Case Digest (G.R. No. 180909)
Facts:
Exxonmobil Petroleum and Chemical Holdings, Inc. - Philippine Branch v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, G.R. No. 180909, January 19, 2011, the Supreme Court Second Division, Mendoza, J., writing for the Court.Petitioner Exxonmobil Petroleum and Chemical Holdings, Inc. - Philippine Branch (Exxon), a Delaware corporation authorized to do business in the Philippines through a Philippine branch, purchased Jet A-1 fuel and other petroleum products from Caltex Philippines, Inc. and Petron Corporation, the excise taxes on which were paid and remitted by Caltex and Petron but were passed on to and borne by Exxon as part of the purchase price. Between November 2001 and June 2002 Exxon sold 28,635,841 liters of Jet A-1 fuel to international carriers and claimed that such sales were exempt from excise tax under Section 135(a) of the National Internal Revenue Code (NIRC).
Exxon filed administrative claims for refund with the Bureau of Internal Revenue (BIR) totaling Php105,093,536.47 and, after inaction by the BIR, filed a petition for review with the Court of Tax Appeals (CTA) on October 30, 2003 (CTA Case No. 6809). The parties filed a Joint Stipulation of Facts and Issues (June 24, 2004) presenting 14 issues. While Exxon was preparing evidence, the Commissioner of Internal Revenue (CIR) filed (January 28, 2005) a motion asking the CTA First Division to resolve first the preliminary question whether Exxon was the proper party to claim the refund.
On July 27, 2005 the CTA First Division sustained the CIR’s motion and dismissed Exxon’s petition; Exxon’s motion for reconsideration was denied on July 27, 2006. Exxon petitioned the CTA En Banc, which on September 7, 2007 affirmed the First Division’s dismissal and denied reconsideration on November 27, 2007. The CTA held that only the statutory taxpayer—the manufacturer or producer who is liable under Sec. 130(A)(2) and Sec. 129 of the NIRC—has the legal personality to claim a refund...(Pro-only)
Issues:
- Did the CTA err in granting the CIR’s motion to resolve first whether Exxon was the proper party to ask for a refund (i.e., was the motion an untimely motion to dismiss that should have been denied)?
- Whether Exxon, as distributor and vendor who paid (by virtue of passing-on) excise taxes on petroleum products sold to international carriers, may claim a ...(Pro-only)
Ruling:
- (Pro-only)
Ratio:
- (Pro-only)
Doctrine:
- (Pro-only)