COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE v. SOUTH PREMIERE POWER CORP.

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES COURT OF TAX APPEALS QUEZON CITY ENBANC COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL CTAEB N0. 1898 REVENUE, (CTA CASE NO. 9337) Petitioner, -vers us- SOUTH PREMIERE POWER CORP., CTA EB NO. 1899 Respondent. (CTA CASE NO. 9337) x----------------------------------------------x SOUTH PREMIERE POWER CORP., Petitioner, -vers u s- Present: Del Rosario, P.J., Castaneda, Jr., Uy, F abon-Victorino, Mindaro-Grulla, Ringpis-Lib an, Manahan, Bacorro-Villena, and Modesto-San Pedro, ]] COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL P romulgated: RINGPIS-LIBAN, J.: For resolution is the Commissioner of Internal Revenue (CIR)'s "Motion for Partial Reconsideration [re: Decision dated October 14, 2019)"1 filed on November 4, 2019, with South Premiere Power Corp. (SPPC)'s Comment, filed on December 16,2019. ~ 1 Docket, CTA EB NO. 1732, pp. 139-149.

Resolution CTA EB NOS. 1898 & 1899 In the instant motion, the CIR avers that the Court En Bane erred in ruling that SPPC is not liable to pay interest, surcharge, and compromise penalty, hence, entided to its claim for refund or issuance of tax credit certificate; that the Court En Bane erred in granting the claim based on the ground that SPPC relied in good faith on previous issuances issued by the Bureau of Internal revenue (BIR); that that the imposition of compromise penalty is proper. On the other hand, SPPC argues that the CIR is precluded from challenging the portion of the Decision of the Court in Division, which was affirmed by the Court En Bane ordering the CIR to refund to SPPC the amount representing surcharge, interest and compromise penalty paid by SPPC; that a taxpayer will not be held liable to pay surcharge, interest and penalty if he acted in good faith. After consideration, the Court En Bane resolves to deny the "Motion for Reconsideration." The Court En Bane reviewed the grounds relied upon by the CIR in support of his "Motion for Partial Reconsideration [re: Decision dated October 14, 2019]" but finds no cogent reason to grant the same. The Court notes that the CIR's motion merely reiterates or amplifies the arguments previously raised in its Petition for Review which were already considered and extensively discussed upon by the Court En Bane in the assailed Decision dated October 14, 2019. It must be stressed that among the ends to which a motion for reconsideration is addressed, one is precisely to convince the Court that its ruling is erroneous and improper, contrary to law or the evidence.2 If the movant failed to do so, the motion for reconsideration must necessarily fail. In view of the foregoing, the Court finds it needless to reiterate the discussions made in the assailed Decision. WHEREFORE, premises considered, the "Motion for Partial Reconsideration [re: Decision dated October 14, 2019]" is DENIED for lack of merit. The assailed Decision dated October 14,2019 is AFFIRMED. SO ORDERED. ~� ~ A' '-- MA. BELEN M. RINGPIS-LIBAN Associate Justice 'Teodulo M. Coquilla vs. The Han. Commission on Elections and Mr. Neil M. Alvarez, G.R. No. 151914, July 31, 2002.

Resolution CTA EB NOS. 1898 & 1899 WE CONCUR: (I reiterate my Concum�ng and Dinenting Opinion) ROMAN G. DEL ROSARIO Presiding Justice J6_~A�~-�HT~O Cc. CGA:St-T~-A;,N~.E..D.~lJ.R. ERL~P.UY Associate Justice Associate Justice ' ~ M. M~~. &',._tL,. CIELITO N. MINDARO-GRULLA Associate Justice ..... ~�~~ (I rezterate my CDO k d f<eb. 27, 2018) CATHERINE T. MANAHAN JEAN BACORRO-VILLENA Associate Justice A 6. MODESTO-SAN PEDRO