DIZON FARMS PRODUCE, INC. v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES COURT OFTAX APPEALS QUEZON CITY ENBANC DIZON FARMS PRODUCE, INC., CTA EB No. 2516 Petitioner, (CTA Case No. 9711) -versus- COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent. X-------- - - - --------------- X COMMISSIONER OF CTA EB No. 2521 (CTA Case No. 9711) INTERNAL REVENUE, Present: Petitioner, DEL ROSARIO, J:L -versus- RINGPIS-LIBAN, MANAHAN, BACORRO-VILLENA, MODESTO-SAN PEDRO, REYES-FAJARDO, CUI-DAVID, FERRER-FLORES, and ANGELES,JL DIZON FARMS PRODUCE, INC., Respondent. X----------- ------- ------------------- ---- ----- RESOLUTION REYES-FAJARDO, J. :

CTA EB Nos. 2516 & 2521 (CTA Case No. 9711) Dizon Farms Produce, Inc. v. Conmzissioner of Intemnl Rel'enue; Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Dizon Fanns Produce, Inc. For the Court's resolution are the following: 1) Motion for Reconsideration1 filed by Dizon Farms Produce, Inc. ("DFPI") on August 22, 2023, with Comment (To Dizon Farms Produce, Inc.'s Motion for Reconsideration dated 18 August 2023)2 filed by the Commissioner of Internal Revenue ("CIR") via registered mail on November 20, 2023; and 2) Motion for Reconsideration (of the Decision dated 01 August 2023)3 filed by the CIR via registered mail on August 18, 2023, with Opposition/Comment (Against Commissioner of Internal Revenue's Motion for Reconsideration dated August 18, 2023 in CTA EB Case No. 2521)4 filed by DFPI on November 21, 2023. The Decision 5 promulgated on August 1, 2023 ("assailed Decision") denied the consolidated Petitions for Review for lack of merit and affirmed the earlier Decision of the Third Division of this Court in CTA Case No. 9711, cancelling and setting aside the Final Assessment Notice (FAN) and Assessment Notices for value-added tax (VAT), expanded withholding tax (EWT), improperly accumulated earnings tax (IAET), and compromise penalty in the aggregate amount of 1'56,112,075.48 for being void, and ordering DFPI to pay the deficiency documentary stamp tax (DST) in the amount of 1'1,053,918.16, inclusive of the twenty-five percent (25%) surcharge, twenty percent (20%) deficiency interest, and twenty percent (20%) delinquency interest imposed thereon under the National Internal Revenue Code (NIRC) of 1997, as amended.6 The dispositive portion of the assailed Decision reads: "WHEREFORE, in light of the foregoing considerations, the consolidated Petitions for Review are DENIED for lack of merit. Accordingly, the Decision promulgated on January 5, 2021 and Resolution promulgated on July 8, 2021 rendered by the Third Division of this Court in CTA Case No. 9711 are AFFIRMED. Motion for Reconsideration, CIA EB No. 2516, Docket, pp. 117 to 125. Comment, CIA EB No. 2516, Docket, pp. 146 to 147. Motion for Reconsideration, CIA EB No. 2516, Docket, pp. 126 to 137. Opposition/Comment CIA EB No. 2516, Docket, pp. 142 to 145. 5 Decision, CIA EB No. 2516, Docket. pp. 96 to 113. 6 /d. at pp. 55 to 56; CIA EB No. 2521, Docket, pp. 46 to 47.

CTA EB Nos. 2516 & 2521 (CTA Case No. 9711) Dizon Fnrms Produce, Inc. u. Commissioner of Internal Reuenue; Commissioner of Internal Revenue 1'. Dizon Farms Produce, Inc. SO ORDERED." In its Motion for Reconsideration, 7 DFPI maintains that the doctrine of estoppel can never be applied to a taxpayer's agreement or consent to pay taxes, whether voluntarily or pursuant to an assessment. DFPI further argues that even if the doctrine of estoppel is applied against it, the DST assessment must still fail for lack of factual basis. In this regard, DFPI prays that the Court considers the Final Report of the Independent Certified Public Accountant in the cancellation of the DST assessment. In its Comment (To Dizon Farms Produce, Inc.'s Motion for Reconsideration dated 18 August 2023),8 the CIR opposes DFPI's Motion for Reconsideration as a mere rehash of arguments already raised in DFPI' s Motion for Partial Reconsideration dated January 29, 20219 and Petition for Review dated September 23, 2021.10 The CIR, in its Motion for Reconsideration (of the Decision dated 01 August 2023)11 argues that, contrary to the Court's findings, DFPI was not deprived of its constitutional right to due process and that the FAN and Assessment Notices are prima facie correct and made in good faith. DFPI, in its Opposition/Comment (Against Commissioner of Internal Revenue's Motion for Reconsideration dated August 18, 2023 in CTA EB Case No. 2521), 12 counters the CIR's Motion for Reconsideration 13 as mere rehash of the latter's arguments raised in its Motion for Reconsideration dated February 2, 202114 and Petition for Review dated August 11, 2021.15 We decide. 7 Motion for Reconsideration, CTA EB No. 2516, Docket, pp. 117 to 125. 8 Comment, CTA EB No. 2516, Docket, pp. 146 to 147. CTA Case No. 9711, Docket, Volume 2, pp. 654 to 659. 10 Petition for Review, CTA EB No. 2516, Docket, pp. 16 to 24. 11 Motion for Reconsideration, CTA EB No. 2516, Docket, pp. 126 to 137. 12 Opposition/Comment, CTA EB No. 2516, Docket, pp. 142 to 145. 13 Motion for Reconsideration, CTA EB No. 2516, Docket, pp. 126 to 137. CTA Case No. 9711, Docket, Volume 2, pp. 662 to 678. 15 Petition for Review, CTA EB No. 2521, Docket, pp. 1 to 20.

CTA EB Nos. 2516 & 2521 (CTA Case No. 9711) Dizon Farms Produce, Inc. v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue; Commissioner of Internal Reuenue u. Dizon Fnrms Produce, Inc. The Court finds no compelling reason to reverse or modify the assailed Decision dated August 1, 2023. The arguments forwarded by both parties have already been passed upon and discussed at length by the Court. Any further discussion will only be unnecessarily repetitive. The pronouncement in Social Justice Society (SJS) Officers, et al. v. Lim,16 is instructive: The grounds relied on being mere reiterations of the issues already passed upon by the Court, there is no need to "cut and paste" pertinent portions of the Decision or re-write the ponencia in accordance with the outline of the instant motion. As succinctly put by then Chief Justice Andres R. Narvasa in Ortigas and Co. Ltd. Partnership v. Judge Velasco on the effect and disposition of a motion for reconsideration: The filing of a motion for reconsideration, authorized by Rule 52 of the Rules of Court, does not impose on the Court the obligation to deal individually and specifically with the grounds relied upon therefor, in much the same way that the Court does in its judgment or final order as regards the issues raised and submitted for decision. This would be a useless formality or ritual invariably involving merely a reiteration of the reasons already set forth in the judgment or final order for rejecting the arguments advanced by the movant; and it would be a needless act, too, with respect to issues raised for the first time, these being, as above stated, deemed waived because not asserted at the first opportunity. It suffices for the Court to deal generally and summarily with the motion for reconsideration, and merely state a legal ground for its denial (Sec. 14, Art. VIII, Constitution); i.e., the motion contains merely a reiteration or rehash of arguments already submitted to and pronounced without merit by the Court in its judgment, or the basic issues have already been passed upon, or the motion discloses no substantial argument or cogent reason to warrant reconsideration or modification of the judgment or final order; or the arguments in the motion are too unsubstantial to require consideration, etc. 16 G.R Nos. 187836 & 187916, March 10, 2015.

CIA EB Nos. 2516 & 2521 (CIA Case No. 9711) Dizon Farms Produce, Inc. u. Commissioner of Internal Revenue; Commissioner of Internal Revenue l'. Dizon Farms Produce, Inc. WHEREFORE, in light of the foregoing considerations, DFPI's Motion for Reconsideration and the CIR's Motion for Reconsideration (of the Decision dated 01 August 2023) are DENIED for lack of merit. SO ORDERED. ~~{~-~~ MARIAN I~ F. REvtS-FAfARDO Associate Justice

CTA EB Nos. 2516 & 2521 (CTA Case No. 9711) Dizon Fnrms Produce, Inc. l'. Commissioner of Internal Revenue; Commissioner of Internnl Rez,enue v. Dizon Fnnns Produce, Inc. WE CONCUR: Presiding Justice Qy-~~ MA. BELEN M. RINGPIS-LIBAN Associate Justice CAT~ HER" INE7 T. MAA.N..A--"'H- AN---- Associate Justice nr,! ..,,:.- -. "j! 1 -J.-. . I~,..�'�:1:.;. :, ,_ JEAN MARIE A. BACORRO-VILLENA Associate Justice MARIA ROWENA MODESTO-SAN PEDRO Associate Justice ~~ LANEE S. CUI-DAVID Associate Justice RES Associate Justice HENRYi.fk.NGELES Associate Justice