TAISEI PHILIPPINES CONSTRUCTION, INC. v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES COURT OF TAX APPEALS QUEZON CITY En Bane TAISE I PHILIPPINES CTA EB NO. 1825 CONSTRUCTION, INC., (CTA Case No. 9008) Petition er, Present: - versus- DEL ROSARIO, P.J., CASTANEDA JR., UY, FABON-VICTORINO, RINGPIS-LIBAN, MANAHAN, BACORRO-VILLENA, and MODESTO-SAN PEDRO,]]. COMMISSIONE R OF P romulgated: INTERNAL REVENUE, JUL 1 0 2020 Resp ondent. _:s=;(IJ-= ~ .. ~/"""' � X-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------X RESOLUTION RINGPIS-LIBAN, 1.: This resolves Petitioner's "Motion for Reconsideration" posted by through registered mail on August 30, 2019 which the Court received on September 6, 2019, asking that the Court en bane reconsider its Decision dated August 7, 2019 on the grounds that: 1) RMC 49-03 does not require a written notice for the extension to submit additional documents to apply; 2) the invocation of requirements for the introduction of secondary evidence is inapplicable; and 3) petitioner was able to prove its entidement to a refund. The motion was flied in an insufficient number of copies, however, and on September 10, 2019, the Court en bane required Petitioner to submit additional copies thereof, otherwise the pleading would be considered as not filed. ;V

RESOLUTION CTA EB No. 1825 (CTA Case No. 9008) Page 2 of4 On September 17, 2019, Petitioner ftled its "Compliance (To the Resolution dated September 10, 2019)" and submitted seven (7) additional copies of its motion. This was noted by the Court en bane in a Minute Resolution dated September 18, 2019. On December 11, 2019, a Records Verification Report was generated by the Judicial Records Division stating that Respondent failed to ftle his Comment. The dispositive portion of the Decision sought to be reconsidered reads, as follows: WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Petition for Review is DENIED. The Decision dated December 1, 2017 and the Resolution dated March 15, 2018 of the Second Division in CTA Case No. 9008 are AFFIRMED. SO ORDERED. After considering the arguments of Petitioner, We find no compelling reason to reconsider Our Decision. The arguments raised by Petitioner in its Motion for Reconsideration are not new. They have been previously discussed and considered in the Decision dated December 1, 2017 and the Resolution dated March 15, 2018 of the Second Division in CTA Case No. 9008. More importantly, they have also been exhaustively studied and considered by this Court prior to rendering Our Decision dated August 7, 2019. In La Bugal B'Laan Tribal Association, Inc. v. Ramo/, the Supreme Court, noting that the arguments and positions raised in the Motion for Reconsideration therein were already raised and discussed extensively, held that a further discussion of the same issues would not serve any useful purpose. "A close perusal of the above issues and the discussions thereof shows that they are a mere rehash of arguments and positions already raised and discussed extensively in the 246- page Resolution of December 1, 2004 penned by Justice Artemio V. Panganiban; as well as in the 125-page Dissenting Opinion of Justice Antonio T. Carpio, the 100-page Dissenting Opinion of Justice Conchita Carpio-Morales, the 29-page Separate Opinion ofJustice Dante 0. Tinga, and the /)/ 1 G.R. No. 127882, February 1, 2005.

RESOLUTION CTA EB No. 1825 (CTA Case No. 9008) Page 3 of4 10-page Concurring Opinion of Justice Minita V. Chico- Nazario. Further discussion of these issues would not serve any useful purpose, as it would merely repeat the same justifications and reasons already taken up in the foregoing Opinions, which tackled precisely those matters and even more; any further elucidations, disquisitions and disputations would merely reiterate the same points already passed upon." (Emphasis supplied) Considering that no new matters have been raised, Petitioners' Motion for Reconsideration is DENIED for lack of merit. SO ORDERED. ~.~~ MA. BELEN M. RINGPIS-LIBAN Associate Justice WE CONCUR: Presiding Justice a . . . . -e; c- G..Jf"-...-~ ....9.. ERL~P.UY Associate Justice JlfANITO C. CASTANED1<JR. Associate Justice ~IN'E1T� . M~ ANAHAN � Associate Justice

RESOLUTION CTA EB No. 1825 (CTA Case No. 9008) Page 4 of4 ' ~-VILLENA MARIA ROwlff<W MWUh~ SAN PEDRO