Case Digest (G.R. No. 234614)
Facts:
Oceanagold (Philippines), Inc. v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, G.R. No. 234614, June 14, 2023, Supreme Court Third Division, Dimaampao, J., writing for the Court. Petitioner Oceanagold (Philippines), Inc. (formerly Australasian Philippines Mining, Inc.) succeeded to the rights of Climax-Arimco Mining Corporation under a Financial or Technical Assistance Agreement (FTAA) covering mineral development in Nueva Vizcaya and Quirino, and thereafter obtained DENR approval to operate the Didipio mining project following the filing and approval of a Partial Declaration of Mining Feasibility.In 2007 petitioner sought and received BIR Ruling No. 10-2007, wherein the Bureau of Internal Revenue (BIR) confirmed excise-tax exemption for minerals during the recovery period under the FTAA and applicable law. In 2012 the BIR’s Revenue Region No. 3 issued a mission order authorizing searches and detentions of excisable articles. Beginning February 11, 2013, revenue officers seized and detained copper concentrates that petitioner was transporting (apprehension slips dated February 11, 12, 20 and March 1, 2013), and the BIR later issued Revenue Memorandum Circular No. 17-2013 (RMC No. 17-2013) which revoked BIR Ruling No. 10-2007.
Petitioner protested administratively and filed a Petition for Review with the Court of Tax Appeals (CTA) Second Division, seeking to annul the seizures and the alleged illegal collection of excise taxes and to invalidate RMC No. 17-2013; the Second Division initially issued a Suspension Order after petitioner posted bond. The Commissioner filed an Omnibus Motion challenging the CTA’s jurisdiction; the Second Division at first denied the motion but later (Resolution, June 13, 2014) granted reconsideration, set aside the earlier Resolution, denied the petition for lack of jurisdiction and lifted the Suspension Order, applying the doctrine that validity of administrative rules is a matter for regular courts. Petitioner’s motion for reconsideration was denied (Resolution dated September 1, 2014), and petitioner appealed to the CTA En Banc.
The CTA En Banc affirmed the Second Division (Decision dated June 16, 2016), holding the CTA lacked jurisdiction because petitioner had failed to exhaust administrative remedies by elevating the question to the Secretary of Finance under the first paragraph of Section 4 of the National Internal Revenue Code (Tax Code); the En Banc also held the issue of the seizures could not be separated from the validity of RMC No. 17-2013. Petitioner’s motion for reconsideration before the CTA En Banc was denied (Resolution dated September 22, 2017). Pet...(Pro-only)
Issues:
- Did the Court of Tax Appeals have jurisdiction to entertain petitioner’s challenges to (a) the seizures and detention of its copper concentrates and (b) the validity of Revenue Memorandum Circular No. 17-2013?
- If jurisdiction exists, was petitioner required to exhaust administrative remedies before the Secretary of Finance, or do exceptions to exhaustion apply so that judic...(Pro-only)
Ruling:
- (Pro-only)
Ratio:
- (Pro-only)
Doctrine:
- (Pro-only)