CEBU III ELECTRIC COOPERATIVE INC. v. SECRETARY OF DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE and COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES COURT OF TAX APPEALS QUEZON CITY ENBANC CEBU III ELECTRIC CTA EB NO. 2318 COOPERATIVE, INC., (CTA Case No. 9987) Petitioner, Present: -versus- DEL ROSARIO, P.J., RINGPIS-LIBAN, SECRETARY, MANAHAN, DEPARTMENT OF BACORRO-VILLENA, FINANCE, MODESTO-SAN PEDRO, COMMISSIONER OF REYES-FAJARDO, INTERNAL REVENUE and CUI-DAVID, CTA- SECOND DIVISION, FERRER-FLORES, and ANGELES,JJ Respondents. Promulgated: JAN 0 6 2025 x ------------------------------------------ RESOLUTION FERRER-FLORES, J.: For this Court' s resolution is the Motion for Reconsideration filed by petitioner Cebu III Electric Cooperative, Inc. (CEBECO/petitioner) on May 17, 2024, with Comment/Opposition (Re: Motion for Reconsideration dated 17 May 2024 filed by Commissioner of Internal Revenue (CIR) on June 21, 2024 and Comment (On the Motion for Reconsideration) filed by the Secretary of the Department of Finance (DOF Secretary) on July 16, 2024. In the instantMotionfor Reconsideration, CEBECO prays for the Court En Bane to reverse and set aside its Decision dated April 22, 2024 (assailed Decision),1 wherein the Court denied CEBECO 's Petitionfor Review for lack 1 1 Rollo, pp. 167 to 187.

RESOLUTION CTA EB No. 2318 (CTA Case No. 9987) Cebu III Electric Cooperative, Inc. vs. Secretary, Department ofFinance, Commissioner of Internal Revenue and CTA- Second Division Page 2 of5 of merit and affirmed the Order dated July 29, 2019 (assailed Order of Dismissal) and Resolution dated July 21, 2020 (assailed Resolution) of the Second Division of the Court (Court in Division), the dispositive portion of which reads: WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Petition for Review is DENIED for lack of merit. The assailed Order dated July 29, 2019 and assailed Resolution dated July 21, 2020 rendered by the Second Division of this Court in CTA Case No. 9987 are AFFIRMED. SO ORDERED. To recall, in the assailed Decision, this Court held that the Order of the Court in Division dismissing the case has become final and unappealable for failure of the petitioner to file its Motion for Reconsideration within the 15- day reglementary period. The Court considered the withdrawal of Atty. Marie Joy T. Abangan not yet effective at the time the assailed Order of Dismissal was issued and served upon the parties; thus, the Court reckoned the 15-day reglementary period from the date of Atty. Abangan's receipt of the assailed Order of Dismissal, rather than from the receipt of Atty. Carlos V. Jaurigue, CEBECO's subsequently engaged counsel, of the same. The Court also explained that, even assuming that the Motion for Reconsideration was timely filed, the Court will still uphold the assailed Order of Dismissal in view of the non-appearance ofCEBECO during the pre-trial conference and non-filing of its Pre-Trial Brief without just cause. In the present Motion for Reconsideration, petitioner insists that Atty. Jaurigue became counsel of record of CEBECO when he filed his Entry of Appearance; hence, the Motion for Reconsideration, in relation to assailed Order of Dismissal, was timely filed on March 6, 2020 which was within 15 days from Atty. Jaurigue's receipt of the assailed Order of Dismissal on February 27, 2020. CEBECO also avers that the withdrawal ofAtty. Abangan as its counsel of record was effective; thus, service ofthe assailed Order of Dismissal should have been made upon Atty. Jaurigue and not upon Atty. Abangan. In view thereof, CEBECO maintains that the 15-day period to file a Motion for Reconsideration did not commence from the service of the assailed Order of Dismissal upon Atty. Abangan on September 25, 2019. Finally, petitioner argues that its Urgent Motion to Reset the Pre-Trial Hearing was for valid reasons- that Atty. Jaurigue was only able to enter his appearance three days before the scheduled pre-trial and that his attendance to the July 29, 2019 Pre-Trial Hearing would also be in issue in view of the \

RESOLUTION CTA EB No. 2318 (CTA Case No. 9987) Cebu III Electric Cooperative, Inc. vs. Secretary, Department ofFinance, Commissioner ofInternal Revenue and CTA- Second Division unavailability of the Special Power of Attorney on the hearing date. As to the Pre-Trial Brief, petitioner reasons that Atty. Abangan was not able to prepare the same due to her serious illness. On the other hand, the CIR counters that the Court correctly affirmed the assailed Order of Dismissal and the assailed Resolution and that, even assuming arguendo that the Motion for Reconsideration was timely filed, the same was correctly denied for lack of merit On the part of the DOF Secretary, he argues that petitioner presented no new arguments to refute the findings and discussion by the Court. As such, the Motion for Reconsideration should be denied. After an evaluation of the respective arguments raised by the parties, this Court finds petitioner's Motion for Reconsideration bereft of merit A cursory reading of the present Motion for Reconsideration would reveal that the arguments of the petitioner are mere repetitions of the matters already considered and exhaustively discussed by the Court En Bane in the assailed Decision. In Department of Energy vs. Commissioner of Internal Revenue,2 the Supreme Court, citing Shangri-la International Hotel Management, Ltd. vs. Developers Group of Companies, Inc.,3 held that, while a motion for reconsideration, by its nature, may tend to dwell on issues already resolved in the decision or resolution sought to be reconsidered, a circumstance which should not be an obstacle for a reconsideration, petitioners must still raise matters substantially plausible or compellingly persuasive to warrant a reversal of the Court's previous ruling. Clearly, there are no new matters which warrant the Court's attention. At any rate, even if we set aside the issues on the withdrawal of appearance of Atty. Abangan and the finality of the assailed Order of Dismissal, the Court still finds the dismissal of the case by the Court in Division proper. As exhaustively discussed in the assailed Decision, petitioner failed to justify and substantiate its absence during the scheduled Pre-Trial Hearing most especially when its Urgent Motion to Postpone Pre- Trial Conference filed just three calendar days before said hearing was not yet granted by the Comi at that time. The Court also finds no merit in petitioner's ~ 2 G.R. No. 260912 (Resolution), August 30,2023. \ 3 G.R. No. 159938 (Resolution), January 22, 2007.

RESOLUTION CTA EB No. 2318 (CTA Case No. 9987) Cebu III Electric Cooperative, Inc. vs. Secretary, Department ofFinance, Commissioner ofInternal Revenue and CTA- Second Division Page 4 of5 insistence that its failure to submit its Pre-Trial Brief was justified on account of its former counsel's illness as the same remained unsubstantiated. All told, the Court En Bane finds no compelling reason to reverse or modify the assailed Decision. WHEREFORE, premises considered, petitioner's Motion for Reconsideration is DENIED for lack of merit. SO ORDERED. ~\r. coR4oNG. �WE CONCUR: Presiding Justice ~- .A..k,..._ , ' - - MA. BELEN M. RINGPIS-LIBAN Associate Justice c~�;:~ CATHERINE T. MANAHAN Associate Justice JEANMA BACORRO-VILLENA

RESOLUTION CTA EB No. 2318 (CTA Case No. 9987) Cebu III Electric Cooperative, Inc. vs. Secretary, Department ofFinance, Commissioner ofInternal Revenue and CTA- Second Division MARlAR ON LEAVE MARIAN IVY F. REYES-FAJARDO Associate Justice ON LEAVE LANEE S. CUI-DAVID Associate Justice HENRY S.~NGELES Associate Justice