COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE v. THE COURT OF TAX APPEALS-SECOND DIVISION and SURIGAO MICRO CREDIT CORPORATION

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES COURT OF TAX APPEALS QUEZON CITY ENBANC COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL CTAEB N0.1967 REVENUE , (CTA Case No. 9108) Petitio ner, Present: -versus - DEL ROSARIO, P.J., CASTANEDA, JR., UY, RINGPIS-LIBAN, MANAHAN, BACORRO-VILLENA, and MODESTO-SAN PEDRO, JJ. THE COURT OF TAX APPEALS- SECOND DIVISION and SURIGAO Promulgated: MICRO CREDIT CORPORATION, JAN 192~ 021 X----------- ------ - -- Respondents. - ---- ---- -- - ~-:~~ - - - -- - -- -- RESOLUTION RINGPIS-LIBAN, J.: This resolves Petitioner's "l\fotion for Reconsideration [re: Decision dated 14 July 2020]"1 ("Motion for Reconsideration") filed via registered mail on September 02, 2020, with Private Respondent's "Comment/Opposition To Petitioner's Motion for Reconsideration (Re: Decision dated 14 J uly 2020)"2 ("Comment") flied on October 27, 2020 also by registered mail, seeking to reconsider the Decision3 promulgated on July 22, 2020 ("Assailed Decision"), and order Private Respondent to pay its deficiency tax assessments. The dispositive portion of the Assailed Decision ready Rollo, pp. 184-191. 2 !d./ pp. 196-201. 3 !d./ pp. 156-166 .

RESOLUTION CTA EB NO. 1967 (CTA Case No. 9108) "WHEREFORE, premises considered, the "Petition for Certiorari" filed with the Court En Bane on November 19, 2018 is DISMISSED for lack of jurisdiction. SO ORDERED."4 In his Motion for Reconsideration, Petitioner claims that this Court has jurisdiction over the instant petition. Petitioner also contends that his failure to ftle a motion for reconsideration on the Decision of the Second Division was due to excusable negligence. On the other hand, Respondent, in its Comment, states that Petitioner's motion is a mere rehash of his arguments in his "Petition for Certiorari" and fails to raise any new matter or issue. We find for Respondent. As We have discussed in the Assailed Decision, assuming arguendo that the Court En Bane has jurisdiction over Petitioner's "Petition for Certiorari", the element of grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction is still lacking in the present case. The Second Division did not err in denying Petitioner's plea for relief of judgment. The failure of Atty. Muli to properly endorse her caseload to Atty. Doria, the inability of Atty. Doria to locate the records of the case, and the continuous change in work distribution within the BIR's Litigation Division are all mundane occurrences. In fact, the narration of events by Petitioner does not constitute excusable negligence but the opposite thereof. Heavy workload is by no means excusable, lest there would be no end to litigation as it will be invoked by any law practitioner who failed to meet his deadline. In sum, the Court En Bane finds no cogent reason to warrant a reconsideration of the Assailed Decision. WHEREFORE, prerruses considered, Petitioner's "Motion for Reconsideration [re: Decision dated 14 July 2020]" is DENIED for lack of meriy 4 Id., pp. 163-164.

RESOLUTION CTA EB NO. 1967 (CTA Case No. 9108) SO ORDERED. l):...t. ~ ,J~ MA. BELEN M. RINGPIS-LIBAN Associate Justice WE CONCUR: (I reltirate-mj Separate Concurring Opinion) ROMAN G. DEL ROSARIO Presiding Justice 0..:<0-+U-~ c. a..74-o<Lot.., 9.. ERL~.UY Associate Justice JfJANITO C. CASTANEDA, jR. Associate Justice /'/2.~� )-/TP-.~- ' (With J;;;;f'pe;t~i ~aintain my concurrence with Justice Jean Marie A. Bacorro- Vi/lena's Concurring and Dissenting Opinion) CATHERINE T. MANAHAN JEAN Associate Justice