THE CITY OF PARA?AQUE and DR. ANTHONY I. PULMANO, in his capacity as CITY TREASURER OF PARA?AQUE v. KUEHNE + NAGEL, INC.

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES Court of Tax Appeals QUEZON CITY En Bane THE CITY OF PARANAQUE AND CTA EB NO. 2130 DR. ANTHONY I. PULMANO, in his (CTA AC No. 189) capacity as CITY TREASURER OF PARANAQUE, Present: Petitioners, DEL ROSARIO, P.J., CASTANEDA, JR., UY, RINGPIS-LIBAN, -versus- MANAHAN, BACORRO-VILLENA, and MODESTO-SAN PEDRO, JJ Promulgated: KUEHNE +NAGEL, INC., Respondent. --l--- X -------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------/----------------- X RESOLUTION MODESTO-SAN PEDRO, J.: Before this Court En Bane is petitioners ' Motion for Reconsideration (on the Decision dated July 17, 2020) ("Motion for Reconsideration"), filed through registered mail on 24 September 2020, 1 with respondent's Comment/Opposition (RE: Motion for Reconsideration dated September 23, 2020) ("Comment"), filed on 9 November 2020.2 In the Motion for Reconsideration,3 petitioners allege that: 1. The City Treasurer has the authority to file the appeal under the Local Government Code; 2. There is a necessity to determine whether or not respondent is exempt from local taxes. Had they protested the assessment based on that ground, such matter should have been the proper subject of,J 1 Records, pp. 267-286. 2 /d., pp. 290-296. 3 /d. , pp. 268-279.

RESOLUTION CTA�BN0.2130(CTAACNo.l89) Page 2 of3 litigation before the trial courts and respondent would have been afforded a forum to present evidence that, indeed, it is exempt from local taxes under the Local Government Code; and 3. Petitioners were deprived of due process when this Court En Bane considered matters raised for the first time on appeal. In its Comment,4 respondent counter-argued that: 1. Petitioner had no authority to file the Petition for Review before this Court En Bane; and 2. This Court has authority to rule on issues not raised during trial if their consideration is necessary in reaching a just conclusion of the case. We deny the Motion for Reconsideration. The arguments raised therein are an exact copy of those raised in the Petition for Review. As such, these have already been sufficiently tackled in the Decision, dated 17 July 2020. Consequently, this Motion for Reconsideration deserves scant consideration. This Court En Bane has no other recourse but to deny the Motion for Reconsideration for failure to raise an issue worthy of this Court En Bane's attention. WHEREFORE, petitioners' Motion for Reconsideration is hereby DENIED for lack of merit. SO ORDERED. MARlAR ustice 4 !d., pp. 291-294.

RESOLUTION CTAEBN02130(CTAACNo.l89) Page 3 of3 WE CONCUR: Presiding Justice Sl._~z:-c. ~X/~ JtfANITO C. CASTANEDA:, JR. Associate Justice ERL1~.UY Associate Justice (tv.. ~ -4 <...___ MA. BELEN M. RINGPIS-LIBAN Associate Justice ~"~ 1.. A ~ . /.�� ,..-..,. THERINE T. MANAHAN Associate Justice ' JEAN lvtAKl.ll>' '\lftLVKKU-VILLENA