MANULIFE DATA SERVICES, INC. v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES COURT OF TAX APPEALS QUEZON CITY ENBANC MANULIFE DATA SERVICES, CTA EB NO. 2850 INC, (CTA Case No. 10138) Petitioner, Present: - venus - Del Rosario, �L Ringpis-Lib an, Manahan, Bacorro-Villena, Modesto-San Pedro, Reyes-Fajardo, Cui-David, Ferrer-Flores, and Angeles,Jl COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL Pro mulga ted: REVENUE, Respondent. X-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------X RESOLUTION RINGPIS-LIBAN, .�_; For resolution of the Court En Bane is petitioner Manulife Data Services, Inc.'s Motion for Ruomideration1 filed on March 19, 2025. In a Minute Resolution dated April 21, 2025, this Court directed respondent to file his comment or opposition to petitioner's Motion for Reconsideration within five (5) days from notice. Respondent flied his Opposition (Re: Motion for Recomideration of the Duision dated 26 February 2025) on April 24, 2025. Petitioner's Motion for Ruonsideration seeks reconsideration of the Decision of the Court En Bane promulgated on February 26, 2025,2 ("Assailed Decision") affirming the judgment of the Second Division ("Court in Division") of this 1 Court En Banes Docket, pp. 114-118. 2 !d., pp. 96-105.

RESOLUTION CTA EB NO. 2850 (CTA Case No. 10138) Court in CTA Case No. 10138. The Assailed Decision denied the Petition for Review for lack of merit. "-\Jter careful evaluation of the arguments raised by petitioner vis-a-vis the records of the case, the Court En Bane resolves to deny petitioner's Motion for Ruomideration for lack of merit. Petitioner merely recycled the arguments it raised in its Motion for Recomideration as these matters had already been thoroughly discussed and resolved by the Court En Bane in the Assailed Decision. To put it bluntly, there is nothing in the i\1otion for Reconsideration that was not sufficiently passed upon by the Court En Bane. At any rate, the Court En Bane maintains its mling that the mle that notice or service made upon a party who is represented by counsel is a nullity, being based on a mere procedural rule, cannot prevail over the express mandate of substantive laws. Section 112(C) of the National Internal Revenue Code of 1997, as amended, expressly provides that the taxpayer affected may appeal the denial of the claim within 30 days from the receipt of the decision while Section 11 of Republic Act No. 1125, as amended plainly states that any party adversely affected by a decision, ruling or inaction of the Commissioner of Internal Revenue may flle an appeal before this Court within thirty (30) days after the receipt of such decision or ruling or after the expiration of the period fixed by law for action. The legal duty is imposed upon the taxpayer itself and not to its counsel. In surn, petitioner failed to raise any compelling reason to warrant the modification-much less reversal-of this Court's findings in the Assailed Decision. WHEREFORE, petitioner's 1vfotio11 for Reconsideration is DENIED for lack of merit. SO ORDERED. ~-~ --,'--� MA. BELEN M. RINGPIS-LIBAN Associate Justice

RESOLUTION CTA EB NO. 2850 (CTA Case No. 10138) 1�E CONCUR Presiding Justice ('~;: CATHERINE T. MANAHAN ~\ssociate Justice JEANMA ~~ Rf.E~~-;.AJAwJfai1D~OcM MARIAN~~~- .\ssociate Justice ~AAII'ft1 /� LA~~~~ ~1UI-~AVID Associate Justice CO~G~~S Associate Justice ~LES HENRYS. "Associate Justice