G.R. No. 233930 - Baquirin vs. Dela Rosa

On January 15, 2007, the City of Manila issued a Statement of Account assessing Cosmos Bottling Corporation (Cosmos) for P1,226,781.05 in local business taxes and regulatory fees for the first quarter of 2007.
On January 18, 2007, Cosmos protested via letter, arguing that Tax Ordinances Nos. 7988 and 8011 were void and that imposing both Section 14 and Section 21 taxes constituted double taxation. Cosmos tendered P131,994.23 as the correct tax, which the City Treasurer refused.
The City Treasurer denied the protest and Cosmos paid the full assessed amount (P1,226,781.05) on February 13, 2007.

On March 1, 2007, Cosmos filed a claim for refund of P1,094,786.82 with the Office of the City Treasurer, reiterating its grounds.
On March 8, 2007, Cosmos filed a complaint (Civil Case No. 01-116881) with the RTC–Manila seeking revision of the assessment and refund or issuance of a tax credit certificate for P1,094,786.82.
On April 14, 2009, the RTC enjoined the City Treasurer from imposing Section 21 tax if Section 14 tax was already imposed, but denied the refund prayer. Cosmos’s motion for partial reconsideration was denied.
Cosmos filed a petition for review with the CTA Third Division (CTA A.C. No. 60).
On November 9, 2010, the CTA Third Division partially reversed the RTC: enjoined dual taxation, declared Ordinances 7988/8011 void, and ordered refund or issuance of a tax credit certificate for P1,094,786.82.
Petitioners filed a petition directly with the CTA En Banc without first seeking reconsideration before the CTA Division.
On February 16, 2011, the CTA En Banc dismissed the petition for lack of a prior motion for reconsideration or new trial.
On April 20, 2011, the CTA En Banc denied the petitioners’ motion for reconsideration.
Petitioners then filed a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 with the Supreme Court.

Whether the CTA En Banc correctly dismissed the petition for review for failure to file a motion for reconsideration or new trial before the CTA Division.

Whether a taxpayer who has protested and paid an assessment may thereafter shift its remedy to an action for refund.