COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE v. ORO DARE LOGISTICS CORPORATION

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES COURT OFTAX APPEALS QUEZON CITY ENBANC COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL CTA EB No. 2699 REVENUE, (CTA Case No. 9846) Petitioner, Present: DEL ROSARIO, PJ, RINGPIS-LIBAN, MANAHAN, - versus - BACORRO-VILLENA, MODESTO-SAN PEDRO, REYES-FAJARDO, and CUI-DAVID, FERRER-FLORES, ANGELES, IL ORO DARE LOGISTICS CORPORATION, Respondent. x--- ---------------------- ----------------- RESOLUTION REYES-FAJARDO, L.: For the Court's resolution is the Commissioner of Internal Revenue (CIR)'s Motion for Reconsideration1 of the Decision promulgated on May 10, 2024. In the Assailed Decision, the Court En,Bane affirmed the Court of Tax Appeals Third Division (Court in Division) cancellation of the CIR's deficiency Income tax and Value- Added Tax (VAT) assessments and corresponding collection measures issued against respondent Oro Dare Logistics Corporation (Oro Dare) relative to taxable year 2010. In the present motion, the CIR raises the same arguments already passed upon by the Court in the Assailed Decision; it insists that the assessments against Oro Dare had already become final and executory, are valid and lawful, and preceded by an investigation conducted by a duly authorized revenue officer. 1 Rollo, pp. 100-107.

RESOLUTION CTA EB No. 2699 (CTA Case No. 9846) While it is true 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."2 In the absence of substantial arguments, there being mere reiterations of past arguments to support the motion, We find no reason to reverse or modify the Assailed Decision.3 Any further discourse will only be unnecessary and repetitive.4 WHEREFORE, in light of the foregoing considerations, the Commissioner of Internal Revenue's Motion for Reconsideration of the Court En Bane Decision promulgated on May 10, 2024 is DENIED for lack of merit. SO ORDERED. ~ ~ F. ~ � ftA.f'c.-...rk> l d MARIAN F. RE1ES..FAJIARDO Associate Justice 2 Shangri-la International Hotel Management, Ltd. v. Developers Group of Companies, Inc., G.R. No. 159938 (Resolution), January 22,2007,541 PHIL 138-143. 3 See Slumgri-la International Hotel Management, Ltd. v. Developers Group a_{ Companies, Inc., G.R. No. 159938 (Resolution), January 22, 2007, 541 PHIL 138-143. ' Social Justice Socief1; (SJS) Officers, et al. v. Lim, G.R Nos. 187836 & 187916, March 10,2015. Also see Roque, Jr. v. Commission on Elections, G.R. No. 188456 (Resolution), February 10, 2010, 626 PHIL 75-92).

RESOLUTION CTA EB No. 2699 (CTA Case No. 9846) Page 3 o�3 WE CONCUR: I reiterate my Concurrzng Opinion. ROMAN G. DEL ROSARIO Presiding Justice ~-~ -")~ MA. BELEN M. RINGPIS-LIBAN Associate Justice C'~ 7- ~-�,...-4'\..4- - With all due respect, I maintain my Dissenting Opinion. CATHERINE T. MANAHAN Associate Justice --.......__ "'"'?narate Concurring Opinion . . BACORRO-VILLENA Associate Justice MARIARO 0-SANPEDRO ~MAA'dMt LANJJ;~~~.JI-DAVID Associate Justice ~~.~~~ CORAtQNG. Associate Justice HENRY JPNGELES Associate Justice