COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE v. GRAND GEO SPHERES CONSTRUCTION CORP.

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES COURT OF TAX APPEALS Quezon City ENBANC COMMISSIONER OF CTA EB NO. 2763 INTERNAL REVENUE, (CTA Case No. 9891) Petitioner, -versus - Pres e nt: DEL ROSARIO, U , RINGPIS-LIBAN, MANAHAN, BACORRO-VILLENA, MODESTO-SAN PEDRO, REYES-FAJARDO, CUI-DAVID, FERRER-FLORES, and ANGELES, fl. GRAND GEO SPHERES CONSTRUCTION CORP., Promulgated: Respondent. APR 3 0 2025 /? X------------------- --- - - --- - --- - - --~ - :>~ ~~~~~ � RESOLUTION BACORRO-VILLENA, L: For the Court En Bane's resolution is petitioner Commissioner of Internal Revenue's (petitioner's/ CIR's) "Motion for Reconsideration (Re: Decision dated October o8, 2024)"1 (MR) filed via email on 28 October 2024, and the hard copies of which were filed personally on 04 November 2024, with respondent Grand Geo Spheres Construction t Corp.'s (respondent's/ GGSCC's) "Opposition/Comment (To Petitioner's Motion for Reconsideration dated 28 October 2024)"2 (Comment/Opposition) filed on 14 January 2025. Rollo, pp. 103-1 07. Id., pp. 111 -1 23.

RESOLUTION CTA EB NO. 2763 (CTA Case No. 9891) Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Grand Geo Spheres Construction Corp. Page 2 of6 X---------------------------------------------------------- X The MR assails the Court En Bane's Decision3 promulgated on o8 October 2024 (assailed Decision). The dispositive portion ofwhich reads: WHEREFORE, with the foregoing considered, the instant Petition for Review filed by petitioner Commissioner of Internal Revenue on 03 July 2023 is DENIED for lack of merit. Accordingly, the assailed Decision dated u January 2023 and assailed Resolution dated 24 May 2023, of the Special Third Division in CTA Case No. 9891 entitled Grand Ceo Spheres Construction Corp. v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, are hereby AFFIRMED. SO ORDERED. In the MR, petitioner reiterates all the arguments he or she has previously raised in the Petition for Review filed before the Court En Bane. To recapitulate, petitioner asserts that the Court En Bane erred in ruling that he or she failed to observe due process in the service of the Letter of Authority (LOA), Preliminary Assessment Notice (PAN), Formal Letter of Demand and Final Assessment Notices (FLD/FAN). He or she maintains that the PAN, and FLD/FAN was duly served to respondent through professional courier service (LBC) at its registered business address. Petitioner adds that he or she has no control over the description of the contents as shown in the official receipt of LBC as the PAN and FLD/FAN falls under the generic classification of "documents". He or she further argues that Affidavits of Service of both the PAN and FLD/FAN were duly executed to show further compliance with due process requirement. Finally, petitioner maintains that there might have been an error in the transcription of the stenographic notes as documentary evidence shows that the LOA was duly served to and received by "Nanette D Comida" and not "Lynette Juvida" as evidence~ her name and signature appearing on the LOA's bottom portion. ld .� pp. 68-89.

RESOLUTION CTA EB NO. 2763 (CTA Case No. 9891) Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Grand Geo Spheres Construction Corp. Page 3 of6 x------ --------------------------------------------------- -x Respondent, on the other hand, counters that petitioner's MR is a mere rehash of the arguments that were already considered and passed upon in the assailed Decision of o8 October 2024. Being a pro forma motion, the MR should be denied for lack of merit. Respondent also argued that petitiOner failed to prove by competent evidence that it received the PAN and FLD/FAN. The LBC receipts do not demonstrate that its duly authorized representative actually received them. Lastly, respondent maintains that pet1t10ner failed to present evidence sufficient to show that it likewise received the LOA. According to it, his or her assertion that there might have been an error in the transcription does not change the fact that no proof was adduced that the recipient of the LOA was indeed its authorized representative. We resolve. At the outset, it must be underscored that petitioner's arguments are a mere rehash of those already raised and considered by the Court's Special Third Division and the Court En Bane in deciding the case at bar. In Ortigas and Company Limited Partnership v. judge Tirso Velasco, et a/.4, the Supreme Court explained, to wit: 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 passedt G.R. No. 109645 (Resolution), 04 March 1996.

RESOLUTION CTA EB NO. 2763 (CTA Case No. 9891) Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Grand Geo Spheres Construction Corp. Page 4 of6 X----------------------------------------------------------X 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. Furthermore, the Supreme Court in Shangri-La International Hotel Management, Ltd., et a/. v. Developers Group of Companies, Inc. 5 ruled: The bulk of the aforementioned grounds is a mere rehash of movant's previous arguments. While DGCl is correct in stating that a motion for reconsideration, by its very nature, may tend to dwell on issues already resolved in the decision sought to be reconsidered and that this should not be an obstacle for a reconsideration, the hard reality is that movant has failed to raise matters substantially plausible or compellingly persuasive to warrant the desired course of action. Considering that the grounds presently raised have been sufficiently considered, if not squarely addressed, in the subject Decision, it behooves movant to convince the Court that certain findings or conclusions in the Decision are contrary to law. As it is, however, the instant motion does not raise any new or substantial legitimate ground or reason to justify the reconsideration sought. From the foregoing, it is indubitable that it is movant's duty to convincingly show grounds for a reconsideration of an assailed judgment or order, or at the least give the previous arguments a fresh perspective in such a way that would warrant a re-examination of the case. Unfortunately, in the instant case, petitioner has failed to do so. WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, petitioner's "Motion for Reconsideration (Re: Decision dated October o8, 2024)'' filed on 28 October 2024 is DENIED for lack ofmerit.t G.R. No. 159938,22 January 2007; Citation omitted and emphasis supplied.

RESOLUTION CTA EB NO. 2763 [CTA Case No. 9891) Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Grand Geo Spheres Construction Corp. Page 5 of6 X----------------------------------------------------------X SO ORDERED. r ' JEAN MA0~~0-VILLENA ~~:te Justice WE CONCUR: Presiding Justice L. ~ -. .________ MA. BELEN M. RINGPIS-LIBAN Associate Justice ~ '7 /A.e.........-4~- CATHERINE T. MANAHAN Associate Justice Ass ciat Justice ~ wr~.r~~ MARIAN IVY~. REYE~FAJARDO Associate Justice ~'dint{ LANEE S. CUI-DAVID Associate Justice

RESOLUTION CTA EB NO. 2763 [CTA Case No. 9891) Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Grand Geo Spheres Construction Corp. Page 6 of6 X--------------------------------------------------------- -X CO~RA-~-NG,.#..r�<J<,.~ 11?15....._, ES Associate Justice HENRY~~NGELES Associate Justice