MINDANAO CONTAINER CORPORATION v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES COURT OF TAX APPEALS QUEZON CITY THIRD DIVISION MINDANAO CONTAINER CTA CASE NO. 10513 CORPORATION, Petitioner, Members: -ve r s u s - MANAHAN, Chairperson, REYES-FAJARDO, and ANGELES, JJ. COMMISSIONER OF Promulgated: INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent. JUN 3 2025 X - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -~ _Cf_: 9~ -~:. ~ .! - - - - - X RESOLUTION MANAHAN, J.: This resolves respondent's Motion for Partial Reconsideration (Re: Decision promulgated on 19 February 2025)1 filed on March 7, 2025, praying for the partial reversal and setting aside of the Court's Decision promulgated on February 19, 2 025 (Assailed Decision) ,2 and the promulgation of a new one denying petitioner's claim for refun d . Respondent argues that the instant claim should be denied for petitioner 's failure to prove and substantiate the claim for refund at the administrative level and for failure to comply with the mandatory requirements pursuant to Revenue Memorandum Circular (RMC) No . 47-2019. Respondent argues that the Court erred 1n partially granting petitioner's claim for refund. On the other h and, p etitioner , in its Comment (To the Motion for Partial Reconsideration [Re: Decision promulgated on 19 February 2025] dated 7 March 2025)3 filed on March 24, 2 025 , counter argues tha t respondent d id I Docket, CTA Case No. 10513, Vol. III, pp. 1787- 1797. 2 !d. , Vol. III, pp. 1760 - 1786. 3 !d., Vol. III , pp. 1802 - 1808. ~

RESOLUTION CTA CASE NO. 10513 not raise any new and valid arguments nor provided any compelling reason to reverse the Assailed Decision. Petitioner insists that the arguments raised lack factual basis. The Ruling This Court sh all determine first whether the in stant Motion was filed on time. Section 1, Rule 15 of the Revised Rules of the Court of Tax Appeals (RRCTA) pr ovides th at: "SECTION 1. Who may and when to file motion.- Any aggrieved party may seek a reconsideration or new trial of any decision, resolution, or order of the Court. He sh a ll file a motion for reconsidera tion or n ew tria l within fifteen days from the date he received notice of the decision, resolution or order of the Court in ques tion." (Emphasis supplie d) The records of the instant case reveal that respondent, received the copy of the Assailed Decision on February 25, 2025.4 In accordance with the abovementioned provision of the RRCTA, respondent has fifteen (15) days from receipt of notice of said decision from February 25, 2025 or until March 12, 2025 within which to file his motion for reconsideration. The filing of the instant motion on March 7, 2025, thus, was on time. The arguments being raised by respondent in the instant motion pertaining to petitioner's failure to prove and substantiate the claim for refund at the administrative level and for failure to comply with the mandatory requirements pursuant to RMC No. 4 7-2019 are basically a reiteration of the arguments found in respondent's Answers were extensively passed upon and exhaustively discussed in the Assailed Decision, thus, there is no more need for the Court to reiterate its ruling on such rehashed arguments. The wisdom of refraining from repetitious disquisitions on similar issues is found in the ca se of Social Justice Society (SJS}, 4 Docket , Vol. III, Notice of Decision, p . 1759. s !d ., Vol. II, pp. 11 76 - 11 84 .~

RESOLUTION CTA CASE NO. 1051 3 et al. v. Alfredo S. Lim) zn his capacity as Mayor of the City of Manila, 6 which held: "The grounds relied on being m ere reiterations of t h e issues already passed upon by the Court, there is no n eed to "cut and paste" pertinent portions of the Decision or re-write the ponencia in accordance with the outline of the instan t motion. As succinctly put by then Chief Justice Andres R. Narvasa in Ortigas and Co. Ltd. Partnership v. Judge Velasco on the effect a nd disposition of a motion for reconsideration: The filing of a m otion for reconsideration, authorized by Rule 52 of the Rules of Court, does not impose on th e Court the obligation to deal individua lly and specifically with the grounds relied upon therefor, in much the same way that the Court does in its judgment or final order as regards the issu es raised and submitted for decision. This would be a useless forma lity or ritual invariably involving merely a reiteration of the reasons already set forth in th e judgment or fin a l order for rejecting th e a rguments advanced by the movant; and it would be a needless act, too , with respect to issues ra ised for the first time, these being, as a bove stated, deem ed waived because not asserted at th e first opportunity. It suffices for the Court to deal generally and summarily with the motion for reconsideration, and m erely state a legal ground for its denial (Sec . 14, Art . VIII, Constitution); i.e., the motion contains m erely a reiteration or reh ash of arguments a lready submitted to and pronounced without m erit by the Court in its judgment, or the basic issues have already been passed upon, or the motion discloses no substantial argument or cogent reason to warrant reconsideration or modification of the judgment or final order; or th e arguments in the motion are too unsubstantial to require consideration, etc." There being no new and substantial arguments propou nded by respondent in his motion, the Court finds no compelling reason to reverse the Assailed Decision. 6 G.R. Nos. 187836 an d 187916, March 10, 20 1 5. ~

RESOLUTION CTA CASE NO. 10513 WHEREFORE, respondent's Motion for Partial Reconsideration (Re: Decision promulgated on 19 February 2025) is hereby DENIED for lack of merit. SO ORDERED. ~~;: Ae,...4.~---- CATHERINE T. MANAHAN Associate J u stice WE CONCUR: ~~;.~ - ~ MARIAN IVY F. REYES-FAJARDO Associate Justice HENRY j/~GELES Associate Justice