COC et al vs Pilipinas Shell Petroleum Corp et al

Facts:
This is a petition for review on Certiorari assailing the Decision on June 11, 2012 and Resolution on August 28,
2012 of the CTA in CTA En Banc Case No. 744

Petitioner District Collector Juan Tan of the Port of Batangas issued a demand letter asking the respondent
Pilipinas Shell Petroleum Corporation (PSPC) to pay excise tax and VAT plus penalty on its importation of
catalytic cracked gasoline (CCG) and light CCG for the years 2006 to 2008 in the amount of P
21,419,603,310.00. PSPC refused to heed the demand and questioned its factual or legal basis. Petitioner
issued another letter reiterating the demand. Respondent appealed the matter to the Commissioner of
Customs (COC) Napoleon Morales but denied the same and ordered respondents to pay the unpaid taxes.
Respondent then filed with the CTA a Petition for Review assailing the Letter-Decisions of COC and a Verified
Motion for the suspension order against the collection of taxes with prayer for immediate issuance of
Temporary Restraining Order (TRO). The request for TRO was granted by CTA however, it denied the request for
suspension order. In light of the denial of the suspension order, a Memorandum was issued by petitioner
district collector ordering the personnel of the Port of Batangas to hold the the delivery of all import shipments
of respondent PSPC to satisfy its excise tax liabilities. Thereafter, respondent PSPC filed with the RTC (Fourth
Judicial Region), Batangas City, Branch 3, a Complaint for Injunction with prayer for the ex parte issuance of 72
hour TRO to enjoin the Memorandum. Attached to the Complaint for Injunction was a Verification and
Certification issued by the Vice President for Finance and Treasurer of PSPC, Willie Sarmiento declaring that
there is a pending case before the CTA however it involves different issues and/or reliefs. On the same day, the
RTC issued a 72-hour TRO which was later extended to 17 more days. Petitioner then filed with the CTA a
Motion to Cite Respondents for Direct Contempt of Court and an Information for Perjury for the Verification
and Certification was filed against respondent Vice President Sarmiento before the Municipal Trial Court in
Cities of Batangas City. The case for Perjury was dismissed for lack of probable cause which became final and
executory.

Court of Tax Appeals Third Division

The CTA on the other hand denied the Motion to Cite respondents in Direct Contempt of Court. Although the
parties in the CTA case and Batangas Injunction are the same, the CTA found out that the rights asserted and
reliefs prayed for are different. Petitioners moved for reconsideration was denied.

Court of Tax Appeals En Banc

Petitioners elevated the matter to the CTA En Banc for review but it affirmed the decision of the CTA Third
Division. Petitioner sought for reconsideration but the same was denied. Hence, this petition for review on
Certiorari.

Issue:
W/N the CTA committed a reversible error when it ruled that respondents did not commit willful and
deliberate forum shopping (considering that the Verified Motion filed before the CTA and the Complaint for
Injunction filed before the RTC of Batangas involve exactly the same parties, the same rights and the same
reliefs).

Ruling:
No, the CTA did not commit a reversible error when it ruled that respondents did not commit willful and
deliberate forum shopping.

The law provides that Forum Shopping exists when a party repeatedly avails himself of several judicial
remedies in different courts, either simultaneously or successively, all of which are substantially founded on
the same transactions and the same essential facts and circumstances, and all raising substantially the same
issues either pending in or already resolved by some other court. To constitute Forum Shopping, the following
elements must be present: 1) identity of the parties or parties who represent the same interest in both actions
2) identity of the rights asserted and the reliefs prayed for, as the latter is found on the same set of facts and 3)
identity of two preceding particulars such that any judgment rendered in the other actions will constitute
either res judicata or litis pendentia.

In this case, a careful reading of the Verified Motion in the CTA case vis-à-vis the Complaint for Injuction filed
with the RTC Batangas reveals that although both cases have the same parties originated from the same
factual antecedents, the subject matter, the cause of action, the issues involved and the reliefs prayed for are
not the same. Facts considered, the respondents are not guilty of Forum Shopping. Accordingly, the CTA did
not err in denying the Motion to Cite respondents in Direct Contempt of Court.

The petition is denied and the assailed Decision and Resolution of the CTA are affirmed.