JOLLIBEE FOODS CORPORATION v. CITY OF PARA?AQUE AND DR. ANTHONY L. PULMANO, IN HIS CAPACITY AS CITY TREASURER

.. REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES Court of Tax Appeals QUEZON CITY Second Division JOLLIBEE CORPORATION, CTA AC NO. 265 Petitioner, Members: -versus- RINGPIS-LIBAN, Chairperson, MODESTO-SAN PEDRO, and FERRER-FLORES, JJ CITY OF PARANAQUE AND DR. ANTHONY L. PULMANO, Promulgated: \--r-r-� -- - - - - - - - - - - - in his capacity as City Treasurer,.. Respondents. I. i !' � / X --------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 6' "~ X RESOLUTION:r For the Court's resolution are (1) respondents' Motion for Reconsideration [Re: Decision dated 26 March 2025], filed via email on April 28, 2025, with petitioner's Comment (Re: Respondent's Motion for Reconsideration dated April28, 2025), filed on July 14, 2025; and (2) a Sworn Statement ofCompliance, filed by Atty. Manuel Felipe 0. Hernandez, Jr. with the Supreme Court and copy furnished to this Court on September 9, 2025, stating that Atty. Hernandez has fully served his previous administrative suspension from the practice oflaw, which ended on August 15, 2025. Respondents, through the Motion, assail this Court's Decision, dated March 26, 2025, by arguing that their use of the Presumptive Income Level Assessment Approach ("PILAA") in assessing petitioner was justified as they were unable to verifY petitioner's declared gross receipts due to the latter's failure to submit sufficient documents. Against this, petitioner claim that the assailed Decision is already final and executory as respondents failed to file a hardcopy of their Motion. It also observes that respondents' argument is irrelevant to this Court's reasons for disapproving of their use of PILAA, as laid out in the assailed Decision. Before delving into respondents' argument on their use of PILAA, the Court rejects petitioner's contention that respondents failed to properly file their Motion. As explained in their Compliance [Re: Resolution dated 15 May 2025], respondents did, in fact, file a hardcopy of their Motion via registered

" RESOLliTION CTA AC 1\0. 265 Page 2 of2 mail, posting it on April 28, 2025. The question of what happened to these mailed copies notwithstanding, the Court finds it appropriate to loosen procedural strictures here and deem respondents to have properly filed the Motion. Having duly posted it via the Parafiaque City Post Office, respondents exerted reasonable enough efforts to file the hardcopies. It would thus be needlessly strict to dismiss the Motion on grounds outside of their control. That said, the Motion lacks merit. As observed by petitioner, respondents' sole argument misses the point of Our ruling. Respondents argue that they were justified in using PILAA to verify petitioner's gross receipts. We do not necessarily disagree with this. However, and as stated in the Decision, the issue is their use of PILAA not just to verify such receipts but also to assess petitioner. To reiterate, this is not an allowed use for PILAA under Section 2H 02 of the Revenue Code of the City ofParanaque. Said provision allows using PILAA to validate declared gross income but not to impute gross income, which is what respondents did in assessing petitioner using PILAA. Being irrelevant to Our reasoning, respondents' argument fails to substantially challenge the assailed Decision. We thus retain Our ruling. ACCORDINGLY, petitioner's Motion for Reconsideration [Re: Decision dated 26 March 2025} is hereby DENIED for lack of merit. The Decision, dated March 26, 2025, is hereby AFFIRMED. The Sworn Statement ofCompliance is also NOTED. SO ORDERED. WE CONCUR: Associate Justice @.,. ~ __, '- MA. BELEN M. RINGPIS-LIBAN Associate Justice ON LEAVE CORAZON G. FERRER-FLORES Associate Justice