THE CITY TREASURER and THE CITY GOVERNMENT OF TAGUIG CITY v. ONE UPTOWN RESIDENCES CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION, INC.

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES COURT OF TAX APPEALS QUEZON CITY ENBANC THE CITY TREASURER and THE CTAEB No. 3181 CITY GOVERNMENT OF TAGUIG (Formerly SCA Case No. 336 and CITY, Civil Case 23-4708) P etitioners, Present: RINGPIS-LIBAN, P.J., BACORRO-VILLENA, MODESTO-SAN PEDRO, - versus - REYES-FAJARDO, CUI-DAVID, FERRER-FLORES, ANGELES, TESTON, and CENTENO-DIJAMCO, ]]. ONE UPTOWN RESIDENCES Promulgated: CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION, SEP 3 0 2026 INC., Respondent. X --- --------- - --- - - - ---- - -------- ---- - - - - -- - - - - - -- - -- X RESOLUTION RINGPIS-LIBAN, P.[ : For resolution of the Court En Bane is petitioners' Motion for Reconsideration (On the Honorable Court's Decision dated 2 1 Apri/2026), ftled through registered mail on May 25, 2026 and received by the Court on June 2, 2026, with respondent's Comment/ Opposition [fo the Motion for Reconsideration dated 25 Mqy 2026 (On the · Honorable Court's Decision dated 21 April 2026)}, fl.led through registered mail on June 4, 2026 and received by the Court on June 10,2026. For easy reference, the dispositive portion of the assailed Decision 1 reads: ACCORDINGLY, the instant Petition for Review is DENIED, for lack of mer r I Docker, pp. 124-135.

RESOLUTION CTA EB No. 3181 SO ORDERED. 2 Petitioners assert in their motion that: (1) the claim for refund had already prescribed as per Billing Statement; and (2) respondent is engaged in profit- making activities and as such, it is subject to Local Business Tax (LET). On the other hand, respondent counters that: (1) the Motion for Reconsideration is a mere reiteration of the arguments already passed upon by the Court; (2) the subject Billing Statements are invalid notices of assessment; (3) the judicial claim for refund was timely filed; and (4) respondent is not liable for LET. After careful consideration, the Court En Bane finds the illstant motion bereft of merit. The Court En Bane agrees with the observation of respondent that petitioners merely rehashed their arguments in the instant motion. On this score, the consolidated cases of Social Justice Society (S]S) Officers, et aL, v. Alfredo S. Lim, 3 is instructive: The filillg 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, ill much the same way that the Court does ill its judgment or final order as regards the issues raised and submitted for decision. This would be a useless formality or ritual invariably illvolving 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 arguments in the motion are too unsubstantial to require consideration, etc.(Emphasis supplied) ~ 2 See Note I, pp. 134-135. 1 G.R. Nos. 187836 and 187916, :-,{a,ch 10, 2015

RESOLUTIO:K CTA EB No. 3181 Considering that petitioners merely rehashed their arguments that were already passed upon in the assailed Decision, the denial of the instant motion is proper. At any rate, the Court En Bane reiterates that the subject Billing Statement is not the notice of assessment contemplated by law. Further, respondent timely ftled its judicial claim, as follows: Here, records show that, while petitioners issued a Billing Statement against Uptown, the same does not constitute as a notice of assessment, as correctly found by the MeTC, i.e., the Billing Statement did not provide the amount of the deficiency and it also failed to provide the reason, if any, as to why the correct taxes have not been paid. There being no notice of assessment issued by petitioners, the lower courts are correct in applying the provisions of Section 196 of the LGC, which applies to claims for refund. Hence, applying Section 196 of the LGC, i.e., both administrative and judicial claim for refund must be filed within two (2) years from the date of payment of such tax, fee, or charge, Uptown timely filed both its administrative and judicial claims, as follows: Date of payment I Administrative Judicial Expiration of the ofLBT I Claim Claim 2-vear period January 18,2023 I March 9, 2023 Tune 8, 2023 January 18, 2025 4 Finally, the Court En Bane still holds that petitioners failed to provide evidence to show that respondent, or its unit owners, band together and engaged in activities for profit under the shelter of the condominium corporation. Even if respondent recorded its membership dues as "revenues" in its books, it is incumbent upon petitioners to support their claim by providing evidence that the alleged "revenues" are fruits of respondent's transactions emanating from activities undertaken for profit. Considering the foregoing, the Court En Bane finds no reason to deviate from the findings and conclusion reached in the assailed Decision. Consequently, the denial of the instant Motion for Reconsideration is in order. FOR THESE REASONS, petitioners' Motion for Reconsideration (On the Honorable Court's Decision dated 21 Apri/2026) is DENIED, for lack of merit. r 'See Note 1, pp. 131-132.

RESOLUTJO::-: CTA EB No. 3181 SO ORDERED. ~. ~' \_ MA. BELEN M. RINGPIS-LIBAN Presiding Justice WE CONCUR: MARIARO 0-SANPEDRO ustice ~~f.~-m;~ MARIAN IW. REritS-FAJARDO Associate Justice ~AJAA~i. ~f~~~~UI-~lVID Associate Justice Jlft~..u, 4 ~-~ CUID\Z~-~· ~-,._ ..__..._,,,~..., Associate Justice HENRY~GELES Associate Justice