G.R. No. 149927 - Republic vs. Rosemoor Mining and Development Corporation

Petitioner Board of Investments (BOI), a government agency under RA No. 5186 and attached to the Department of Trade and Industry (DTI), is responsible for promoting investments in the Philippines.
Respondent SR Metals, Inc. is a mining corporation operating in Tubay, Agusan del Norte.

On April 3, 2008, respondent filed an application with petitioner for registration as a new producer of beneficiated nickel ore on a non-pioneer status, related to its Nickel Project.
On June 4, 2008, petitioner approved the application and issued Certificate of Registration No. 2008-113, granting respondent an Income Tax Holiday (ITH) incentive valid from 2008 to 2012 under the Omnibus Investment Code.

On August 31, 2010, the Sangguniang Bayan of Tubay passed Resolution No. 2010-090 requesting cancellation of respondent’s BOI registration on grounds that:

Respondent was not a manufacturer or product processor or a beneficiation plant.
It engaged in direct shipping of unprocessed ore via open-cut mining, contrary to its registration as a producer of beneficiated nickel ore.
Respondent sought tax exemption without informing or consulting the local government and stakeholders.

The Sangguniang Bayan substantiated its claims with certifications from Municipal Engineer’s Office, Municipal Assessor’s Office, and Municipal Planning and Development Office confirming respondent had no processing plant or industrial building declared under its name.
On April 11, 2011, petitioner informed respondent of the local government’s resolution and requested a reply within 15 days.

On May 24, 2012, BOI notified respondent that its ITH incentive was withdrawn due to:

Non-compliance with 2007 Investments Priorities Plan (IPP) requirements, i.e., failure to establish another production line (beneficiation plant) and infuse new investment in fixed assets.
Failure to comply with specific terms and conditions in the Project Approval Sheet and Certificate, including submission of progress reports and adherence to project timetable for machinery acquisition.

Respondent moved for reconsideration, submitting evidence of machinery and equipment acquired constituting the beneficiation plant.
On August 12, 2013, petitioner denied the motion citing late filing, lack of new grounds, and absence of another plant and new investment.

Respondent filed a petition before the CA challenging BOI’s withdrawal of the ITH incentive.
On December 4, 2014, the CA ruled in favor of respondent, annulling and setting aside BOI’s withdrawal of ITH incentive, holding:

No requirement in the 2007 IPP to construct a beneficiation plant to avail of the ITH.
Respondent infused new investments, submitted progress reports, and complied with the project timetable.
Respondent was denied due process due to BOI’s failure to inform of formal investigation and inconsistent grounds for withdrawal.

Petitioner’s motion for reconsideration before the CA was denied on August 11, 2015.

Whether the terms and conditions of respondent’s registration included commitment to establish a beneficiation plant.
Whether the grant of ITH incentive is a matter of right despite failure to comply with registration terms.
Whether petitioner observed due process in withdrawing the ITH incentive.

Petitioner argued the incentive is a privilege conditionally granted, and respondent failed to fulfill commitments, including capital infusion and beneficiation plant construction.
Respondent raised procedural objections regarding the authority of the OIC managing head to sign the verification and certification of non-forum shopping, absence of essential attachments, and challenged the withdrawal’s substantive basis and alleged denial of due process.

Whether the terms and conditions of respondent SR Metals, Inc.’s Project Approval Sheet and BOI Certificate of Registration included the commitment to establish a beneficiation plant.

Whether the grant of the Income Tax Holiday (ITH) incentive is a matter of right upon approval of respondent’s registration despite failure to abide by the terms and conditions of its Certificate of Registration.

Whether the petitioner BOI observed due process in withdrawing respondent’s ITH incentive.

Whether the Officer-in-Charge (OIC) of BOI Managing Head had authority to sign the verification and certification of non-forum shopping.
Whether petitioner’s failure to attach material portions of the records from the Court of Appeals is a ground for dismissal.