COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE v. JOYFOODS CORPORATION

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES COURT OF TAX APPEALS QUEZON CITY En Bane COMMISSIONER OF CTA EB NO. 2061 INTERNAL REVENUE, (CTA Case No. 9364) Petitioner, Present: - versus- DEL ROSARIO, P], CASTANEDA, JR., JOYFOODS CORPORATION, UY, Respondent. RINGPIS-LIBAN, MANAHAN, BACORRO-VILLENA, and MODESTO-SAN PEDRO,.ll X-----------------------------------------------------------------------~ C---/-7--J---rd--_--'--;-~.J--P�-,-x~. RES O LUTI O N RINGPIS-LIBAN, .L.: Por resolution is the "Motion for Reconsideration (En Bane Decision dated 22 September 2020) "1 of petitioner Commissioner of Internal Revenue (CIR) timely filed on October 13, 2020, asking the Court En Bane to reconsider its Decision dated September 22, 20202 on the following grounds: 1. The CIR explained the violations to the authorized representative of respondent Joyfoods Corporation Ooyfoods); 2. Payment of the compromise penalty was voluntarily made by J oyfoods; 3. Voluntary payment of the compromise penalty should dispense with itemized penalties in an assessment notice and/ or demand letter; and ~ 1 Rollo, pp. 85-88. 2 /d., pp. 74-84.

RESOLUTION CTA EB No. 2061 {CTA Case No. 9364) 4. Penalties paid by Joyfoods are neither arbitrary nor excessive, hence, are not entided to be refunded. In a Resolution dated November 17, 20203 the Court En Bane ordered respondent to file its Comment. On December 17, 2020, Joyfoods posted its "Comment/Opposition to Motion for Reconsideration dated 13 October 2019 (sic)" through registered mail which the Court En Bane received on January 6, 2021. Joyfoods argued that its violations were not explained by the CIR's agents at all and that it did not voluntarily pay the compromise penalties but was constrained or forced to pay the same for the reason that the continued operation of its business was threatened by the non-payment of said penalties. Respondent also alleges that the CIR still failed to comply with the strict requirement of Revenue Memorandum Order No. (RMO) 19-2007 which prohibits the imposition of penalties in amounts different from those provided in the Schedule of Compromise Penalties. After considering the arguments of both parties, it is apparent to this Court that, indeed, the arguments raised by the CIR in its Motion for Reconsideration are not new. They have been previously discussed and considered in the Decision dated November 12, 2018 and the Resolution dated April 10, 2019 of the Special First Division in CTA Case No. 9364. More importandy, they have also been exhaustively studied and considered by this Court prior to rendering our Decision dated September 22, 2020. In La Bugal B'Laan Tribal Association, Inc. v. Ramol, the Supreme Court, noting that the arguments and positions raised in the Motion for Reconsideration therein were already raised and discussed extensively, held that a further discussion of the same issues would not serve any useful purpose. "A close perusal of the above issues and the discussions thereof shows that they are a mere rehash of arguments and positions already raised and discussed extensively in the 246-page Resolution of December 1, 2004 penned by Justice Artemio V. Panganiban; as well as in the 125-page Dissenting Opinion of Justice Antonio T. Carpio, the 100-page Dissenting Opinion of Justice Conchita Carpio-Morales, the 29-page Separate Opinion ofJustice Dante 0. Tinga, and the 10-page Concurring Opinion of Justice Minita V. Chico-Nazari~ 3 /d., pp. 89�90. 4 G.R. No. 127882, February 1, 2005.

RESOLUTION CTA EB No. 2061 (CTA Case No. 9364} Further discussion of these issues would not serve any useful purpose, as it would merely repeat the same justifications and reasons already taken up in the foregoing Opinions, which tackled precisely those matters and even more; any further elucidations, disquisitions and disputations would merely reiterate the same points already passed upon." (Emphasis supplied) Considering that no new matters have been raised, the CIR's "Motion for Reconsideration (En Bane Decision dated 22 September 2020)" is DENIED for lack of merit. SO ORDERED. 9z...,. ~ 4 t.______ WE CONCUR: MA. BELEN M. RINGPIS-LIBAN Associate Justice Presiding Justice E~P.UY Associate Justice Q~r:;--c. G...if'~ ~ 9--. JlfANITO C. CASTANEDAJR. . Associate Justice ~ J: /k~��.....e..~<-- CATHERINE T. MANAHAN Associate Justice - "Dl\.I....V n.n.v-VILLENA MARIA SAN PEDRO