HON. LOURDES R. JOSE, in her Capacity as City Treasurer of City of Caloocan V. TIGERWAY FACILITIES AND RESOURCES, INC.

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES COURT OF TAX APPEALS QUEZON CITY ENBANC ********* HON. LOURDES R. JOSE, in her CTA EB No. 1605 capacity as City Treasurer of (CTA AC No. 127) City of Caloocan, Present: Petitioner, - versus - DEL ROSARIO, P.J. , CASTANEDA, JR., UY, FASON-VICTORINO, MINDARO-GRULLA, RINGPIS-LIBAN, and MANAHAN, JJ. TIGERWAY FACILITIES AND Promulgated: RESOURCES INC., Respondent. +M-f.lAo!I..Y.._~l ..O..vL-.42~0~19.___ _ __ -~ ~~ ~~~ ~ X - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- . RESOLUTION UY, J.: For this Court's resolution is petitioner's "MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION (of the Decision dated 25 July 2018)" filed on August 23, 2018, 1 without respondent's comment despite due notice,2 seeking to set aside this Court En Bane's Decision dated July 25, 2018, the dispositive portion of which reads: "WHEREFORE, premises considered , the instant Petition for Review is hereby DENIED for lack of merit. SO ORDERED." 1 EB Docket, pp. 114 to 127. rv 2 Records Verification dated January 15,2019 issued by the Judicial Records Division of.l_ thi s Court, EB Docket, p. 133.

RESOLUTION CTA EB No. 1605 (CTA AC No. 127) Page 2 of3 In her Motion for Reconsideration, petitioner maintains that the subject assessment has long become final and executory for failure of respondent to timely file a written protest under Section 195 of the Local Government Code (LGC); that having failed to do so, respondent cannot validly challenge the assessment by filing an action for refund under Section 196 of the LGC; that the notice of assessment need not contain factual and legal bases of the assessment because it is not a mandatory requirement under Section 195 of the LGC; and that to rule otherwise is to add a requirement not provided under the law. As mentioned earlier, no comment or opposition thereto was filed by respondent despite due notice. THE COURT EN BANC'S RULING Petitioner's Motion for Reconsideration lacks merit. A careful perusal of petitioner's Motion for Reconsideration shows that the arguments raised therein are a mere reiteration of matters which have already been considered, weighed and resolved in the assailed Decision. Finding no compelling reason to reconsider, modify or reverse Our Decision, We shall no longer belabor in this Resolution, to repeat the disquisitions made therein. WHEREFORE, premises considered, petitioner's Motion for Reconsideration is DENIED for lack of merit. SO ORDERED. � WE CONCUR: ER~P.UY Associate Justice Presiding Justice

RESOLUTION CTA EB No. 1605 (CTA AC No. 127) Page 3 of3 .Q.__-~ CcA.SGT.AJtN-E.D.A.~, '.J.R.9.. JifANITO C. Associate Justice r. ~J .+-N.M....:Lu._ C~ ~~ .Lt.,. 4 '- . CiEU'TO N. M(NOARO-dRULLA MA. BELEN M. RINGPIS-LIBAN Associate Justice Associate Justice (On Leave) CATHERINE T. MANAHAN Associate Justice