BIR vs Ernesto Acosta

Joya, Donald Jude H.

FACTS

 On October 7 2004, Chevron Philippines, Inc. filed an administrative claim

for refund or credit with the BIR for the alleged overpayment of excise taxes
on imported finished premium gasoline, in the amount of P131,175,480.18
for the month of November 2003
 BIR did not act on the Claim of Chevron – elevated the case to the CTA
Special First Division via petition for review. CTA-Special First Division granted
the decision
 BIR moved for reconsideration. Chevron alleged that BIR’s motion for
reconsideration was a pro forma motion because BIR failed to set the
motion for hearing – non compliance with the notice of hearing
requirement was a fatal defect that rendered the motion a mere scrap of
paper. CTA – Special First Decision ruled in favor of Chevron
FACTS

 BIR filed a second motion for reconsideration but was denied with finality by
the CTA – Special First Division since the BIR did not elevate the issue before
the CTA En Banc within the 15-day reglementary period to appeal
 Chevron moved for the issuance of writ of execution. BIR filed a motion to
lift entry of judgment on the ground that it intended to exhaust the remedy
of filing a Petition for Certitiorari before the Supreme Court
ISSUE

 Whether the CTA – Special First Division gravely abused its discretion in
declaring the motion for reconsideration filed by the BIR to be a pro forma
motion, and in rendering the Decision final and executory
HELD

 NO. No argument was advanced to establish that the CTA – Special First
Division exercised its judgment arbitrarily or despotically by reason of
passion and hostility
 BIR’s motion for reconsideration failed to comply with the provisions
provided for by the Revised Rules of the CTA – it did not include notice for
hearing and failed to set the motion for hearing
 Sec. 6, Rule 15 of the Revised Rules of the CTA provides that “A motion for
reconsideration or new trial that does not comply with the foregoing
provisions shall be deemed pro forma, which shall not toll the reglementary
period for appeal”