COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE v. TOP DRAW ANIMATION, INC.

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES COURT OF TAX APPEALS QUEZON CITY EN BANG ******* COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL CTA EB No. 1992 REVENUE, (CTA Case No. 8863) Petition e r, Present: -versus- DEL ROSARIO, P.J. , CASTANEDA, JR., UY, FABON-VICTORINO, MINDARO-GRULLA, RINGPIS-LIBAN, and MANAHAN, JJ. Promulgated: TOP DRAW ANIMATION, INC., MAY 20 Respondent. X- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - RESOLUTION UY , ~.: For resolution is petitioner's "MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION (Resolution dated February 13, 2019)" 1 filed on March 5, 2019, with respondent's "COMMENT/OPPOSITION (Re: Motion for Reconsideration dated 5 March 2019)"2 filed on March 22, 2019. In the said Motion, petitioner prays for the reversal and setting aside of the Court's Resolution dated February 13, 2019, the dispositive portion of wh ich reads: "WHEREFORE , premises considered , the Motion to Admit Petition for Review is hereby DENIED for lack of merit. SO ORDERED." 1 Docket, pp. 52 to 59. 2 Docket, pp. 60 to 64.

RESOLUTION CTA EB No. 1992 Page 2 of3 In his Motion, petitioner argues that the Honorable Court erred in denying petitioner's Motion for lack of merit, and not deciding petitioner's Petition for Review on the merits. In its Comment, respondent counters that: 1. The Motion for Reconsideration filed by petitioner is a mere pro forma motion. 2. Petitioner failed to point out specifically the findings or conclusion in the Honorable Court's Resolution dated February 13, 2019, which are not supported by evidence or contrary to law and petitioner failed to present adequate proof to warrant the reversal of the said Resolution. 3. The negligence of petitioner's counsels to file its Petition for Review on time binds petitioner. The evident disregard of the procedural rules causes unjust delays, disrupts the orderly discharge of judicial business, and is prejudicial to the rights of respondent. THE COURT EN BANC'S RULING Petitioner's Motion lacks merit. After a careful examination and consideration of the petitioner's Motion for Reconsideration, it is noted that the argument raised in the said Motion is a mere reiteration of matters which have already been considered, weighed and resolved in the assailed Decision. Thus, We shall not belabor, in this Resolution, to repeat the disquisitions made therein. WHEREFORE, premises considered, the instant Motion for Reconsideration is hereby DENIED for lack of merit. SO ORDERED. ER~.UY Associate Justice

RESOLUTION CTA EB No. 1992 Page 3 of3 WE CONCUR: Presiding Justice R. FASON-VICTORINO );A.. a.�<~~ C..~��~ I~ JU~NITO C. CASTANEDA, ~R. Associate Justice CiJ..x CIELITO M�N.. M~-C~ ~- ~h /"- MINDARO-GRULLA MA. BELEN M. RINGPIS-LIBAN Associate Justice Associate Justice ON LEAVE CATHERINE T. MANAHAN Associate Justice