VICTORIAS AGRICULTURAL DISTRICT MULTI-PURPOSE COOPERATIVE, v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, BIR REGIONAL DIRECTOR, REGION 12, BACOLOD CITY (formerly EB UDK 23)

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES COURT OF TAX APPEALS QUEZON CITY ENBANC VICTORIAS AGRICULTURAL CTA EB No. 2380 DISTRICT MULTI-PURPOSE (CTA Case No. 9828) COOPERATIVE, Present: Petitioner, -versus- DEL ROSARIO, PJ, UY, COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL RINGPIS-LIBAN, REVENUE, BIR REGIONAL MANAHAN, DIRECTOR, REGION 12, BACORRO-VILLENA, BACOLOD CITY, MODESTO-SAN PEDRO, REYES-FAJARDO, Respondents. CUI-DAVID, and FERRER-FLORES, JJ. Promulgated: X-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------X RESOLUTION UY, J.: For resolution is petitioner's Motion for Reconsideration filed on June 21 , 2022 by registered mail without respondent's comment despite due notice per Records Verification Report dated September 29, 2022 issued by Records Records Officer I, Leocadia D. Victoria and noted by Chief Judicial Staff Officer, Benjamin D. Pineda , Jr. of the Judicial Records Division of this Court. In support of its Motion, petitioner prays that the Court reconsiders and set aside the Resolution dated April 8, 2022, dismissing the instant case for its failure to submit the certified true copies of the assailed Resolution dated May 27, 2020 and Order dated &1 November 14, 2019 rendered by the First Division of this Court in CTA Case No. 9828. ('�

RESOLUTION CTA EB No. 2380 Page 2 of4 According to petitioner, it offers no excuse for its failure to submit the certified true copies of the assailed Resolution and Order, except for the difficult in securing the same due to the COVID-19 pandemic, with the concomitant travel restrictions considering that both petitioner and its counsel are based in Bacolod City, Negros Occidental. It further claims that as early as March 23, 2020, petitioner, through its counsel, has exerted efforts to secure the required certified true copies by authorizing its contact in Metro Manila to secure the same from the Court of Tax Appels but the efforts did not succeed because of lockdowns and other restrictions to control COVID-19 pandemic. Finally, petitioner maintains that it would serve the higher interest of justice if the instant Petition for Review be heard and decided by the Court on the merits, considering the serious issues raised therein. THE COURT'S RULING The Court finds no merit in petitioner's Motion for Reconsideration. It bears reiterating that pursuant to Section 4(b), Rule 8 of the RRCTA, in relation to Sections 6 and 7 of Rule 43 of the Revised Rules of Court, it provides that a clearly legible duplicate original or certified true copy of the decision appealed from shall be attached to the petition; and that non-compliance with such mandatory requirement is sufficient ground to dismiss the petition. In this case, a careful perusal of the records reveals that the Resolution dated June 24, 2021, directing petitioner to submit the certified true copies of the assailed Resolution and Order was received by petitioner on August 9, 2021. 1 However, to date, or after more than one (1) year, petitioner still failed to submit the required documents. Cleary, petitioner has been utterly remiss in complying with the mandatory requirement of the rules. Petitioner likewise failed to offer any compelling or justifiable reason for its non-compliance. To be sure, the relaxation of procedural rules cannot be made without any valid reasons proffered for or underpinning it. To merit liberality, petitioner must show reasonable cause justifying its non- compliance with the rules and must convince the Court that the outright~ 1 EB Docket, p. 103.

RESOLUTION CTA EB No. 2380 Page3 of4 dismissal of the petition would defeat the administration of substantial justice. 2 Further, it must be emphasized that the bare invocation of 'the interest of substantial justice" line is not some magic wand that will automatically compel us to suspend procedural rules. Procedural rules are not to be belittled, let alone dismissed simply because their non- observance may have resulted in prejudice to a party's substantial rights. Utter disregard of the rules cannot be justly rationalized by harping on the policy of liberal construction.3 In fine, the Court En Bane finds no cogent reason to reverse or modify the assailed Resolution dated April 8, 2022. WHEREFORE, in light of the foregoing considerations, the instant Motion for Reconsideration is DENIED for lack of merit. SO ORDERED. ER~P.UY WE CONCUR: Associate Justice Presiding Justice @v. ~ ~'- MA. BELEN M. RINGPIS-LIBAN Associate Justice c~� 7� /k:-c....A�t.~- CATHERINE T. MANAHAN Associate Justice " JEAN MAKI 2 Daikoku Electronics Phils., Inc. v. Raza, G.R. No. 181688, June 5, 2009. 3 Land Bank ofthe Philippines v. The Court ofAppeals, G.R. No. 221636, July 11, 2016.

RESOLUTION CTA EB No. 2380 Page4of4 MARIA ROW~ IVY-~. ~~r~r~ MARIAN REv&s-;A.YARDO Associate Justice lmru~ LANEE S. CUI-DAVID Associate Justice C~Asso~ ci~t~'~ j'~;tE j~~ yS ��