4/7/2021 E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly While it is true that RMC 31-2008, subject of Civil Case No. Q-09- 64241, on one hand, and RR 15-2013, subject of the present case, on the other, both treat demurrage and detention fees to be within the prism of regular corporate income tax rate, each, however, differs from the other with respect to the authority from which it emanated. In Civil Case No. Q-09-64241, what was challenged was the CIR's authority to issue RMC 31-2008 pursuant to Section 4 of the NIRC. On the other hand, what is being challenged here is the Secretary of Finance's authority to issue RR 15-2013 in accordance with Section 244 of the NIRC and Section 5 of RA 10378. The CIR and the Secretary of Finance derive their respective powers from two (2) distinct sources, thus, their respective issuances, too, are separate and independent of each other. More, the supposed invalidity of the CIR's issuance in Civil Case No. Q-09-64241 does not preclude the Secretary of Finance from rendering his issuance on the same subject. More important, the judgment in Civil Case No. Q-09-64241 does not rise to a level of a judicial precedent to be followed in subsequent cases by all courts in the land, since the same was rendered by a regional trial court, and not by this Court. Verily, the Order dated May 18, 2012 of RTC-Branch 98, although binding on the CIR, cannot serve as a judicial precedent for the purpose of precluding the Secretary of Finance from promulgating a similar issuance on the same subject. A petition for declaratory relief is not the proper remedy to seek the invalidation of RR 15-2013; petition is treated as one for prohibition To begin with, the trial court dismissed the case below, among others, for lack of jurisdiction pursuant to Section 1 of CA 55, which reads: Section 1. Section one of Act Numbered Thirty-seven hundred and thirty-six is hereby amended so as to read as follows: "SECTION 1. Construction. — Any person interested under a deed, contract or other written instrument, or whose rights are affected by a statute, may bring an action in a Court of First Instance to determine any question of construction or validity arising under such deed, contract, instrument or statute and for a declaration of his rights or duties thereunder: Provided, however, That the provisions of this Act shall not apply to cases where a taxpayer questions his liability for the payment of any tax, duty, or charge collectible under any law administered by the Bureau of Customs or the Bureau of Internal Revenue." (Emphasis supplied) In CJH Development Corp. v. BIR,[44] this Court clarified that CA 55 is still good law, thus: CJH alleges that CA No. 55 has already been repealed by the Rules of Court; thus, the remedy of declaratory relief against the assessment made by the BOC is proper. It cited the commentaries of Moran allegedly to the effect https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/65912 11/25