Case Digest (G.R. No. 209324)
Facts:
Republic of the Philippines, represented by the Bureau of Customs v. Pilipinas Shell Petroleum Corporation, G.R. No. 209324, December 09, 2015, Supreme Court Third Division, Villarama, Jr., J., writing for the Court.
The dispute arose after Tax Credit Certificates (TCCs) originally issued to Filipino Way Industries (FWI) and later assigned to Pilipinas Shell Petroleum Corporation (PSPC) were declared fraudulent and cancelled by the One-Stop Shop Inter-Agency Tax Credit and Duty Drawback Center (the “Center”). Under a Deed of Assignment dated May 7, 1997, FWI assigned four TCCs totaling P10,088,912.00 to PSPC, which PSPC used to pay customs duties and internal revenue taxes on its importations. Believing the TCCs valid, the Bureau of Customs (BOC) accepted their use.
On November 3, 1999 the Center informed the BIR and the Customs Commissioner that, pursuant to EXCOM Resolution No. 03-05-99, various TDMs against TCCs — including the subject TCCs — were cancelled as fraudulently issued and transferred; it directed collection against the amounts utilized. On April 3, 2002 the BOC filed a collection suit in the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Manila, Branch 49 (Civil Case No. 02-103191) to recover P10,088,912.00 from PSPC and FWI. PSPC meanwhile filed petitions in the Court of Tax Appeals (CTA Case No. 6484) and sought to dismiss the RTC case for lack of jurisdiction and prematurity.
The RTC denied PSPC’s motions to dismiss; PSPC unsuccessfully sought certiorari relief from the Court of Appeals and then filed a petition for review in the Supreme Court (G.R. No. 161953), which in a March 6, 2008 decision held the RTC had jurisdiction and remanded the case to the RTC to proceed with pre-trial and trial. The CTA proceedings produced a separate appeal (G.R. No. 176380) also denied by this Court, which held the matters were appropriate for resolution in the RTC collection case rather than by the CTA.
At pre-trial the RTC identified contested issues, notably whether PSPC was a transferee in good faith and for value and whether the TCCs were spurious. PSPC moved for summary judgment, relying on prior Supreme Court rulings (notably Pilipinas Shell Petroleum Corporation v. CIR) and on prescription; the BOC opposed, asserting factual disputes — including alleged fraudulent procurement and transfer of the TCCs — that required full trial. The RTC initially denied summary judgment (Feb. 22, 2010), then on reconsideration reversed itself and granted PSPC’s motion, dismissed the case against PSPC and ordered trial to continue only against FWI (Order dated April 28, 2010).
The BOC appealed to the Court of Appeals (CA). The CA denied the appeal and affirmed the RTC’s Orders in a Decision dated February 13, 2013 and denied reconsideration (Resolution June 3, 2013), reasoning that the propriety of summary judgment presented a pure question ...(Pro-only)
Issues:
- Is the appeal from the RTC orders granting summary judgment a case of pure questions of law requiring a petition for review under Rule 45 rather than an ordinary appeal under Rule 41?
- Was the grant of summary judgment by the RTC proper?
- Does this case fall squarely under the doctrine of stare decisis as established in Pilipinas Shell Petroleum Corporation v. CIR?
- Is the BOC’s collec...(Pro-only)
Ruling:
- (Pro-only)
Ratio:
- (Pro-only)
Doctrine:
- (Pro-only)