COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE v. REBECCA D. DUKA

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES COURT OF TAX APPEALS QUEZON CITY ENBANC COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL CTA EB NO. 3050 REVENUE, {CTA Case No . 10393) Petitioner, Present: -versus- RINGPIS-LIBAN, P.J ., BACORRO-VILLENA, MODESTO-SAN PEDRO, REYES-FAJARDO, CUI-DAVID, FERRER-FLORES, and ANGELES, JJ. Promulgated: RESOLUTION CUI-DAVID, J .: Before the Court En Bane is petitioner's Motion for Reconsideration (Re: Decision dated 22 December 2025} [Motion]) filed on January 20, 2026, assailin g the Decision1 promulgated on December 22, 2025 (assailed Decision), th e dispositive portion of which reads: WHEREFORE, premises considered, the instant Petition for Review filed by the Commissioner of Interna l Revenue on December 19, 2024 is DENIED for lack of m erit. The Decision d a ted May 29, 2 024 , a nd the Resolution da ted November 13, 2 0 24, of the Court's Second Division in CTA Case No. 10393 are AFFIRMED. SO ORDERED. En Bane (EB) Docket, pp. 113-1 39.

RESOLUTION CTA EB No. 3050 (CTA Case No. 10393) Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Rebecca D. Duka )C------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------)C In the assailed Decision, the Court En Bane ruled that the Bureau of Internal Revenue failed to observe the mandatory surveillance procedures under Revenue Memorandum Order (RMO) No. 3-2009, thereby violating respondent's right to due process. The Court likewise sustained the ruling of the Court's Second Division (Court in Division) in its Decision dated May 29, 2024 2 and Resolution dated November 13, 2024 3 in CTA Case No. 10393, which granted respondent's Petition for Review and cancelled and set aside the undated 48-Hour Notice, the 5-Day VAT Compliance Notice (VCN) dated September 24, 2020, and the Closure Order (SN: CO-RR10- 068-005-2020) dated October 14, 2020, all issued against respondent. In seeking reconsideration of the assailed Decision, petitioner raises the following ground in his Motion: WITH ALL DUE RESPECT, THE HONORABLE COURT ERRED WHEN IT CANCELLED AND SET ASIDE THE 48-HOUR NOTICE, THE 5-DAY VCN DATED SEPTEMBER 24, 2020, AND THE CLOSURE ORDER (SN: CO-RRL0-068-005-2020) DATED OCTOBER 14, 2020 ISSUED TO PETITIONER Petitioner anchors his Motion on the ground that respondent's right to due process was not violated when the 48-Hour Notice, the 5-Day VCN dated September 24, 2020, and the Closure Order (SN: CO-RR10-068-005-2020) dated October 14, 2020, were issued to respondent. In her Comment/ Opposition (To the Motion for Reconsideration dated 19 January 2026) [Comment/Opposition], 4 filed on February 23, 2026, respondent argues that petitioner's Motion is a mere reiteration of the allegations in the Petition for Review, which were exhaustively passed upon, duly considered, and resolved by the Court in the assailed Decision. Moreover, respondent maintains that, contrary to petitioner's contention, her right to due process was violated. Respondent argues that petitioner's reliance on post- evaluation does not cure his failure to comply with the procedural safeguards of RMO No. 3-2009. Id at 37-58. !d. at 60-64. !d. at 147-153.

RESOLUTION CTA EB No. 3050 (CTA Case No. 10393) Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Rebecca D. Duka X------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------X After a judicious review of the arguments raised in petitioner's Motion and respondent's Comment/ Opposition, the Court En Bane finds that petitioner has failed to present any new, substantial, or compelling argument that would warrant a reversal or modification of the findings and conclusions in the assailed Decision. A plain reading of the instant Motion readily reveals that it merely reiterates the very same arguments earlier raised by petitioner in his Petition for Review, which have already been thoroughly discussed and exhaustively addressed in the assailed Decision. It is well-settled that if the issues raised in a motion for reconsideration are mere rehashes of those already passed upon and adjudged unmeritorious by the Court, these cannot be regarded as substantial and do not require further discussion. Any additional discourse would be unnecessary and repetitive.s The Supreme Court's pronouncement in Social Justice Society (SJS) Officers v. Lim6 is likewise instructive: 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 the 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 Social Justice Socfety (SJS) Officers v. Lim. G.R. :-.Jos. 187836 & 187916. March 10, 2015 [Per J. Perez, En Bane1 citing Ortigas and Company Limited Partnership v. Judge l'elasco, G.R. No. 109645, March 4, 1996 [Per J. Narvasa. Third Division]. G.R. Nos. 187836 & 187916, March 10,2015 [Per J. Perez, En Bane].

RESOLUTION CTA EB No. 3050 (CTA Case No. 10393) Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Rebecca D. Duka )C------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------){ arguments in the motion are too unsubstantial to require consideration, etc. (Emphasis supplied, citation omitted) WHEREFORE, premises considered, petitioner's Motion for Reconsideration (Re: Decision dated 22 December 2025) is DENIED for lack of merit. SO ORDERED. ~/thll LANEE S. CUI-D'MriD Associate Justice WE CONCUR: ~-~J- MA. BELEN RINGPIS-LIBAN Presiding Justice ' ~~F.~-F~ MARIAN Ivf F. REYES-FAJARDO Associate Justice HENRY~qNGELES Associate Justice