HOLCIM PHILIPPINES MANUFACTURING CORPORATION v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES

COURT OF TAX APPEALS

QUEZON CITY

Special Second Division

HOLCIM PHILIPPINES CTA CASE NO.10414 MANUFACTURING CORPORATION, - versus Petitioner, Members: RINGPIS-LIBAN,P.J. & Chairperson

REVENUE, INTERNAL COMMISSIONER OF Respondent. FERRER-FLORES, UI Promulgated: MODESTO-SAN PEDRO,and OCT u'2 2026 4:23 AM

RESOLUTION

RINGPIS-LIBAN, J.:

Before the Court is the Motion for Reconsideration dated May 19, 20261 filed by respondent Commissioner of Internal Revenue(CIR), seeking reconsideration of the Resolution dated April 17, 20262 rendered by this Court in the above-captioned case, the dispositive portion of which reads:

hereby DENIED for failure to establish excusable negligence as a ground for relief under Rule 38 of the Rules of Court, and for failure to demonstrate a meritorious defense. Petition for Relief from Judgment filed by respondent CIR is "WHEREFORE, in light of the foregoing, the Verified

SO ORDERED."

The antecedent facts, as gathered from the records, are as follows.

capital gains tax (CGT) assessments issued by respondent. By Decision dated Corporation filed a Petition for Review seeking the cancellation of deficiency On December 3, 2020, petitioner Holcim Philippines Manufacturing

1 Docket-Vol. IV, pp. 1550-1582. 2 Id., pp. 1508-1514.

RESOLUTION CTA Case No. 10414 Page 2 of 6

February 14, 20253, the Court granted the Petition for Review on the ground that

executory, and Entry of Judgment was made on December 4, 2025. respondent's right to assess had already prescribed. No Motion for Reconsideration having been filed by respondent, the Decision became final and

On November 17,2025,respondent filed a Verified Petition for Relief from

the ground that the failure to file a Motion for Reconsideration was caused by the transfer and reassignment of the previous handling lawyer, which created a Judgment, invoking excusable negligence under Rule 38 of the Rules of Court, on

transition gap in the management of the caset.

By Resolution dated April 17, 20265, the Court denied the Petition for Relief from Judgment. The Court found the Petition timely filed under Rule 38.

internal to, and within the institutional control of, the Bureau of Internal Revenue (BIR) Litigation Division. The Court further held that, even assuming Section 3, but held that respondent failed to establish excusable negligence, the since the three-year prescriptive period under Section 203 of the National reassignment of counsel and the resulting transition being organizational matters excusable negligence, respondent failed to demonstrate a meritorious defense

Internal Revenue Code (NIRC) of 1997, as amended, applies to One-Time

Memorandum Orders (RMOs) governing CAR processing cannot expand or Transactions (ONETT) no differently than to other transactions, and Revenue Override that statutory period.

19, 2026 within which to move for reconsideration. On May 19. 2026 Respondent received the Resolution on May 4, 20269, giving it until May

respondent filed the Motion for Reconsideration now before the Court.

The accompanying Affidavit of Service dated May 19, 2026, executed by Ms. Marites M. Sta. Ana of the BIR Litigation Division, shows that the Motion St., Salcedo Village, Makati City the same address which, as recited in the Resolution dated April 17, 2026 itself, had previously returned mail with the for Reconsideration was served by registered mail on petitioner's counsel, Mata- Perez,Tamayo & Francisco,at Unit 15A,ACT Tower,135 H.V.Dela Costa

annotation "MOVED OUT.":

On June 17, 2026, petitioner received the Court's Resolution dated June 1, 2026 directing it to file its Comment on the Motion for Reconsideration within

July 15, 2026, noting the Manifestation and directing respondent to furnish five (5) days from receipt. As petitioner had not been furnished a copy of the Motion, it filed a Manifestation dated June 22, 2026 informing the Court of this fact. On July 15, 2026, petitioner received the Court's Minute Resolution dated

4 Id. at Note 1, pp. 1420-1422. 5 id., pp. 1508-1514. 3 Docket-Vol. 3, pp. 1364-1385 7 Id., pp. 1586-1588. Id., p. 1550.

RESOLUTION CTA Case No. 10414 Page 3 of 6

petitioner a copy of the Motion for Reconsideration. Petitioner actually received

20268. a copy of the Motion for Reconsideration, by registered mail, only on July 14.

Motion for Reconsideration on both procedural and substantive grounds. including the contention that the Motion should be deemed pro forma and/or not filed for respondent's failure to timely and properly serve and electronically On July 20, 2026, petitioner filed its Comment/Opposition', opposing the

transmit a copy thereof.

Respondent's Motion for Reconsideration

restated here without evaluation: Respondent's Motion for Reconsideration raises the following grounds,

First, respondent submits that the Court erred in ruling that respondent

respondent maintaining that the reassignment of the previously handling lawyer. failed to establish excusable negligence as a ground for relief under Rule 38.

within the BIR Litigation Division constitute circumstances beyond respondent's should not be bound by its counsel's negligence. control that ordinary diligence could not have prevented, and that respondent the resulting transition gap, and the volume of cases and shortage of personnel

failed to demonstrate a meritorious defense, respondent maintaining that the and that the period to assess is not triggered until the Bureau of Internal Revenue has received complete documentary requirements and processed the Certificate One-Time Transactions (ONETT) in the same manner as to other transactions, Authorizing Registration (CAR) covering the transaction. three-year prescriptive period under Section 203 of the NIRC does not apply to Second, respondent submits that the Court erred in ruling that respondent

validity before any other matter, since an infirmity in the filing or service of the Motion may dispose of the case without need to pass upon its substantive The Court resolves the threshold question of the Motion's own procedural

grounds.

The Motion for Reconsideration is pro forma for the movant's failure to serve petitioner within the reglementary period.

8 Id., p. 1592. 9 Id., pp. 1591-1614.

CTA Case No. 10414 RESOLUTION Page 4 of 6

Section 6, Rule 15 of the Revised Rules of the Court of Tax Appeals (RRCTA) provides:

"SEC. 6. Contents of motion for reconsideration or new trial and notice. --- The motion shall be in writing stating its grounds, a written notice of which shall be served

not toll the reglementary period for appeal." by the movant on the adverse party. [...] A motion for reconsideration or new trial that does not comply with foregoing provisions shall be deemed pro forma, which shall

The rule is explicit and admits of no exception: the movant must serve written notice of the motion on the adverse party within the same period allowed

therefore had until May 19,2026,both to file the Motion for Reconsideration for filing it. The movant received the assailed Resolution on May 4, 2026 and

and to serve a copy on petitioner. The movant filed the Motion on May 19, 2026. timely as to filing, but served it C1 petitioner's counsel at an address the

prompted the Court to direct compliance, with petitioner receiving an actual Resolution being reconsidered had itself already identified as defunct. Effective service was accomplished only after petitioner's Manifestation of June 22, 2026 copy on July 14, 2026, almost two months beyond the reglementary period.

no less than that of private counsel, binds the client. The Resolution the movant The Court is not unmindful that the negligence of government counsel.

now seeks to have reconsidered had already put the movant on express notice that petitioner's counsel's address of record had changed. That the movant nonetheless served the Motion at the same superseded address, without any indication of effort to ascertain the correct one, reflects a lack of ordinary diligence that the rule does not excuse.

The consequence of non-compliance with Rule 15, Section 6 is unambiguous: the Motion is deemed pro forma and does not toll the reglementary period. The Resolution dated April 17,2026, had therefore already lapsed into finality before proper service of the Motion for Reconsideration was ever accomplished. This alone warrants denial of the Motion.

petitioner's further contention that the Motion should be deemed not filed for Given this disposition, the Court finds it unnecessary to pass upon

Resolution No. 08-2024 and CTA En Banc Resolution No. 1-2025, as the pro want of compliance with the electronic-service requirements of CTA En Banc

forma defect already discussed suffices to resolve the Motion.

Even on the merits, the movant fails

finding no excusable negligence and no meritorious defense. to show that the Court erred in

RESOLUTION CTA Case No.10414 Page 5 of 6

Motion, the Court addresses the substantive grounds raised, for completeness Although the foregoing procedural ground is sufficient to dispose of the

and to foreclose any doubt as to the correctness of the Resolution dated April 17, 2026, on the merits.

On the first ground, the movant reiterates that the transfer and reassignment of the previous handling lawyer, compounded by the volume of cases and shortage of personnel within the BIR Litigation Division, constitutes excusable negligence under Rule 38. The Court has already held, and now reiterates, that such circ umst anizational and administrative in character, internal to the BIR within respondent's own institutional control. They are not d tha Ordinary diligence and foresight could not have guarded against. of counsel, whether private or government, ordinarily binds the clie and the State, when it descends to the level of an ordinary litigant, must or omissionsl1. The authoritie newly ted in the Motion, which speak to the uences of its counsel's acts

general liberal constructio of n ules in the interest of substantial justice, do not address, still less disturb, this specific and controlling rule. The first ground is UNMERITORIOUS

its original theory that the three-year prescriptive period under Section 203 of the NIRC does not run, in ONETT transactions, until the Bureau of Internal Revenue has received complete documentary requirements and processed the On the second ground, the movant expands, without materially altering.

CAR. This elaboration,however extensive,does not escape the plain text of the

non-ONETT transactions; it runs the three-year period from the filing of the return, or the date the return should have been filed, whichever is later. Section statute. Section 203 is categorical and draws no distinction between ONETT and 52(D) of the same Code fixes the CGT return-filing deadline at thirty (30) days

CAR-applicationandverification Memorandum Orders is a distinct administrative procedure attendant to the No. 15-2003 confirms that an ONETT taxpayer may file the return and pay the registration and transfer of property; it does not, and cannot, extend a prescriptive period fixed by statutel2. Tellingly, the movant's own cited RMO tax before ever seeking the BIR's assistance in CAR processing, which only from the transaction, again without qualification for ONETT transactions. The underscores that the two processes are independent of one another for purposes process under the cited Revenue

of the running of the assessment period.

The movant's renewed invocation of the informal-conference letter dated

Section 222(a) of the NIRC was already considered, and rejected, in the Decision April 12, 2002, as a basis to reckon the extraordinary ten-year period under

dated February 14, 2025 itself, which counted ten years from that same 2002

10 Spouses Que v. Court of Appeals, 504 Phil. 616, 626 (2005). 11 Madarang v. Spouses Morales, G.R. No. 199283, 9 June 2014 G.R. No. 212825, 7 December 2015. 12 Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Next Mobile, Inc. (formerly Nextel Communications Phils., Inc.),

CTA Case No. 10414 RESOLUTION Page 6 of 6

letter and still found the assessment, issued only in 2019, to be time-barred. That Decision is final and executory. A Petition for Relief from Judgment, and a fortiori a Motion for Reconsideration of the denial thereof, is not a vehicle to

UNMERITORIOUS. relitigate a question already resolved on the merits. The second ground is likewise

and the Motion being in any event pro forma for want of timely service, the Motion for Reconsideration must be denied. The movant having failed to show that the Court erred in either respect,

WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Motion for Reconsideration

hereby DENIED for lack of merit. dated May 19, 2026 filed by respondent Commissioner of Internal Revenue is

SO ORDERED.

ean

MA.BELEN M. RINGPIS-LIBAN

Presiding Justice

WE CONCUR:

MARIA ROWENAWM DESTO-SAN PEDRO

Associbne Justice

CORAZON G.FERRER-FLORES

Associate Justice