CTA Case No. EB CRIM-99 (Resolution on MR)

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES COURT OF TAX APPEALS QUEZON CITY ENBANC PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, CTA EB CRIM NO. 099 Petitioner, (CTA Crim Case No. 0-918) -versus- Present: Del Rosario, P.J. , Ringpis-Lib an, Manahan, Bacorro-Villena, Modesto-San Pedro, Reyes-Fajardo, Cui-David, Ferrer-Flores, and Angeles, ]]. SERAFIN PANALIGAN VILLALOBOS, Promulgated: SEP 12 ~__;:, Respondent. X-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- /3(.?)--�r6-XD Q �I"\ � RESOLUTION RINGPIS-LIBAN,J: For resolution is the petitioner's " fo tion for Reconsideration"1 received by the Court on May 3, 2024, with respondent's comment received by the Court on May 30, 2024.2 Petitioner seeks reconsideration of this Court's Decision, the dispositive portion of which reads as follows: "WHEREFORE, premises considered, the instan t Petition for Review is DENIED for lack of jurisdiction. SO ORDERED./ 1 Rollo, CT.\ EB CRii'-.1. r 0. 099, pp. 077-084. 2 Ibid., pp- 92-98.

Page 2 of3 RESOLUTION CL' EB CR!i\1. ~0. 099 Petitioner claims that the assailed Resolution dated August 18, 2022 was received by the Bureau of Internal Revenue National Office (BIR-NO)- Litigation Division and Prosecution Division on August 26, 2022; that petitioner's counsel became aware of such Resolution on October 3, 2022 when it was received by the Legal Division-Revenue Region No. 6-Manila; that upon receipt of the assailed Resolution from the National Office, petitioner's counsel filed the l\Iotion for Reconsideration with Entry of Appearance; that rules of procedure should give way for a liberal construction if the same will hinder, impede or sacrifice the demands of substantial justice; and that for the interest of the government, the subject assessment must be paid by respondent without unnecessary delay. In the Comment on the "Motion for Reconsideration (Filed by Petitioner dated 03 May 2024)," respondent states that petitioner merely narrated the circumstances which led to the belated filing of the Motion for Reconsideration; that deducing from the narration, there was a miscoordination within the BIR which is not a valid and substantial ground to set aside procedural rules; and that petitioner failed to provide substantial ground to warrant liberal application of the procedural rules and reverse the Decision of the Court En Bane promulgated on April17, 2024. After consideration, the Court En Bane resolves to deny the "Motion for Reconsideration." The Court En Bane reviewed the grounds relied upon by petitioner in support of its Motion for Reconsideration but finds no cogent reason to grant the same. The Court in Division ruled that the reckoning period for the filing of a motion for reconsideration is on /\.Ugust 26, 2022, the day when the BIR-NO- Litigation Division and Prosecution Division received the August 18, 2022 Resolution dismissing the case for prescription, not on October 3, 2022, which was the day when petitioner's counsel became aware of the existence of the assailed August 18, 2022 Resolution. Thus, when the "Motion for Reconsideration With Leave of Court and Entry of /1.ppearance (Re: Resolution dated 18 August 2022)" was filed on October 18, 2022, petitioner's right to appeal had already lapsed. Accordingly, the Court En Bane has no jurisdiction to entertain the present appeal. It must be stressed that among the ends to which a motion for reconsideration is addressed, one is precisely to convince the Court that its ruling is erroneous and improper, contrary to law or the evidence3 If the movant failed to do so, the motion for reconsideration must necessarily fail. WHEREFORE, premises considered, petitioner's "Motion for Reconsideration" is DENIED for lack of merit./ �' Teod11/o AI. Coqlfilla, d!i1rg G1tenu l~'llli!?Jm:~�e_~� Compel/()', inc. 1'. Com1 ~/F0/:I/ fn.olana: ~/f___,cuwo del Sur, 32 SC::lVJ 31 ..f., 317 (19 10) N.O. '1 /Je Hon. Commi.uian 011 E!edio1u cmd ,\Jr. J.-Yeil M. AIJ!(m::::_, G .R. No. 15191-1-, July 31, 2002.

Page 3 of3 RESOLUT!Ol\i CT\ EB CRI~l. NO. 09'! SO ORDERED. MA. BELEN M. RINGPIS-LIBAN Associate Justice WE CONCUR: Presiding Justice tA1--; 7. CATHERINE T. MANAHAN .Associate Justice JEAN (OrJ Oflicial Business) MARIA ROWENA MODESTO-SAN PEDRO Associate Justice ~ ~ F. ~ -~�Pfrh. MARIAN 1\r#. REYES:FAJAI{DO 1\ssociate Justice LANtlE4ErSu. nCtUtIn-�~VID Associate Justice HENRY S.I/;JGELES /\ssociate Justice