COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE v. KURIMOTO (PHILIPPINES) CORPORATION

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES Court of Tax Appeals QUEZON CITY En Bane COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL CTA EB NO. 2108 REVENUE, (CTA Case No. 9211) Petitioner, Present: DEL ROSARIO, P.J., UY, RINGPIS-LIBAN, MANAHAN, BACORRO-VILLENA, -versus- MODESTO-SAN PEDRO, REYES-FAJARDO, CUI-DAVID, and FERRER-FLORES, JJ. KURIMOTO (PHILIPPINES) Promulgated: CORPORATION, JAN 2 6 2023 Respondent. X ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------1----------------------- X RESOLUTION MODESTO-SAN PEDRO, J.: For resolution by this Court En Bane is petitioner's Motion for Reconsideration, filed on 24 February 2021,1 without any comment from respondent. 2 In his Motion for Reconsideration, petitioner presented the following arguments: 1. The documentary and testimonial evidence presented and offered by the respondent are inadmissible in evidence; and 2. Respondent is not entitled to a tax refund or the issuance of tax credit. Records, pp. 112-119. Resolution, dated 15 June 2022, id., pp. 139-141 .

RESOLUTION CTA EB NO. 2108 (CTA Case No. 9211) Page2of4 Following a studied review of the arguments, we DENY the Motion for Reconsideration for lack of merit. In Ortigas and Company Limited Partnership vs. Judge Tirso Velasco and Dolores V. Molina, and Dolores V. Molina vs. Hon. Presiding Judge, RTC, Quezon City, Br. I 05, and Manila Banking Corporation,3 the Supreme Court had the occasion to rule in this wise: "Effect, and Disposition of Motion for Reconsideration The filing of a motion for reconsideration, authorized by Rule 52 of the Rules of Court, does not impose on the Court the obligation to deal individually and specifically with the grounds relied upon therefor, in much the same way that the Court does in its judgment or final order as regards be issues raised and submitted for decision. This would be a useless formality or ritual invariably involving merely a reiteration of the reasons already set forth in the judgment or final order for rejecting the arguments advanced by the movant; and it would be a needless act, too, with respect to issues raised for the first time, these 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." Moreover, in H. Harry L. Roque, Jr., et al. vs. Commission on Election, represented by Hon. Chairman Jose Melo, et al.,4 the Supreme Court En Bane ruled that whenever the issues raised in the Motion for Reconsideration have already been addressed and passed upon in the Decision, and the Motion for Reconsideration failed to raise matters which are substantially plausible or compellingly persuasive, enough to lead the Court to rule in favor of the desired course of action, then the Motion for Reconsideration will be denied by the Court, to wit: "Petitioners' above contention, as well as the arguments, citations, and premises holding it together, is a rehash of their previous position articulated in their memorandum in support of their petition. They have been considered, squarely addressed, and found to be without merit in the Decision subject hereof. The Court is not inclined to embark on another extended discussion of the same issue again... XXX XXX XXX G.R. Nos. 109645 and 112564, Resolution, 4 March 1996. 4 G.R. No. 188456, Resolution, I0 February 20 I0

RESOLUTION CTA EBNO 2108 (CTA Case No. 9211) Page 3 of4 While a motion for reconsideration may tend to dwell on issues already resolved in the decision sought to be reconsidered-and this should not be an obstacle for a reconsideration-the hard reality is that petitioners have failed to raise matters substantially plausible or compellingly persuasive to warrant the desired course of action. XXX XXX XXX WHEREFORE, the instant separate motions for reconsideration of the main and intervening petitioners are DENIED." This was equally enunciated in Shangri-La International Hotel Management, Ltd., et al. vs. Developers Group ofCompanies, Inc.:5 "The bulk of the aforementioned grounds is a mere rehash of movant's previous arguments. While DGCI is correct in stating that a motion for reconsideration, by its very nature, may tend to dwell on issues already resolved in the decision sought to be reconsidered and that this should not be an obstacle for a reconsideration, the hard reality is that movant has failed to raise matters substantially plausible or compellingly persuasive to warrant the desired course of action. Considering that the grounds presently raised have been sufficiently considered, if not squarely addressed, in the subject Decision, it behooves movant to convince the Court that certain findings or conclusions in the Decision are contrary to law. As it is, however, the instant motion does not raise any new or substantial legitimate ground or reason to justifY the reconsideration sought." A perusal of the Motion for Reconsideration would show that the arguments raised therein have already been sufficiently passed upon, discussed, threshed out and judiciously resolved in the Decision, dated 3 February 2021, which is sought to be reconsidered. The Motion for Reconsideration disclosed no cogent reason to disturb the findings and conclusions which this Court made in said Decision. Applying the judicial pronouncements, above, nothing is left for this Court to do but to deny the same. WHEREFORE, petitioner's Motion for Reconsideration is hereby DENIED for lack of merit. SO ORDERED. G.R. No. 159938, Resolution, 22 January 2007.

RESOLUTION CTA EBNO. 2108 (CTA Case No. 9211) Page 4 of4 WE CONCUR: ROMAN G. DEL ROSARIO Presiding Justice E~P.UY Associate Justice ~- ~ --v(.. MA. BELEN M. RINGPis-LIBAN Associate Justice ~7-~ CATHERINE T. MANAHAN Associate Justice ,_ JEAN !Y11UU.L- J)A\...VKKV-VILLENA ~ a...r:~-F~~ MARIAN IV1JF. REY'iS-FAJ!{RDO Associate Justice LA~tft{~AVID Associate Justice c~t:~ORES Associate Justice