DANILO G. GALANG, doing business under the name and style of ST. HILDEGARD GRAINS ENTERPRISES, and IVY M. SOUZA, doing business under the name and style of BOLD BIDDER MARKETING AND GENERAL MERCHANDISE, v. THE BUREAU OF CUSTOMS AND THE COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES Court ofTax Appeals QUEZON CITY En Bane DANILO G. GALANG, doing CTA EB NO. 1451 business under the name and style of (CTA Case No. 8885) ST. HILDEGARD GRAINS ENTERPRISES, and IVY M. SOUZA, Present: doing business under the name and style of BOLD BIDDER DEL ROSARIO, P.J., MARKETING AND GENERAL MERCHANDISE, CASTANEDA, JR., BAUTISTA, Petitioners, UY, CASANOVA, - versus - FABON-VICTORINO, MINDARO-GRULLA, The BUREAU OF CUSTOMS and RINGPIS-LIBAN, and the �COMMISSIONER OF MANAHAN,JL CUSTOMS, P r o m u l g a te d: Respondents. .JUN 0 7 201~ ~ -'3~ ~ . x------------------------------------------------------------------------------ ~ x RESOLUTION BAUTISTA, J: For resolution is petitioners' Motion for Reconsideration filed on February 1, 2018 with respondents' Manifestation and Motion [In Lieu of Comment on Petitioners' Motion for Reconsideration dated 01 February 2018] filed by registered mail on March 14, 2018. On December 19, 2017, the Court En Bane promulgated a Decision (the "Assailed Decision") denying the Petition for Review and affirming the Resolutions dated April29, 20151 and April1, 20162 promulgated by the Court of Tax Appeals First Division (the "Court in Division"), which dismissed the case with prejudice. The dispositive portion of the Assailed Decision reads: 1 Rollo, CTA EB No. 145 1, Resolution, pp. 83-99 . 2 Rollo, Resolution, pp. 58-78.

RESOLUTION CTA EB NO. 1451 (CTA Case No. 8885) Page 2 of4 WHEREFORE, the instant Petition for Review is hereby DENIED for lack of merit. Accordingly, the April29, 2015 and April 1, 2016 Resolutions of the Court of Tax Appeals First Division are hereby AFFIRMED. SO ORDERED. Petitioners, in the present Motion for Reconsideration pray that the Assailed Decision be reconsidered, nullified, and set aside, and that a new order be issued granting the instant Petition and the reliefs prayed for therein. In this regard, petitioners argue the following: (1) the Court En Bane erred in ruling that the instant Petition was prematurely filed and that it has no jurisdiction over the same; (2) the principle of litis pendentia does not exist in the instant case; and (3) petitioners did not willfully and deliberately engage in forum shopping. Respondents, on the other hand, manifest that it is readily observable that petitioners' Motion for Reconsideration merely reiterated issues and raised rehashed arguments already exhaustively refuted at length by respondents in their Comment dated October 4, 2016. Thus, to avoid a repetitive discussion of the same matters and issues, respondents will adopt the Comment as their comment on petitioners' Motion for Reconsideration. At the outset, the Court En Bane NOTES and GRANTS respondents' Manifestation and Motion. Accordingly, the Court En Bane shall now rule on petitioners' Motion for Reconsideration. After a careful review of the grounds raised in the Motion for Reconsideration as well as the counter-arguments raised in the Comment, the Court En Bane finds no new matters or arguments which were not considered in the Assailed Decision. Petitioner failed to raise any new or substantial matter, or any compelling reason to justify the reversal or modification of the Court En Bane's findings in the Assailed Decision. Consequently, the Court En Bane finds petitioners' Motion for Reconsideration devoid of merit. To reiterate, the Court En Bane holds that the Court of Tax Appeals ("CTA") has no jurisdiction over the subject matter as the Petition for Review filed with the Court in Division was prematurely

RESOLUTION CTA EB NO. 1451 (CTA Case No. 8885) done. At the time the Petition for Review therein was filed, there was no decision of the Commissioner of Customs (" COC") that could have been subject of judicial review yet. However, assuming the COC's act of setting a public auction for petitioners' rice shipments can be deemed as his decision which is appealable to the CTA, the same may fall under "other matters" which the CTA may take cognizance of except that the Court En Bane holds that the Petition for Review filed with the Court in Division must still fail as the elements of litis pendentia are present. Consequently, with the presence of the elements of litis pendentia, the Court En Bane finds that there exists willful and deliberate forum shopping as petitioners sought similar reliefs based on the same facts when they filed the Petition for Review with the Court in Division notwithstanding their pending actions before the Regional Trial Court as well as the Supreme Court. Accordingly, for the foregoing reasons, the Court En Bane finds no cogent reason to disturb its findings in the Assailed Decision. Premises considered, petitioners' Motion for Reconsideration is DENIED for lack of merit. SO ORDERED. LOVELN. BAUTISTA Associate Justice WE CONCUR: Presiding Justice ~.-.u-4 c . a.d-~eota ,J,. � JUXNITO C. CASTANEDA,jR. ER~P.UY Associate Justice Associate Justice

RESOLUTION CTA EB NO. 1451 (CTA Case No. 8885) A; . CAESAR A. CASANOVA (On Leave) Associate Justice MA. BELEN M. RINGPIS-LIBAN Associate Justice Q;u:; G' ~ M~~- ~ N: CIELITO MINDARO-GRULLA Associate Justice ~._~r~ CATHERINE T. MANAHAN Associate Justice