LEPANTO CONSOLIDATED MINING COMPANY v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES COURT OF TAX APPEALS QUEZON CITY ENBANC LEPANTO CONSOLIDATED CTA E B NO. 1682 MINING COMPANY, (C1'1\ Case No. 9359) Petitio ner, Present: DEL ROSARIO, P.J., CASTANEDA, JR., - versus - UY, FA B O N -VICTORINO , MINDARO -GRULLA, RINGPIS-LIBAN, and MANAHAN, JJ. COMMISSIONE R OF INTE RNAL REVEN UE, Respondent. X- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - RESOLUTION RINGPIS-LIBAN, .L: ' This resolves Petitioner's ".\lotion for Reconsideration" filccl o n l 'cbruan� 07, 20191 seeking to set aside the Decisio n2 p romu lga tccl o n .January 18, 20 19 ("'\ ssailed Decision), the dispositive portion of which read s: "WHE REFORE , fi nding no cogent reason to clisturb the findings and conclusions rcachecl by the Second Division in the Assailed Decision dated .April 17, 2017 as well as in the 1\ ssailcd Resolu tion dated J une 27, 2017, the same arc AFFIRMED . .Accordingly, the Petition for Review flied with the Court E11 Ba11c on J uly 18, 2017 is DENIED for lack of merit. SO ORDERED. '~ 1 Rollo, pp. 245-249. 2 Jd. at pp. 225- 236. 3 !d., at p. 235.

RESOLUTION CTA EB NO. 1682 (CTA Case No. 9359) In its "Motion for Reconsideration", Petitioner ra1ses the following arguments: 1) Under Section 6 of Rule 39 of the Rules of Court, an action to revive judgment only requires proof of a final judt,rment which has not prescribed and has remained unexecuted after the lapse of five (5) years but not more than ten (10) years from its finality; and 2) All the requisites for the revival of judgment through an independent action are present in this case. On the other hand, on March 26, 2019, Respondent filed his "Opposition (Re: Motion for Reconsideration)" stating that Petitioner's contention is utterly misplaced. Moreover, Respondent points out that no new issues or arguments were raised by Petitioner in its "Motion for Reconsideration". As such, it must be denied. We agree with Respondent. After a careful consideration of the grounds raised in Petitioner's motion for reconsideration, the Court finds that the issues and arguments raised therein had already been amply discussed, passed upon and considered by this Court in the Decision sought to be reconsidered. Indeed, we already pointed out in the Assailed Decision that the issues raised by Petitioner in its Petition for Review are mere rehash of its arguments before the Court in Division, and have been sufficiently discussed in the Decision and Resolution of the Court in Division.4 Considering the fact that the Petitioner did not raise any new argument that would merit a reconsideration of the Assailed Decision, the Court finds its motion for reconsideration bereft of merit. To the point of being repetitive, We restate that: "The decision of the C'fA Division partially grantmg Petitioner's tax credit claim in the consolidated cases docketed as CTA Case Nos. 6368 and 6480 in the reduced amount of Php424,844.20, became final on April 22, 2005. And yet, it took Petitioner until May 26, 2016 to ftle its Petition for Revival of Judgment with the Court a quo. Since Petitioner's Petition for f 4 !d., p. 230.

RESOLUTION CTA EB NO. 1682 (CTA Case No. 9359) Revival ofJudgment was clearly filed when the statute of limitations under the Civil Code had already set in, this Court has no choice but to deny Petitioner's claim. Petitioner has no one to blame but itself for belatedly enforcing the judgment in CTA Case Nos. 6368 and 6480."5 WHEREFORE, finding no compelling reason to reverse the Assailed Decision, Petitioner's "Motion for Reconsideration" is DENIED for lack of merit. SO ORDERED. ~. 4tc..,. .,S " "-!.. MA. BELEN M. RINGPIS-LIBAN Associate Justice WE CONCUR: Presiding Justice 0~-t:fr c .~__.a( Cl.. , JflANITO c. CASTANEDArJR. ER~P.UY Associate Justice Assoctate Justice ~ r-:.o0 .+- N. L4~.~~ N. MINDARO-<'?RULLA Associate Justice ON LEAVE CATHERINE T. MANAHAN Associate Justice 5 !d., p. 234.