4/7/2021 E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly Petitioners now seek, on pure questions of law, the Court's discretionary appellate jurisdiction to review and reverse the assailed dispositions. They essentially reiterate the arguments raised in their petition for declaratory relief, i.e. a) res judicata and immutability of judgments apply to this case and the enactment of RA 10378 is not a supervening event which operates to negate the application of the aforesaid principles; b) RR 15-2013 is invalid because it erroneously subjects demurrage and detention fees collected by international shipping carriers to regular income tax rate, albeit these are not income; and c) RR 15-2013 is not an interpretative issuance, thus, a public hearing and prior registration with the UP Law Center are required for its validity and effectivity. Respondents Secretary of Finance and CIR, through Senior State Solicitor Jonathan dela Vega, submits: Res judicata does not apply here because there is no commonality of parties between this case and Civil Case No. Q-09-64241. The Secretary of Finance and the CIR are two (2) distinct officials.[33] RR 15-2013 does not add to the provisions of RA 10378. It simply clarifies how the GPB of international sea carriers should be determined. Its issuance is germane to the purpose of the law.[34] Lastly, RR 15-2013 is an interpretative regulation, thus, to be effective, it need not be filed with the UP Law Center.[35] Petitioners' Reply[36] dated October 27, 2016 echoes their previous arguments against RR 15-2013. Issues 1. Does res judicata apply in this case? 2. Is a petition for declaratory relief proper for the purpose of invalidating RR No. 15-2013? 3. Is RR 15-2013 a valid revenue regulation? Ruling Res judicata does not apply here Res judicata applies in the concept of "bar by prior judgment" if the following requisites concur: (1) the former judgment or order must be final; (2) the judgment or order must be on the merits; (3) the decision must have been rendered by a court having jurisdiction over the subject matter and the parties; and (4) there must be, between the first and the second action, identity of parties, of subject matter, and of causes of action.[37] Here, we rule that there is no substantial identity of parties and subject matter. a) No substantial identity of parties Tambunting, Jr. v. Sumabat[38] explains the nature of a petition for declaratory relief, thus: An action for declaratory relief should be filed by a person interested under a deed, will, contract or other written instrument, and whose rights are affected by a statute, executive order, regulation or ordinance before breach https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/65912 8/25