COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE v. FIRST TELECOM PHILIPPINES, INC.

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES Court of Tax Appeals QUEZON CITY En Bane COMMISSIONER OF CTA EB NO. 3079 INTERNAL REVENUE, (CTA Case No. 10486) Petitioner, Present: RINGPIS-LIBAN, P.J., BACORRO-VILLENA, -versus- MODESTO-SAN PEDRO, REYES-FAJARDO, CUI-DAVID, FERRER-FLORES, and ANGELES, JJ. FIRST TELECOM PHILIPPINES, INC., Promulgated: Respondent. JUL 06 2026 X ----------------------------------------------------------------~----------------------- X RESOLUTION MODESTO-SAN PEDRO, J.: For the Court' s resolution is petitioner's ~/vfotion for Reconsideration (of the D ecision dated March 13, 2026) , filed on March 31 , 2026, with respondent' s Comment thereto, filed on April 27, 2026, assailing this Court's March 13 , 2026 Decision. Petitioner argues that (1) Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Mcdonald 's Philippines Realty Corp. 1 ("Mcdonald 's") which was used as a primary legal basis for Our ruling, is itself based on an outdated issuance and is thus inapplicable here; (2) there was no violation of respondent's right to due process; and (3) cases before this Court are not litigated de novo. Respondent disagrees with the above, claiming that (1) the assessment against it is void as the revenue officers who conducted the audit lacked the j authority to do so; and (2) cases heard before this Court are litigated de novo. G.R. No. 242670, May I0, 2021.

RESOUTIO' CTA FR NO. 3079 (CTA Case 1'\o. 10-l$6) The motion lacks merit. First and foremost, the Comi observes that arguments (2) and (3) are near-verbatim copies of portions from petitioner's Petition for Review. These have already been considered, discussed, and refuted, so there is no need to repeat Our coverage of them here. 2 As for argument (I), the same ignores how the Supreme Court repeatedly cited the National Internal Revenue Code of 1997, as amended, ("NIRC') itself. The ruling was thus not based entirely on Revenue Memorandum Order No. 43-90. Section 13 of the NIRC, also cited in Mcdonald �s, clearly requires the issuance of a Letter of Authority before an officer of the Bureau of Internal Revenue may participate in the assessment process. Tellingly, petitioner completely avoids even mentioning that provision. Mcdonald's is consequently still applicable here. Even if it were not, Section 13 of the NIRC would still lead to the same ruling. Either way, the argument does not substantially challenge Our finding. The foregoing considered, petitioner's arguments fail to convince Us to reverse Our ruling. FOR THESE REASONS, petitioner's Motion for Reconsideration (of the Decision dated March 13, 2026), filed on March 31, 2026, is hereby DENIED for lack of merit. SO ORDERED. MARIA R~\tE~A~lESTO-;AN PEDRO Asso~iate Justice WE CONCUR: ~- ~ J-- MA. BELEN M. RINGPIS-LIBAN Presiding Justice See Roque v. Commission on Election. G.R. No. 188456 (Resolution), February 10,2010: see also Shangri-La International Hotel i\:!anagement. Ltd. \'. Developers Group 0fCompanies, Inc., G.R. No. 159938 (Resolution). January 22. 2007: see also Ortigas and Company Limited Partnership v. Velasco. G.R.I\os. 109645 & 112564 (Resolution). March 4. 1996.

RESOUTIO:\ CTA EB NO. 3079 (CTA Case :'-Jo. 10-186) \ ~ !k... r ~ -~�e;~ MARIAN IV'tJF. REYiS-FAJ;(RDO Associate Justice LAN~ft~ID Associate 1ustice COtRA14N*G~. ~�R7RE)Ry- �L~O ~ES Associate Justice HENRY S//�GELES Associate Justice