SOUTH COTABATO 1 ELECTRIC COOPERATIVE, INC. v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE

CTA Fonn No. 8 (For DCC) 111111111111111111111111111 1111111111 11111111111111111111 1111111111111111111 1111 22-000365-0049 REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES COURT OF TAX APPEALS QUEZON CITY FIRST DIVISION CTA CASE NO. 10937 SOUTH COTABATO 1 ELECTRIC COOPERATIVE, INC., Petitioner, -versus- NOTICE OF RESOLUTION COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent. To: OFFICE OF THE SOLICITOR GENERAL 134 Amorsolo Street, Legazpi Village Makati City ATTY. AYESHA RANIA B. GUILING-MATANOG ATTY. CHRISTINE C. CATIMBANG Bureau of Internal Revenue Room 703, Litigation Division, BIR National Office Building Sen. Miriam Defensor-Santiago Avenue Diliman, Quezon City CABRERA & COMPANY 28th Floor, AlA Tower (Fonnerly Philamlife Tower) 8767 Paseo de Roxas 1226 Makati City GREETINGS: You are hereby notified by these presents that on September 9, 2024, a Resolution was rendered in the above-entitled case, copy of which is attached hereto. Quezon City, Philippines, September 12, 2024. ' Atty. Mari~nna F. Chan-Te Execut~rk of Court II

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES COURT OF TAX APPEALS QUEZON CITY FIRST DIVISION SOUTH COTABATO 1 CTA CASE NO. 10937 ELECTRIC COOPERATIVE, INC., Members: Petitioner, -versus- DEL ROSARIO , P.J ., Chairperson, BACORRO-VILLENA, and CUI-DAVID, JJ. COMMISSIONER OF Promulgated: INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent. ){- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - RESOLUTI CUI-DAVID, J.: For resolution of this Court is respondent's Motion for Reconsideration (Re: Decision promulgated on April 18, 2024) filed on May 10, 2024, with petitioner's Comment/ Opposition (Re: Respondent's Motion for Reconsideration dated 10 May 2024) filed on June 3, 2024. Respondent's Motion assails the D ecision of the Court in the above-captioned case promulgated on April 18, 2024. The dispositive portion of the assailed Decision reads: WHEREFORE, premises considered, the instant Petition for Review is GRANTED. Respondent Commissioner of Internal Revenue's right to collect from petitioner South Cotabato 1 Electric Cooperative, Inc. the alleged deficiency taxes in the amount ofP56,711,558.26 including interest and surcharge, for CY 2004 is declared to have PRESCRIBED. Accordingly, the undated Wa rra nt of Distra int a'ndjor Levy No. RR18-22-113 enforcing collection of the d eficien cy tax liabilities per the Forma l Letter of Demand d a ted December 10,2007, is CANCELLED and SET ASIDE for being NULL and VOID .

RESOLUTION CTA Case No. 10937 South Cota bato 1 Electric Cooperative, Inc. v. Commission er of Interna l Revenue Page 2 of4 x-- ---- -- --------- ---- ---------------- ----------- ---------------- ----------------------- ---x Further, respondent is ENJOINED from proceeding with the collection of taxes in the above-captioned case. SO ORDERED. In his Motion, respondent argues that the Court erred in ruling that it had jurisdiction over the case. According to respondent, there is no valid protest filed by petitioner as petitioner opted to apply and pay for the Tax Amn,esty of its deficiency tax liability. Respondent theorizes that the assessment has become final and executory. Thus, according to respondent, the assessment cannot be said to have prescribed. On the other hand, in its Comment, petitioner states that the Court has jurisdiction over "other matters" arising from the National Internal Revenue Code (NIRC) . Petitioner likewise echoed its jurisdictional allegations in the Petition for �Review that the basis for obtaining jurisdiction is the issuance of the Warrant of Distraint and Levy (WDL). Petitioner further posits that assuming that a valid protest is necessary to question the assessment contained in the WDL, it is still well within its rights to contest the WDL before the Court due to its availment of tax amnesty. Finally, petitioner asserts that respondent's right to collect has prescribed. According to petitioner, it is not the issuance of the Preliminary Collection Letter (PCL) which tolls the prescriptive period, but rather , it is the issuance of the WDL. The Motion is bereft of merit. At the onset, the Court notes that a review of respondent's Motion for Reconsideration reveals that the arguments presented are m e re reiterations of the arguments that have alre ady bee n thoroughly considered, r esolved, and passed upon by this Court in the assailed Decision. It is well-settled that a motion for reconsideration containing a mere reiteration or rehash of grounds and arguments that have already been considered, weighed, passed upon, and resolved by the court before the Decision sought to be reconsidered is rendered does not n eed a new judicial determination.1 Therefore, there is no necessity to discuss and rule again on these grounds since this would be , a useless formality of ritual invariably involving merely a reiteration of the 1 People v. Agacer, G.R. No. 177751 (Resolution), January 7, 2013 citing People v. Larrafiaga, G.R. Nos. 138874-75, July 21, 2005; Madeleine Mendoza-Ong v. Hon. Sandiganbayan, el a/., G.R. Nos. 146368-69 (Resolution), October 18, 2004.

RESOLUTION CTA Case No. 10937 South Cotabato 1 Electric Cooperative, Inc. v. Commissioner of Interna l Revenue Page 3 of4 x------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------x reasons for rejecting the arguments advanced by the movant already set forth in the judgment.2 In Shangri-La International Hotel Management v. Developers Group of Companies, Inc., 3 the Supreme Court pronounced that it is incumbent upon the movant to convince the Court that certain findings or conclusions are contrary to law, to wit: "The bulk of the aforementioned grounds is a mere rehash of movant's previous arguments. While DGCI is correct in stating that a motion for reconsideration, by its very nature, may tend to dwell on issues already resolved in the decision sought to be reconsidered and that this should not be an obstacle for a reconsideration, the hard reality is that movant has failed to raise matters substantially plausible or compellingly persuasive to warrant the desired course of action. Considering that the grounds presently raised have been sufficiently considered, if not squarely addressed, in the subject Decision, it behooves movant to convince the Court that certain findings or conclusions in the Decision are contrary to law. As it is, however, the instant motion does not raise any new or substantial legitimate ground or reason to justify the reconsideration sought." Accordingly, the Court reiterates that its jurisdiction is not limited to the CIR's decisions on disputed assessments and claims for refunds but also includes the CIR's decisions on "other matters" arising from the NIRC of 1997, as amended, or other laws administered by the BIR. Accordingly, this includes, but is not limited to, a review of the CIR's authority and decision to compromise, 4 a prescription of the CIR's right to collect taxes,s and a determination of the validity of a WDL.6 Further, this Court affirms its ruling that respondent's right to collect the alleged deficiency taxes from petitioner has already prescribed, viz.: 2 People v. Agacer, G.R. No. 17775 1 (Resolution), January 7, 20 13 citing People v. Larranaga, G. R. Nos. 138874-75, July 2 1, 2005 and Ortigas Land Co. Ltd. Partnership v. Judge Velasco, G.R. No. 109645 (Resolution), March 4, 1996. 3 Shangri-la International Hotel Management, Ltd. v. Developers Group of Companies. Inc.,, G.R. No. I59938 (Resolution), January 22, 2007. 4 Philippine National Oil Company v. Court ofAppeals, et a/., and Philippine National Bank v. Court ofAppeals. er al., G.R. Nos. I09976 and 11 2800, Apri l 26, 2005. s Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Court of Tax appeals Second Division, G. R. No. 258947, March 29. 2022; Commissioner ofInternal Revenue v. Hambrecht & Quist Philippines, Inc., G.R. No. 169225, November 17, 20 I0. 6 La Flor Dela Isabela, Inc. c. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, G. R. No. 202 1OS, April 28, 202 1; Philippine Journalists, Inc. v. Commissioner ofInternal Revenue, G.R. No. 162852, December 16, 2004.

RESOLUTION CTA Case No. 10937 South Cotabato 1 Electric Cooperative, Inc. v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue x--------------------------- ------------ ----------------------- ---- ----- ------ -------- -----x As pointed out in our Resolution dated January �6, 2023, a review of the FLD shows that it was issued on December 10, 2007, and was "released" on December 27, 2007. Applying the rules on the prescriptive period as discussed above, respondent had, at most, until December 27, 2010, to collect on the deficiency taxes if the FLD was issued within the 3-year ordinary period, or until December 27, 2012, if the FLD was issued within the extra-ordinary period of 10 years in case of false or fraudulent return or failure to file a return. Here, none of the circumstances provided in Section 223 that may suspend the period to collect is present. Moreover, no WDL was served to petitioner, and n o judicial proceeding was initiated by the CIR within the period to collect. As such, the prescriptive period counted from the "release" of the FLD on December 27, 2007, remains uninterrupted. Verily, prescription h ad already set in wh en the WDL was served to petitioner's witness on June 8 , 2022, more than fourteen (14) years after th e "release" of the FLD. Regardless of which period to a pply, i.e. , three years under Section 203 or five years under Section 222, the CIR's collection effort was already barred by prescription. All told, respondent's arguments in his Motion for Reconsideration do not provide compelling or sufficient reason to m odify, much less set aside, the said assailed Decision. WHEREFORE, premises considered, respondent's Motion for Reconsideration (Re: Decision promulgated on April 18, 2024) is hereby DENIED for lack of merit. SO ORDERED. WE CONCUR: ON omCIAL BUSINESS ROMAN G. DEL ROSARIO Presiding Justice \ \.. ------ JEAN MARIE BACORRO-VILLENA A