COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE v. LOTTE CONFECTIONERY PILIPINAS CORPORATION

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES COURT OF TAX APPEALS QUEZON CITY ENBANC COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL CTA EB NO. 2291 REVENUE, (CTA CASE NO. 8923) Petitioner, -versus- Present: LOTTE CONFECTIONERY PILIPINAS D el Rosario, P.]., CORPORATION, Castaneda, Jr., Uy, Respondent. Ringpis-Uban, Manahan, Bacorro-Villena, and Modesto-San Pedro, ]] Promulgated: RESOLUTION For resolution are the followings motions: 1) Respondent's "Motion for Issuance of Entry of Judgement;" and 2) Petitioner's "Motion for Reconsideration (Resolution dated 21 October 2020)" filed on November 11, 2020, with respondent's "Comment/Opposition (Re: Petitioner's Motion for Reconsideration)" filed on February 2, 2021. In the "Motion for Issuance of E ntry of Judgment," respondent states that on November 3, 2020, respondent received a copy of the Court En Bane's Resolution dated October 21, 2020, denying the petitioner's Motion to Admit Petition for Review; and that due to petitioner's failure to timely file the Petition for Review, the CTA Division's Decision dated January 15, 2020 has already attained finality and now executory by operation of law. Hence,

Page z of 3 RESOLUTION CTA EB NO. 2291 (CTA CASE NO. 8923) respondent prayed that the Court En Bane issue an order for the issuance of an Entry ofJudgment. In the "Motion for Reconsideration (Resolution dated 21 October 2020)," petitioner states that the Court, in the exercise of its equity jurisdiction, has the prerogative to relax the application of procedural rules where strong considerations of substantive justice are manifested in the petition; that the Minute Resolution granting the Motion for Extension of Time was only received by petitioner's counsel on August 18, 2020; that petitioner complied with the due process requirements provided under Section 228 of the NIRC and Section 3 of Revenue Regulation No. 12-99; that the collection of taxes is a matter imbued with public interest because they are the lifeblood of the government and so should be collected without unnecessary hindrance; and that the instant case is the first case handled by petitioner's counsel in this Court, hence, the latter pleads for the Court En Bane's leniency in applying the technical rules of procedure. Thus, petitioner prays that the Court En Bane's Resolution dated October 21, 2020, denying petitioner's Motion to Admit Petition for Review, be reversed and set aside and that the Petition for Review f!led on August 24, 2020 be admitted and given due course. After consideration, the Court En Bane resolves to deny petitioner's "Motion for Reconsideration (Resolution dated 21 October 2020)." The Court En Bane reiterates that the petitioner's delay in filing the Petition for Review as stated in paragraph 7 of the "Motion to Admit Petition for Review" is not excusable. The petitioner's reason for the delay, i.e. that the Court En Bane's Resolution granting the motion was received only on August 18, 2020, is not a valid excuse to f!le the Petition for Review beyond the allowable period. Petitioner should not assume that his prayer in the motion he f!led would be granted. The petitioner's mere invocations of substantial justice and liberality are not enough in order for the Court En Bane to suspend the procedural rules. IN VIEW HEREOF, the petitioner's "Motion for Reconsideration (Resolution dated 21 October 2020)" is DENIED for lack of merit. The resolution on Respondent's "Motion for Issuance of Entry of Judgement" is held in abeyance. SO ORDERED. Presiding Justice

Page 3 of3 RESOLUTION CTA EB NO. 2291 (CTA CASE NO. 8923) CJ.c~~....<g, ERLI~.UY JUANiro C. CASTANEu)i,jR. Associate Justice Associate Justice ~. ~ ..-fv(_ c~~~-~ MA. BELEN M. RINGPIS-LIBAN CATHERINE T. MANAHAN Associate Justice Associate Justice ..... MARlAR, JEAN 1vuuu.c,;t te Justice