JOSE JOEL PALLEGA NICERIO operating under the name, FABJ DYNAMICS ENTERPRISE v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE

CTA Form No.8 (For DCC) lllllllllllllllll llllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll 25-000309-00 II REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES COURT OF TAX APPEALS QUEZON CITY FIRST DIVISION CTA CASE NO. 11874 JOSE JOEL PALLEGA NICERIO, operating under the name, FABJ DYNAMICS ENTERPRISE, Petitioner, -versus- NOTICE OF RESOLUTION COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent. To: T ALAO & ASSOCIATES 373 Quirino Avenue, Brgy. Talipapa Novaliches, Que1.on City GREETIN GS: You are hereby notified by these presents that on November 26, 2025, a Resolution was rendered in the above-entitled case, copy of which is attached hereto. Quezon City, Philippines, November 28, 2025. AttyE. xMecaurtiiaveJoC~ ~~hIaInI-Te Page I of I

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES COURT OF TAX APPEALS Quezon City FIRST DIVISION JOSE JOEL PALLEGA CTA CASE NO. 11874 NICERIO, operating under the name, FABJ DYNAMICS Members: ENTERPRISE, BACORRO-VILLENA, Acting Chairperson , Petitioner, and CUI-DAVID, JJ. -versus- COMMISSIONER OF Promulgated : -------------- r INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent. NOV 26~ Q.'iPM X - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - =~ X RESOLUTION For the Court's resolution is petitioner's "Motion for Reconsideration (To the Resolution dated August 27, 2025 )" (MR), filed via LBC on 25 September 2025 and via email on 09 September 2025 .1 In the MR, petitioner seeks the cancellation of the Resolution dated 27 August 2025, dismissing the case for lack of jurisdiction. Petitioner asks the Court to relax the rules of procedure in filing an administrative protest to the Formal Letter of Demand with Assessment Notices (FLO/FAN). First, petitioner admitted that his Letter dated 12 December 2024 (which is treated in this case as his administrative protest to the FLO/FAN ) erroneously referenced the earlier Preliminary Assessment Notice (PAN) instead of the FLO/FAN . On 15 October 202 5, pursuant to CTA En Bane Resolut ions Nos. 8-2024 and 1-2025, the custodi an of the email address Istdiv .cta@j udic iary.gov .ph informed petitioner that it had missent its email on 09 Septe mber 2025 to the said address, th en ad vised that it sho uld be re-sent to jrd_ l stdi v.cta@j udic iary.go v. ph . According ly, petitioner re-sent the ema il on th e same day, th us, p er item 7 of En Bane Resolution No. 1-2025, th e m issent pleading sent to the offic ia l and correct e mail address is deemed filed o n th e date of the orig ina l missent e-ma il.

RESOLUTION CTA Case No. 11874 jose Joel Pallega Nicerio, operating under the name, FABJ Dynamics Enterprise v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue Page 2 of3 x--------- --- ---- --- ---- ------------ -- ------------x Second, petitioner's counsels manifested that petitioner is not privy to the rules involved in preparing and filing admin istrative protests to deficiency assessments, as set forth in the National Internal Revenue Code (NIRC) of 1997, as amended, and the pertinent Revenue Regulations (RRs): 5. The undersigned counsels were sought by the petitioner only after he already filed the Letter dated 12 December 2024. The petitioner, who is just a businessman, is not well-versed with the technical rules of procedure laid down in the Revenue Regu lations (RR) No. 12-99, as amended by RR-18-2013 as to the specific requisites of a valid protest. Not being a lawyer or a certified public accountant, the.petitioner, with his limited knowledge, seeks to reconsider the P4,749,943.93 assessed unpaid Undeclared Revenues for 2021 , which is not a small amount to speak of. It is only after the petitioner sought advice from the undersigned counsels as to said requirements , resulting in the submission of a Supplemental Request for Reinvestigation (attached to the Petition for Review as Exhibit "V") containing the requisites of a valid protest. Finally, petitioner cited jurisprudence to support his position that the present case should not be dismissed upon a mere technicality, and that the application of procedural rules should be relaxed to give way to the ends of substantial justice. Petitioner put forward that said technicalities should be set aside to prevent a grave injustice upon petitioner. We resolve. After reading through petitioner's arguments, We are constrained to retain Our original ruling. First, as to the incorrect referencing (to the PAN instead of the .- FLO/FAN), even if the same were to be excused, the defects in the protest are not remedied to the extent that it would be considered valid. As previously set forth in the Resolution dated 27 August 2025, petitioner failed to indicate the applicable law, rules and regulations, or jurisprudence on which the protest is based. Next, as regards petitioner's argument that he was not sufficiently knowledgeable of the regulations in filing administrative protests, such lapse cannot be excused. Sanctioning the same renders

RESOLUTION CTA Case No. 11874 jose joel Pallega Nicerio, operating under the n ame, FABj Dynam ics Enterpr ise v. Commission er of Internal Revenue Page 3 of3 x- - -- - --- ----- - ----- --- - ------ ----------- - -- - - - - -- x the laws or regulations in question unenforceable.2 Indeed, the time-honored principle that "ignorance of the law excuses no one from compliance therewith" bolsters this conclusion. 3 Finally, as to petitioner's contention that procedural rules should be relaxed, We cannot side with petitioner when the point of concern is the filing of administrative protests. In Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Fitness by Design, lnc.4 , the Supreme Court acknowledged that compliance with Section 2285 of the 1997 NIRC, as amended , is a substantive requirement and not merely a formality . In fine, the lapse in question is not a mere procedural issue that the Court can opt to brush aside. WHEREFORE , premises considered , the "Motion for Reconsideration (To the Resolution dated August 27, 2025)", filed on 25 September 2025 , is DENIED for lack of merit. SO ORDERED. LA~~{VID Associate Justice See Ely Chan Sa Velasco v. Hon. Rodolfo A. Orti::, Judge of the Court of First Instance of Rizal, Branch XXXI, Quezon City, et a/. , G. R. No. L-5 1973, 16 Apri l 1990. See NEWC IVIL CODE, Article 3 . G.R. No. 2 15957, 09 November 20 16. Sec. 228. Protesting ofAssessment.