COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE vs. SEMIRARA MINING AND POWER CORPORATION

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES COURT OF TAX APPEALS QUEZON CITY ENBANC COMMISSIONE R O F INT ERNAL CTA EB NO. 2005 REVEN UE, (CTA CASE NO. 9133) Petitio ner, -versus- Present: D el Rosario, P.j., Castaneda, Jr., Uy, Ringpis-Liban, M an ahan, Bacorro-Villena, and Modesto-San P edro, ]]. SEMIRARA MINING AND POWER Promulgated : CORPORAT ION, - ------------------- --------M---A--R----0----2----~--~ .'---~ --~ � . X-------- ----- -- - ------- -----R--e--s-p--o- -n--d--c-n--l-.-- ' RESOLUTION RINGPIS-LIBAN, J.: For resolution is the petitioner's �:tv!otion for Reconsideration Re: Decision dated 30 June 2020"1 filed on July 23,2020. In the instant mo tion, peutloner avers that the Court erred when it affirmed the D ecisio n dated July 27, 2018 and Resolution dated Januaty 15, 2019, granting respondent's application for refund . According to petitioner, Section 16 of Presidential Decree N o. 972 (PD 972) has already been repealed, hence, respondent is now liable for excise tax and value added tax; and that Revenue Regulation No. 2-2012 (RR 2-12) is non-violative of the no n- impairment clause of the Constitution/ 1 Docket, CTA EB NO. 2005, pp. 87-94.

Page 2 of3 Resolution CTA EB NO. 2005 (CTA CASE NO. 9133) After consideration of the motion submitted, the Court En Bane resolves to deny the "Motion for Reconsideration Re: Decision dated 30 June 2020." The Court En Bane observes that the said motion was flied without the required notice of hearing. "Sections 4 and 5, Rule 15 of the Rules of Court read as follows: Section 4. Hearing of motion. - Except for motions which the court may act upon without prejudicing the rights of the adverse party, every written motion shall be set for hearing by the applicant. Every written motion required to be heard and the notice of the hearing thereof shall be served in such a manner as to ensure its receipt by the other party at least three (3) days before the date of hearing, unless the court for good cause sets the hearing on shorter notice. Section 5. Notice of hearing. - The notice of hearing shall be addressed to all parties concerned, and shall specify the time and date of the hearing which must not be later than ten (10) days after the filing of the motion. These requirements arc mandatory. Except for motions which the court may act on without prejudice to the adverse party, all motions must set a hearing. This includes motions for reconsideration. The notice of hearing on the motion must be directed to the adverse party and must inform him or her of the time and date of the hearing. Failure to comply with these mandates renders the motion fatally defective, equivalent to a useless scrap of paper."2 Hence, the "Motion for Reconsideration Rc: Decision dated 30 June 2020" is a worthless piece of paper. At any rate, assuming arguendo that the instant Motion was properly flied and admitted by the Court, the same would still fail on the merits for the reasons stated in the assailed Decision. The Court En Bane notes that the petitioner's motion merely reiterates or amplifies the arguments previously raised in the Petition for Review which were / 2 Bernice Joan Tl vs. Manuel S. Dina, G.R. No. 219260, November 6, 2017.

Resolution CTA EB NO. 2005 (CTA CASE NO. 9133) already considered and extensively discussed upon by the Court En Bane in the assailed Decision. It must be stressed that among the ends to which a motion for reconsideration is addressed, one is precisely to convince the Court that its ruling is erroneous and improper, contrary to law or the evidence.3 If the movant failed to do so, the motion for reconsideration must necessarily fail. WHEREFORE, premises considered, the petitioner's "Motion for Reconsideration Re: Decision dated 30 June 2020" is DENIED for lack of merit. SO ORDERED. ~-~4~ MA. BELEN M. RINGPIS-LIBAN Associate Justice WE CONCUR: Presiding Justice Q.c.~~c.t... 0. ERL2tP.UY JUANfTO C. CASTANEDu('JR. Associate Justice Associate Justice ... ~� ;:~"�~~��~,~~~-------- JEAN lVI.t\.JYln D.t\.'-'VftftV-VILLENA CATHERINE T. MANAHAN Associate Justice 3 Teodulo M. Coquilla vs. The Han. Commission on Elections and Mr. Neil M. Alvarez, G.R. No. 151914, July 31, 2002.