REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES v. MR. RANSON DIODELL N. TENERIFE doing business under the name MOTORINA TRADING

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPIN ES COURT OF TAX APPEALS QUEZON CITY ENBANC REPUBLIC OF THE CTA EB NO. 2805 PHILIPPINES, (CTA OC No. 025) Plaintiff, Present: D el Rosario, P.J. Ringpis-Lib an, Manahan, Bacorro-Villena, Modesto-San Pedro, Reyes- Fajar d o , Cui-David, Ferrer-Flores, and Angeles,JL -versus- MR. RANSON DIODELL N. P ro mulgated : TENERI FE doing business under the name "MOTORINA TRADING", Defendant. X------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------X RESOLUT ION RINGPIS-LIBAN, L;. For resolution of the Court En Bane is the plaintiffs Motion for Ret�onsideration (Re: Decision promulgated 10 Ju!J 2024Y (the "Motion") filed on J uly 26, 2024 with defend ant's Commen? filed on August 28, 2024. Plaintiffs Motion seeks reconsideration of the Decision of the Court En Bane promulgated on J uly 10, 2024,3 ("Assailed Decision") denying the Petition for Review and affirming the judgment of the Special First D ivision ("Court in Division") of this Court in CTA OC No. 025. / 1 En Bane Docket, pp. 61-71. 2 Id., pp. 75-77. 3 Id., pp. 5 1-60.

RESOLUTION CTA EB NO. 2805 (CTA OC No. 025) In its ;\lotion, plaintiff insists that the revenue officer has authority to conduct the audit investigation on defendant's tax liability for taxable year 2010. Petitioner likewise submits that Section 13 of the National Internal Revenue Code of 1997, as amended, is not applicable ro the present case because there was no actual examination of defendant's books. Plaintiff posits that there is no strict requirement for the existence of a Letter of ,\uthority (LO"\) in "no contact-audit-approach." It added that it is sufficient that a Letter Notice (LN) was issued in compliance with Revenue l\.Iemorandum Order (Rl\.IO) No. 30-2003. On the other hand, respondent, in his Comment submits that the i\1.otion is a mere rehash of the same arguments already discussed and passed upon by this Court in the :\ssailcd Decision. .\ftcr careful evaluation of the arguments raised by the plaintiff vis-a-vis the records of the case, the Court En Ba11c resolves to deny the Aiotion for lack of merit. Plaintiff failed to raise any compelling reason to warrant the modification much less reversal of this Court's findings. The Court En Bane stands bv its rulin'g in the "\ssailed Decision. " The Court En Bane notes that the arguments raised in the present l\.Iotion arc substantially the same as those raised in the Petition for Review and which were already passed upon in the :\ssailed Decision. In resolving the Motion, the Court En Bane accordingly takes its guidance from the Supreme Court's ruling in Ortigas and Company Limited Pmtnersbip v. Velasco! wherein it held: "The filing of a motion for reconsideration, authorized bv Rule 52 of the Rules of Court, docs not impose on the Court the obligation to deal indi,�idually 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 \vould 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 adnnced by the mm�ant; and it would be a needless act, too, with respect to issues raised for the first time, these being, as abm�e stated, deemed wai,�ed 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. \'Ill, Constitution); i.e., the motion contains tncrcly a reiteration or rehash of argutncnts already submitted to and pronounced without merit bY the Court in its judgment, or the basic issues ha\'C 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 r- tnotion are too unsubstantial to require consideration, etc." 4 G.R. Nos. 109645 & 112564, March 4, 1996.

RESOLUTION CTA EB NO. 2805 (CTA OC No. 025) ACCORDINGLY, plaintiffs i\Iotion for RewnJideration (Re: DeciJion prom11fgated 10f111y 2024) is DENIED for lack of merit. SO ORDERED. ~-~ _,.._ MA. BELEN M. RINGPIS-LIBAN .-\ssociate Justice WE CONCUR: Presiding Justice L"'~- 7. A ... ..~- - CATHERINE T. MANAHAN c\ssociate Justicc JEANM MARlAR ~!h..(: i.~ ~F~�tM.rk MARIAN IW. REm-FAJA'RDO c\ssociatc Justice

RESOLUTION CTA EB NO. 2805 (CTA OC No. 025) fMAIAA'dMW LANWvt.vcm-:D)wm "\ssociate Justice ~., CORA?&fN G. Associate Justice HENRY //�GELES Associate Justice