DONATO C. CRUZ TRADING CORP. v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES COURT OF TAX APPEALS QUEZON CITY ENBANC DONATO C. CRUZ TRADING CTA EB NO. 2573 CORP., (CTA Case No. 9721) Petitioner, Present: -versus- DEL ROSARIO, P.J., COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL RINGPIS-LIBAN, REVENUE, MANAHAN, BACORRO-VILLENA, MODESTO-SAN PEDRO, REYES-FAJARDO, CUI-DAVID, and FERRER-FLORES, and ANGELES, JJ. Respondent. X- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - RE S O LU T I ON RINGPIS-LIBAN, .�: This resolves Petitioner's "Motion for Reconsideration" 1 filed through registered mail on August 16, 2023, with Respondent's "Comment/Opposition (fo Motion for Reconsideration dated 16 August 2023)"2 filed on October 31, 2023 via email. Petitio ner's Motion for Reconsideration prays for the reversal of the Decision promulgated on July 25, 2023 and the cancellation of the assessments issued by Respondent against it. The dispositive portion of the Decision pro mulgated by this Court on July 25, 2023 reads~ Rollo, pp. 120-127. !d., 133-139.

RESOLUTION CTA EB NO. 2573 (CTA Case No. 9721) "WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Petition for Review filed with the Court En Bane on March 04, 2022 is DENIED for lack of merit. Accordingly, the March 19, 2021 Decision and February 07, 2022 Resolution in CTA Case No. 9721 are AFFIRMED. SO ORDERED."3 In its Motion for Reconsideration, Petitioner contends that while decisions of the Court of Tax Appeals do not constitute precedent, the case of Kerry Food Ingredients Cebu, Inc. v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue4 should be considered persuasive especially considering that its ratio deczdendi was cited in the subsequent case of Pilipinas Shell Petroleum v. Commissioner ofCustom;. Likewise, Petitioner avers that Revenue Memorandum Circular (RMC) No. 44-2007 is a legislative rule, not merely interpretative. Thus, Respondent should inform Petitioner of the same. Otherwise, any assessment should be cancelled and set aside. We resolve to deny Petitioner's Motion for Reconsideration for lack of merit. The arguments raised by Petitioner in his motion are mere recapitulation of the arguments he has raised in his Petition for Review flied with this Court. In addition, these issues have been amply considered, weighed and resolved in the Decision promulgated on July 25, 2023. Thus, We shall not belabor, in this Resolution, to repeat the disquisitions made therein. In sum, the Court En Bane finds no cogent reason to overturn the March 19, 2021 Decision and February 07, 2022 Resolution of the Second Division. WHEREFORE, premises considered, Petitioner's "Motion for Reconsideration" is DENIED for lack of merit. SO ORDERED. L .j,fi, ... 7' L-- MA. BELEN M. RINGPIS-LIBAN Associate Justice 3 Id., Decision dated July 25, 2023, p. 112. 4 CTA Case No. 8593, February 09, 2016. 5 CTA EB Cases No. 1003 and 1007 (CTA Case No. 8004), September 05, 2016.

RESOLUTION CTA EB NO. 2573 (CTA Case No. 9721) WE CONCUR: Presiding Justice ~'?- CATHERINE T. MANAHAN Associate Justice r JEAN lVllll\.~ MARIA v-".nl" PEDRO ~ ~F.~-I=a.j~ MARIAN I~. REYlf'S-FAJAiiDO Associate Justice Auutw~ LANEE S. CUI-trAVID Associate Justice co~!~~s HENRY~GELES Associate Justice