OROVILLE RESOURCES AND VENTURES, INC. (ORVI) v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE

1111111111111111 111111 111111111111111 1111111111111111111111111 111111111111111111 CTA Form No. 8 (For DCC) 20-000008-0086 REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES COURT OF TAX APPEALS QUEZON CITY SPECIAL FIRST DIVISION CTA CASE N0.10243 OROVILLE RESOURCES AND VENTURES, INC. (ORVI), Petitioner, - versus - NOTICE OF RESOLUTION COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent. To: OFFICE OF THE SOLICITOR GENERAL I 34 Amorsolo St., Legazpi Village Makati City ATTY. SYLVIA R. ALMA JOSE ATTY. AYESHA HANIA B. GUILING-MATANOG Room 703, Litigation Division, BIR National Office Building Sen. Miriam P. Defensor-Santiago A venue Diliman, Quezon City ATTY. ELEUTERIO F. DIAO IV Room 220, Tomas Saco Scapes (TSS) Tomasco Street, Macasandig, Cagayan De Oro City 9000 Misamis Oriental GREETINGS: You are hereby notified by these presents that on August 11, 2026, a Resolution was rendered in the above-entitled case, copy of which is attached hereto. Quezon City, Philippines, August 24, 2026. Atty.~1'8. Exec~: ~~, of Ringpis Court II

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES COURT OF TAX APPEALS QUEZON CITY SPECIAL FIRST DIVISION OROVILLE RESOURCES CTA CASE NO. 10243 AND VENTURES, INC. (ORVI), Petitioner, Members: -versus- BACORRO-VILLENA, Acting Chairpe rson, and CUI-DAVID, JJ. COMMISSIONER OF Promulgated: INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent. AUG 11 2026 j I:vr f M .. )(-------------------- -- -- -~----------- -)( RESOLUTION CUI-DAVID, J.: For resolution 1s respondent's Motion for Reconsideration (Re: Decision dated 27 February 2026) [Motion for Reconsideration] , filed on March 18, 2026, with petitioner's Comment/Opposition to Respondent's Motion for Reconsideration, filed on May 6 , 2026. Respondent seeks reconsideration and r eversal of the Decision dated February 27 , 2026 (assailed Decision) , which granted petitioner's Petition for Review. The dispositive portion of t h e assailed Decision reads: WHEREFORE, premises con side red, the in stant Petition for Re view filed by petit ion er Oroville Resources a n d Ventures, Inc . (ORVI) , is h er eby GRANTED. Accordingly, th e d eficiency incom e t ax, value-added tax, exp a nded withholding tax, fina l wit hholding tax, d ocumentary st a mp tax, and compromise penalties in the aggregate am ou nt of P 1, 102,977. 3 4 for taxable year 2 0 17, as reflected in the Form a l Letter of Dem a nd a nd the corresponding Assessm e n t

RESOLUTION CTA Case No. 10 243 Oroville Resou rces and Ventu res, Inc . (ORVI) v. Commissioner of Internal Reven ue X-------------------- ------------------------------------- --------------- ----------------- ------------X Notices d ated July 4 , 201 9, as well a s th e Wa rran t of Distraint a nd Levy da ted December 16, 2 01 9 , ar e h ereby CANCELLED a nd SET ASIDE. Respondent Commission er of Interna l Revenue, or a ny p erson acting on his b eh a lf, is h ereby ENJOINED a nd PROHIBITED from furth er ins tituting, pursuing, or oth erwise taking a ny action for th e collection of the foregoing void assessments . SO ORDERED. In his Motion for Reconsideration, respondent raises the following grounds: (1) the Court has no jurisdiction over the instant Petition for Review; and (2) petitioner was not denied due process. As to the first ground, respondent maintains that petitioner failed to file a protest against the Formal Letter of Demand and Final Assessment Notice (FLD/FAN) . Thus, there was neither a decision nor inaction by the Commissioner of Internal Revenue (CIR) regarding a disputed assessment that could be appealed to this Court. Consequently, r espondent maintains that the assessments had long become final, executory, and demandable. Anent the second ground, r espondent avers that the r evenue officer s followed the guidelines set forth in Revenue Regula tion No . 18-2013. Accordingly, petitioner should be deemed to have received the notices issued by the Bureau of Internal Revenue (BIR). Respondent likewise asserts that petitioner's representative deliberately registered the business address in a manner designed to evade the r eceipt of government notices. For its part, petitioner avers that respondent failed to raise any new, substantial, or compelling argument that would warrant the r eversal of the assailed Decis ion. As to the issue on jurisdiction, p etitioner contends that this Court is vested with jurisdiction not only over disputed assessments but likewise over "other matters" arising under the National Internal Revenue Code and other laws administered by the BIR. This necessarily includes the authority to determine the validity of collection measures , such as a Warrant of Distraint and Levy (WDL).

RESOLUTION CTA Case No. 10243 Oroville Resources and Ventures, Inc. (ORVI) v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue X-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------X Petitioner emphasizes that the Court correctly found that the Letter of Authority (LOA) and subsequent notices were improperly served, and this finding constitutes a fatal defect that vitiates the entire assessment process. After careful consideration, the instant Motion for Reconsideration must fail. The Court finds no cogent reason to modify or overturn the assailed Decision. The arguments raised by petitioner were thoroughly considered, resolved, and addressed in the assailed Decision. In the absence of any new or significant grounds in petitioner's plea for reconsideration, the conclusion of the Court in the assailed Decision that respondent failed to establish proper service of the LOA, the subsequent assessment notices and, ultimately, the WDL, thereby violating petitioner's right to due process and rendering the deficiency tax assessment void, is maintained. Respondent argues that the FLD /FAN was properly served and that petitioner failed to timely file a protest thereto, rendering the assessment final and executory. This argument is unavailing. As correctly held In the assailed Decision, t h e assessment s were declared void; hence, they never attained finality and cannot be considered delinquent obligations. 1 Consequently, any collection effort based on such void assessments, including the continued implementation of the WDL, lacks a legal basis. As jurisprudence teaches, when an assessment is void ab initio for want of due process, it produces no legal effect and may be assailed at any time, even if no protest was filed. 2 A void assessment cannot serve as the basis for any administrative or judicial collection proceeding. Hence, the enforcement of the WDL predicated upon such assessment cannot be sustained. Furthermore, it is well-settled that if the issues raised in a motion for reconsideration are mere rehashes of those already passed upon and adjudged unmeritorious by the Court, these cannot be regarded as substantial and do not require further Orli= Memorial Chapel, Inc. v. Commissioner of lnlernal Revenue, G. R. o. 278483. December 3, 2025 [Per J . Sing h, Third Di vis ion]. !d.

RESOLUTION CTA Case No. 1024 3 Oroville Resources and Ventures, Inc. (ORVI) v. Commissioner of Interna l Revenue x----------------------------------· ------------------------------------------------------------------x discussion. Any additional discourse would be unnecessary and repetitive. 3 The Supreme Court's pronouncement in Social Justice Society (SJS) Officers v. Lim4 is likewise instructive: The filing of a motion for reconsideration, authorized by Rule 52 of the Ru les of Court, does not impose on the Court the obligation to deal individually and specifically with the grounds relied upon therefor, in much th e same way that the Court does in its judgment or final order as regards the issu es raised and submitted for decision. This would be a useless formality or ritual invariably involving merely a reiteration of the reasons a lready set forth in t h e judgment or final order for rejecting the arguments a dvanced by the movant; and it would be a needless act, too, with respect to issues raised for t h e first time, t h ese being, as above stated, deemed waived because not asserted at the first opportunity. It suffices for the Court to deal generally and summarily with the motion for reconsideration, and merely state a legal ground for its denial (Sec. 14, Art. VIII, Constitution); i.e., the motion contains merely a reiteration or rehash of arguments already submitted to and pronounced without merit by the Court in its judgment, or the basic issues have already been passed upon, or the motion discloses no substantial argument or cogent reason to warrant reconsideration or modification of the judgment or final order; or the arguments in the motion are too unsubstantial to require consideration, etc. (Emphasis supplied) WHEREFORE, premises considered, respondent's Motion for Reconsideration (Re: Decision dated 27 February 2026) 1s hereby DENIED for lack of merit. SO ORDERED. kt.IAAif;ni LANt.fl:.v~~I-DAtiD Associate Justice Social J ustice Sociery (SJS) Officers v. Lim, G. R. Nos. 187836 & 1879 16, March 10, 20 15 [Per J. Perez, En Bane] citing Ortigas and Company Limited Partnership v. Judge Velasco. G. R. No. 109645 & 112564, March 4, 1996 [Per J. Narvasa, Third Divisio n]. G. R. Nos. 187836 & 1879 16, March I 0. 20 15 [Per J. Perez. En Bane).

RESOLUTION CTA Case No. 10243 Oroville Resources and Ventures, Inc. (ORVI) v. Commissioner oflnternal Revenue X-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------X !CONCUR: