4/7/2021 E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly By Comment[22] dated February 3, 2014, the Secretary of Finance, through the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG), countered that the Order dated May 18, 2012 in Civil Case No. Q-09-64241 did not preclude the Secretary of Finance from issuing Section 4.4 of RR 15-2013 because a) the first case involves RMC 31-2008 which the CIR issued to clarify matters involving common carriers by sea, in relation to their transport of passengers, goods, and services, while the second case involves RR 15-2013 which the Secretary of Finance issued pursuant to his mandate under RA 10378; b) RMC 312008 was issued based on the authority of the CIR to interpret the provisions of the NIRC while RR 15-2013 was issued by virtue of the authority of the Secretary of Finance under RA 10378; and c) the Secretary of Finance was not impleaded as respondent in the first case, thus, he is not bound by the finality of Order dated May 18, 2012. Besides, the Secretary of Finance and the CIR are two (2) distinct officials governing two (2) separate agencies. According to respondents, RR 15-2013 does not expand the provisions of RA 10378. It simply clarifies what constitutes Gross Philippine Billings (GPB) such that anything outside the definition of GPB is subject to the regular income tax rate for resident foreign corporations. Thus, the law need not specifically mention demurrage or detention fees as among those falling outside the definition of GPB.[23] Respondents stress that demurrage and detention fees are income. They not only serve as penalties for consignees, they also serve as compensation for extended use of containers. As resident foreign corporations, they are covered by the provisions on the regular income tax rate and not the preferential rate of 2.5% imposed on GPB.[24] Lastly, respondents argue that the absence of public hearing prior to the publication of RR 15-2013 or non-submission of copies thereof to the UP Law Center did not render it ineffective. An interpretative regulation such as RR 15-2013, to be effective, needs nothing further than its bare issuance for it gives no real consequence more than what the law itself already prescribes. It adds nothing to the law and does not affect the substantial rights of any person.[25] In its Answer[26] dated January 27, 2014, the CIR, through the BIR Litigation Department riposted that the trial court had no jurisdiction over the petition for declaratory relief because its subject matter involved a revenue regulation. Under Commonwealth Act No. 55[27] (CA 55), actions for declaratory relief do not apply to cases involving tax liabilities under any law administered by the BIR.[28] Further, res judicata does not apply to the case. Petitioners' Omnibus Motion Petitioners subsequently filed an Omnibus Motion 1) for Judicial Notice; and 2) for Summary Judgment[29] dated December 4, 2014. Petitioners prayed that the trial court take judicial notice of the following: 1) the existence of RMC 31-2008; 2) the final and executory Order dated May 18, 2012 in Civil Case No. Q-09-64241 and its Certificate of Finality dated August 28, 2012; 3) the enactment of Republic Act No. 10378[30] (RA 10378), which recognized the principle of https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/65912 6/25