COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE v. LEPANTO CONSOLIDATED MINING COMPANY

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES COURT OF TAX APPEALS QUEZON CITY ENBANC COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL CTA EB NO . 1962 REVENUE, (CTA Case No. 8970) Petitioner, Present: -versus- DEL ROSARIO , P.J.) CASTANEDA, JR., UY, RINGPIS-LIBAN, MANAHAN, BACORRO-VILLENA, and MODESTO-SAN PEDRO, JJ. LEPANTO CONSOLIDATED Promulgated: MINING COMPANY, JAN 2 7 202J.:.L. _, _ Respondent. ~- X- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - X RESOLUTION MANAHAN, J .: To be resolved before this Court is petitioner's Motion for Reconsideration (re: Decision dated June 30, 2020)1 posted on July 21, 2020 and received by this Court on July 28, 2020, with respondent's Comment/Opposition filed on October 16, 2020, praying for the issuance of another Decision reversing the Court in Division's Decision dated April 18, 2018 and Resolution dated October 11 , 2018, and ordering the respondent to pay the subject assessment inclusive of surcharges and interest. However, due to the b elated filing of the Comment/Opposition by respondent, the same was ordered EXPUNGED from the case records under Court Resolution dated November 4, 2020. Petitioner argues that his basic right to fair play and due process was violated when the Court in Division ruled on a t Rollo, CTA EB No. 1962, pp. 171 - 183. ~

RESOLUTION CTA EB No. 1962 (CTA Case No. 8970) matter which was not raised as an issue by respondent in its Petition for Review, Pre-Trial Brief or in the Court's Pre-Trial Order. Petitioner further argues that the Court may still review the factual findings of the Court in Division even in the absence of allegation as to grave abuse of discretion on the part of the latter and insists that the waivers were valid. After judicious review of petitioner's arguments, We find no new and substantial matters raised that will compel this Court to reverse the ruling in the Assailed Decision dated June 30, 2020. As aptly held in Madeleine Mendoza-Ong v. Han. Sandiganbayan, et al. 2, to wit: "Concerning the first ground abovecited, the Court notes that the motion contains merely a reiteration or rehash of arguments already submitted to the Court and found to be without merit. Petitioner fails to raise any new and substantial arguments, and no cogent reason exists to warrant a reconsideration of the Court's Resolution. It would be a useless ritual for the Court to reiterate itself." As to petitioner's penultimate argument that this Court may still review the factual findings of the Court in Division sans any finding of grave abuse of discretion on its part, there being no new factual evidence proffered by the petitioner, doing so will just be an exercise in futility. WHEREFORE, premises considered, petitioners' Motion for Reconsideration (Re: Decision dated June 30, 2020) is hereby DENIED for lack of merit. SO ORDERED. C~7~ CATHERINE T. MANAHAN Associate Justice 'G.R. Nos. 146368-69, October 18, 2004.

RESOLUTION CTA EB No. 1962 (CTA Case No. 8970) WE CONCUR: (I maintain my Dissenting Opinion) ROMAN G. DEL ROSARIO Presiding Justice t~ ui}J~e. "~"'...-c-.~.LeJlic-i~ri"-(o~;--u'.~"~."6.'4L..Q..J- Ju~issenting (I join Presiding Opinion) JtfAIUTO C. CASTANEDJf, jR. ERLINDA P. UY Associate Justice Associate Justice h.~ .4(___ JEAN MAKIJ!Ot JJ((cORRO-VILLENA MA. BELEN M. RINGPIS-LIBAN Associate Justice Justice ~