G.R. No. 210836 , September 1, 2105
Chevron Philippines Inc., Petitioner, vs. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, Respondent.

FACTS

Petitioner Chevron Philippines, Inc. is engaged in the importation, distribution, marketing, and sale of petroleum products. From August to December 2007, it sold petroleum products to Clark Development Corporation (CDC), an entity exempt from excise taxes under Section 135(c) of the 1997 National Internal Revenue Code (NIRC). Chevron did not pass on the excise taxes it paid under Section 131(A) of the NIRC to CDC. Instead, it filed an administrative claim for a tax refund or credit of P6,542,400.00, representing the excise taxes paid on the imported petroleum products sold to CDC. The Commissioner of Internal Revenue did not act on the claim. Chevron elevated the case to the Court of Tax Appeals (CTA) First Division, which denied the claim, ruling that the tax exemption granted to the buyer (CDC) cannot be the basis for a claim by the seller (Chevron), and that Chevron could not invoke the refund provision under Section 130(D) as the products were imported, not locally produced. The CTA En Banc affirmed this decision. Chevron filed a Petition for Review with the Supreme Court, which was initially denied. Chevron then filed a Motion for Reconsideration, arguing that the Supreme Court’s February 19, 2014 Resolution in Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Pilipinas Shell Petroleum Corporation (which reversed an earlier decision and allowed a refund of excise taxes paid on petroleum products sold to international carriers) should similarly apply to its claim for sales to a tax-exempt entity under Section 135(c).

ISSUE

Whether Chevron Philippines, Inc., as the importer and seller of petroleum products to a tax-exempt entity (Clark Development Corporation), is entitled to a refund or credit of the excise taxes it paid on those products.

RULING

The provided text contains only the Dissenting Opinion of Justice Del Castillo and the Separate Concurring Opinion of Justice Villarama. A final, consolidated ruling of the Supreme Court En Banc is not present in the given text. The opinions reveal a clear division on the issue:
1. Dissenting Opinion (Del Castillo, J.): Votes to DENY Chevron’s Motion for Reconsideration. The opinion argues that tax refunds and exemptions must be construed strictly against the taxpayer. It maintains that Section 135(c) of the NIRC is an exemption in favor of the buyer (CDC), not the seller/importer (Chevron). Since Chevron is the statutory taxpayer under Section 131, it is not exempt from payment. The denial of a refund would not create an absurdity, as the seller can adjust its selling price. The opinion distinguishes the Pilipinas Shell case, noting it involved international carriers and treaty obligations under the Chicago Convention, which are not present in sales to entities like CDC.
2. Separate Concurring Opinion (Villarama, J.): Votes to GRANT Chevron’s Motion for Reconsideration. The opinion argues that the rationale in the Pilipinas Shell Resolution applies by analogy. Denying the refund would burden sellers and potentially disrupt the supply of fuel to tax-exempt entities, undermining the economic purpose of the exemption. It criticizes the dissent’s reliance on Philippine Acetylene Co., stating that case involved a different tax (sales tax) under an old code and is not controlling for excise tax refund claims under the new Section 135 of the 1997 NIRC. The opinion concludes that Chevron is entitled to a refund or tax credit certificate for P6,542,400.00.
Based solely on the provided text, a definitive ruling of the Court cannot be stated, as only conflicting separate opinions are presented.