CTA Case No. EB CRIM-91 (Resolution on MR)

.- ~ REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES COURT OF TAX APPEALS QUEZON CITY ENBANC PEOPLE OF THE CTA EB CRIM. NO. 091 PHILIPPINES, (CTA Crim. Case No. 0-818) Petitioner, Present: Del Rosario, P.J., Ringpis-Lib an, Manahan, Bacorro-Villena, Modesto-San Pedro, Reyes-Fajardo, Cui-David, Ferrer-Flores, and Angeles,Jl - versus- GH RESOURCES AND TRAINING Promulgated: SERVICES, INC., GRACE H. CART AGO, Respondents. X------------------------------------------------------------------------- - -------------------X RESOLUTION RINGPIS-LIBAN, 1; For resolution of the Court En Bane is petitioner People of the Philippines' Motion for Reconsideration1 flied on June 13, 2023. In a Resolution dated July 28, 2023, this Court required respondents to file their comment or opposition to petitioner's Motion for Reconsideration within five (5) days from receipt thereof. Respondents, however, failed to file the required comment or opposition as per the Records Verification Report dated November 8, 2023 submitted by this Court's Judicial Records Division. ~ 1 Court En Banes Docket, pp. 123-132.

, RESOLUTION CTA EB CRIM. NO. 091 (CTA Crim. Case No. 0-818) Petitioner's Motion for Reconsideration seeks reconsideration of the Decision of the Court En Bane promulgated on May 22, 2023,2 ("Assailed Decision") dismissing the Petition for Review. In its Motion for Reconsideration, petitioner asserts that this Court erred in denying its Petition for Review on the ground of wrong appeal pursuant to Section 1, Rule 41 of the Rules of Court instead of the Revised Rules of the Court of Tax Appeals (RRCTA). Petitioner also postulates that this Court erred in denying its Petition for Relief from Judgment. After careful evaluation of the arguments raised by petitioner vis-a-vis the records of the case, the Court En Bane resolves to deny petitioner's Motion for Reconsideration for lack of merit. Petitioner merely recycled the arguments it previously raised in its Motion for Reconsideration as these matters had already been thoroughly discussed and resolved by the Court En Bane in the Assailed Decision. To put it bluntly, there is nothing in the Motionfor Reconsideration that was not sufficiently passed upon by the Court En Bane. At any rate, the Court En Bane maintains its ruling that the dismissal of the Petition for Review was in order because the petitioner availed of a wrong remedy of appeal. Denial of a petition for relief from judgment is not subject to appeal pursuant to Section 1, Rule 41 of the Rules of Court. Moreover, there is no excusable negligence in the present case that could serve as basis for a relief from judgment. Omission of petitioner's counsel can hardly be characterized as excusable negligence. The negligence of petitioner's counsel is of such nature that ordinary diligence and prudence could easily have guarded against. In sum, petitioner failed to raise any compelling reason to warrant the modification much less reversal of this Court's findings in the Assailed Decision. WHEREFORE, petitioner's Motion for Reconsideration is DENIED for lack of merit. SO ORDERED. ~~ ~ --"1'-- MA. BELEN M. RINGPIS-LIBAN Associate Justice 2 !d., pp. 114-122.

" RESOLUTION CfA EB CRIM. NO. 091 (CfA Crim. Case No. 0-818) U/'E CONCUR� Presiding Justice ('~'/.-~ CATHERINE T. MANAHAN Associate Justice \ BAC~VILLENA A. ..LA..I.'-''......, ssociate Justice lL ~~ f.~ -t~ MARIAN Iv4 F. RE~S-FAJARDO Associate Justice /ttrurtMJif- LANEE S. CUI-DAVdn Associate Justice CO~~Ov N G. . FE~ RRE~LE O S Associate Justice HENJf--ANGELES Associate Justice