PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES as represented by the Solicitor General through the Bureau of Internal Revenue v. ANNE GIL RACHEL LABAO y KUAN (Don Pedro Celdran Avenue, Corpus Christi Village, Tubad, Iligan City) and COURT OF TAX APPEALS, THIRD DIVISION

.~ . REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES Court of Tax Appeals QUEZON CITY En Bane PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, CTA EB CRIM. NO. 151 As represented by the Solicitor General (CTA Crim. Case No. 0-834) through the Bureau of Interna l Revenue, Present: Petitioner, RINGPIS-LIBAN, PJ, BACORRO-VILLENA, MODESTO-SAN PEDRO, -versus- REYES-FAJARDO, CUI-DAVID, FERRER-FLORES, and ANGELES, JJ ANNE GIL RACHEL LABAO y KUAN, and COURT OF TAX Promulgated: APPEALS, THIRD DIVISION, Respondents. !dUN 0 X ------------------------------------------------------------------------ --------------- X RESOLUTION MODESTO-SAN PEDRO, J.: For the Court' s resolution is petitioner' s Motion for Reconsideration (To the Decision dated October 29, 2025), fi led on November 26, 2025, with respondent's Comment/Opposition (Re: Motion for Reconsideration dated 26 November 2025) , fi led on February 9, 2026, assailing this Court's Decision, dated October 29, 2025, which denied the instant Petition for Certiorari. The Motion was not filed on time. A perusal of the records shows that the Department of Justice ("DOJ") received the assailed Decision on November 6, 2025.1 As Rule 15, Section 1 of the Revised Rules of the Court of Tax Appeals, as amended ("RRCTA"), requ ires that a Motion for Reconsideration be fi led within 15 days from th~ 1 Notice, dated November 3, 2025, Rollo, p. 152.

� RESOU'TIO' CTA Elf Crim_ No. 1:'1 1 (CTA Crim. Cas~.! '\Jn 0-83~) Page 2 of3 party's receipt of the Decision being assailed, respondent had until November 21, 2025 within which to file the instant Motion. It filed the Motion on November 26, 2025, I0 days after receipt of the assailed Decision and five days after the deadline. While deputized lawyers from the Bureau of Internal Revenue ("BIR") received the assailed Decision on November II, 2025, said date is not controlling. National Power Corporation v. National Labor Relations Commission," cited by Commissioner of Customs v. Court of Tax Appeals3 and affirmed in Baldovino-Torres v. Torres,~ has long since made clear that even when a principal counsel delegates work to a deputized counsel, it is receipt by the principal counsel that is considered when determining the start of a prescriptive period. As the BIR lawyers here are merely deputized by the DOJ and remain under the direct control and supervision of the latter,5 the prescriptive period for filing a Motion for Reconsideration must be counted from the latter's receipt of the assailed Decision, not from that of the BIR. The present Motion was thus filed late and must be denied. Assuming arguendo that the Motion was timely filed, this Com1 En Bane would still have to deny it for a lack of merit. Our Decision denied the instant Petition for Certiorari due to petitioner's failure to show grave abuse of discretion on the pm1 of the Com1 in Division. However, while petitioner's present Motion focuses on arguments against the Com1 in Division's acquittal of respondent, it lacks any substantial attempt to show that such errors of judgment amount to grave abuse of discretion. The Motion consequently fails to raise any actual and direct challenge to the Court En Bane's ruling, missing the point of the denial. Even had it been filed earlier, then, the Motion would still fail to convince Us of any error in the questioned ruling or in that of the Court in Division. But, to reiterate, the present Motion was filed late and must be denied on that ground. FOR THESE REASONS, petitioner's Motion for Reconsideration (To the Decision dated October 29. 2025), filed on November 26, 2025, is hereby DENIED for being filed late. The assailed Decision, dated October 29, 2025, is AFFIRMEDr G.R. Nos. 90933-61, May 29. 1997. G.R. No. 132929. March 27. 2000. G.R. No. 248675. July 20. 2022. See Rule 9. Sec/ion 10 o(lhe RRCT.<.

RESOLl TIO:\ CT.1\ UJ Crim. :Jo. 151 (CT:\ Crim. Case No. 0-83-1-J Page 3 of3 SO ORDERED. MARIA PEDRO WE CONCUR: ~- .{.,..J..,- I .______ MA. BELEN M. RINGPIS-LIBAN Presiding Justice JEAN MARl c- ~ . BACORRO-VILLENA ~~r.~~-r~ MARIAN nfy F. RE~ES-FAJARDO Associate Justice LA~/J~VID Associate Justice s HENRY~~NGELES Associate Justice