.

8. Rollo, p. 207.
9. Id.

10. Id. at 203-236.

11. Id. at 37-56.
12. Id. at 46-47.

13. See id. at 40 and 44.

14. See id. at 46.

15. Dated March 1, 2013. Id. at 327-348.

16. Id. at 57-71.

17. Dated July 11, 2013. Id. at 2-33.

18. See id. at 366-369.
19. Id. at 369.

20. Id. at 371-398.

21. 747 Phil. 811 (2014).

22. Id. at 823.

23. Id. at 823-824.

24. Id. at 831.

25. 584 Phil. 489 (2008).
26. G.R. No. 198756, August 16, 2016, 800 SCRA 392.

27. Id. at 418-420; citations omitted.

28. Rollo, pp. 368-369. See also Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Court of Tax Appeals,
supra note 2 at 210; citations omitted.
29. See Letter dated November 19, 2013, which was received by the BIR on November 21, 2013;
id. at 417-426.
30. See id. at 373 and 395-396.
31. Dated January 24, 2014. Id. at 434-442.

32. Id. at 396 and 406.

33. Section 7. Jurisdiction. — The CTA shall exercise:

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2018 cdasiaonline.com

    a. Exclusive appellate jurisdiction to review by appeal, as herein provided:

   1. Decisions of the Commissioner on Internal Revenue in cases involving disputed

assessments, refunds of internal revenue taxes, fees or other charges, penalties in
relation thereto, or other matters arising under the National Internal Revenue Code or
other laws administered by the Bureau of Internal Revenue[.]

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2018 cdasiaonline.com