Case Digest (G.R. No. 256116) Core Legal Reasoning Model
Core Legal Reasoning Model
Facts:
In Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Filminera Resources Corporation, the Commissioner of Internal Revenue (petitioner) challenged the grant of a Tax Credit Certificate worth ₱111,579,541.76 in favor of Filminera Resources Corporation (respondent). On July 5, 2007, Filminera agreed to sell ore to Philippine Gold Processing and Refining Corporation (PGPRC), a Board of Investments-registered (BOI-registered) enterprise. For the third and fourth quarters of the fiscal year ending June 30, 2010, all of Filminera’s sales were made to PGPRC. On March 30 and June 29, 2012, Filminera filed amended quarterly VAT returns and administrative claims for refund or issuance of a TCC for its unutilized input VAT attributable to these zero-rated sales. After the Department of Finance-BIR failed to act, Filminera brought two petitions before the Court of Tax Appeals (CTA) which were consolidated as CTA Case Nos. 8528 & 8576. The CTA Division initially denied the petitions on September 25, 2014 Case Digest (G.R. No. 256116) Expanded Legal Reasoning Model
Expanded Legal Reasoning Model
Facts:
- Parties and Agreement
- Commissioner of Internal Revenue (CIR) filed Rule 45 petition against Filminera Resources Corporation (Filminera Resources).
- On July 5, 2007, Filminera Resources and Philippine Gold Processing and Refining Corporation (PGPRC), a BOI-registered enterprise, executed an Ore Sales and Purchase Agreement.
- Sales Transactions and VAT Returns
- For the third and fourth quarters of fiscal year ending June 30, 2010, Filminera Resources sold all its output to PGPRC.
- On March 30 and June 29, 2012, Filminera Resources filed amended quarterly VAT returns and administrative claims for refund or tax credit certificates (TCC) of unutilized input VAT attributable to zero-rated sales, claiming ₱111,579,541.76.
- Proceedings Before the Court of Tax Appeals (CTA)
- Filminera Resources filed CTA petitions (Nos. 8528 & 8576); cases were consolidated and trial ensued.
- CTA Division Decision (September 25, 2014) denied claims for insufficiency of evidence—Filminera Resources failed to prove that PGPRC actually exported its purchases.
- Filminera Resources filed a motion for reconsideration, submitting a BOI Certification dated January 27, 2010, attesting 100% export of PGPRC’s sales for January 1–December 31, 2009.
- CTA Division Amended Decision (May 25, 2015) granted refund/TCC, citing validity of BOI Certification for the period covering the claims. The CIR’s reconsideration was denied (September 10, 2015).
- CTA En Banc dismissed CIR’s petition (March 29, 2017) and denied its motion for reconsideration (November 16, 2017), affirming zero-rating based on BOI Certification.
- Petition to the Supreme Court
- CIR filed Petition for Review on Certiorari (Rule 45), arguing BOI Certification did not cover January 1–June 30, 2010 and failed to prove actual export for that period.
- Filminera Resources opposed, contending the petition lacked attachments and raised factual issues beyond Rule 45; alternatively, it maintained its entitlement to refund.
- CIR replied, asserting substantial compliance with Rule 45 via attachment of the dissenting opinion reproducing the BOI Certification.
Issues:
- Did the Petition for Review on Certiorari substantially comply with Rule 45’s attachment requirements despite not including a separate certified copy of the BOI Certification?
- Are the sales made by Filminera Resources to PGPRC during the third and fourth quarters of FY 2010 zero-rated export sales under the 1997 NIRC, given the BOI Certification dated January 27, 2010?
- Does the Court have jurisdiction to decide the issue as a question of law rather than a question of fact?
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)