4/7/2021 E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly reciprocity for grant of income tax exemptions to international shipping carriers and rationalized the taxes imposed thereon; and 4) the issuance of RR 15-2013. Petitioners also filed a motion for summary judgment on ground that there was no genuine issue as to any material fact and/or the facts were undisputed and certain based on the pleadings, admissions, and affidavits on record. The Ruling of the Trial Court Following the parties' exchange of pleadings, the trial court, then presided by Acting Presiding Judge Villacorta, through its first assailed Order[31] dated September 15, 2015: 1) granted petitioners' motion for judicial notice of the existence of RMC 312008, the issuance of Order dated May 18, 2012 in Civil Case No. Q-09-64241 and its corresponding Certificate of Finality dated August 28, 2012, and the enactment of RA 10378 - all these being the official acts of different branches of government; 2) declared that it had no jurisdiction over the petition for declaratory relief pursuant to CA 55 which removed from regional trial courts the authority to rule on cases involving one's liability for tax, duty, or charge collectible under any law administered by the Bureau of Customs or the BIR; 3) ruled against the application of res judicata to the case because --- first, res judicata does not give rise to a cause of action for the purpose of initiating a complaint, res judicata being a shield not a sword and executive and legislative authorities have the power to enact laws and rules to supersede judgemade laws or rules, second, the enactment and implementation of RA 10378 constituted a supervening event which negated the application of res judicata, third, there is no similarity of parties, subject matters, and causes of action between the present case and Civil Case No. Q-09-64241; and 4) found RR No. 15-2013 to be a reasonable tax regulation and an interpretative issuance, the effectivity of which does not require a public hearing, nay, prior registration with the UP Law Center. Thus, the trial court decreed: WHEREFORE: (1) The Motion for Judicial Notice is granted. This Court declares that the issuance of (i) RMC 31-2008, (ii) RTC-Branch 98 Order dated May 18, 2012 in Civil Case No. Q-09-64241, (iii) RTC-Branch 98 Certification of the finality of the Order dated May 18, 2012 in Civil Case No. Q-09- 64241, (iv) RA 10378, and (v) RR 15-2013, is an established fact in this case. (2) The Motion for Summary Judgment is denied and as a result the instant petition for declaratory relief is dismissed. Costs de oficio. SO ORDERED.[32] Petitioners' partial motion for reconsideration was denied under Order dated January 8, 2016. The Present Petition https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/65912 7/25