G.R. No. 144638 - Matagumpay Maritime Co., Inc. vs. Dela Cruz

On October 7, 2004, Chevron Philippines, Inc. (Chevron) filed an administrative claim for refund or credit with the Bureau of Internal Revenue (BIR) under Claim No. 2004-XP-11/03 for an aggregate amount of P131,175,480.18, alleging overpayment of excise taxes on imported finished unleaded premium gasoline and diesel fuel for November 2003.
The BIR did not act on Chevron’s claim, prompting Chevron to elevate the matter to the Court of Tax Appeals (CTA) via a petition for review on October 28, 2005 pursuant to Section 7 of R.A. No. 1125, as amended by R.A. No. 9282.

On July 12, 2010, the CTA-Special First Division rendered a Decision partly granting Chevron’s petition, ordering the BIR to refund Chevron the amount of P108,585,162.95.
Following the decision, the BIR moved for reconsideration on August 3, 2010, to challenge the decision.

Chevron opposed the BIR’s motion for reconsideration by filing its Comment/Opposition on August 17, 2010, contending that the motion was pro forma as it lacked the mandatory notice of hearing as required by Sections 3 and 6 of the Revised Rules of the CTA.
The CTA-Special First Division, in its Resolution dated September 24, 2010, affirmed Chevron’s position by deeming the BIR’s motion for reconsideration a “mere scrap of paper” and not meriting judicial attention, thereby not tolling the reglementary period to appeal.
Despite this, the BIR again filed a motion for reconsideration, which the CTA-Special First Division denied on December 3, 2010, declaring its prior Decision (dated July 12, 2010) final and executory.

The CTA-Special First Division issued an Entry of Judgment on January 10, 2011, certifying the finality and executory nature of the Decision ordering the refund to Chevron.
Chevron then moved for the issuance of a Writ of Execution on January 11, 2011.
Concurrently, the BIR filed a Motion to Lift the Entry of Judgment on the ground that it intended to exhaust the remedy of filing a Petition for Certiorari before the Supreme Court under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court.

On February 7, 2011, the BIR filed a Petition for Certiorari with the Supreme Court, challenging the CTA-Special First Division’s Resolutions dated September 24, 2010 and December 3, 2010.
The BIR argued that the CTA-Special First Division gravely abused its discretion by treating its motion for reconsideration as pro forma, thereby causing the reglementary period to appeal to run its course.

Whether a Special Civil Action for Certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court is available as a remedy for the BIR in this case.
Whether, given the existence of an alternative and plain remedy (i.e., appeal to the CTA En Banc), certiorari may be substituted.

Whether the CTA-Special First Division gravely abused its discretion by declaring the BIR’s motion for reconsideration (filed on August 3, 2010) a pro forma motion for lack of compliance with the hearing notice requirement.
Whether the CTA-Special First Division’s subsequent resolution rendering its Decision final and executory was tainted by such abuse of discretion.