CTA Case No. EB CRIM-55 (Resolution on MR)

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES COURT OF TAX APPEALS QUEZON CITY ENBANC PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, CTA EB CRIM. NO. 055 Petitioner, (CTA Crim. Case No. 0-449) Present: DEL ROSARIO, P.J., CASTANEDA, JR., -versus- UY, F A B O N -V I C T O R I N O , RINGPIS-LIBAN, MANAHAN, BACORRO-VILLENA, and MODESTO-SAN PEDRO, JJ. ROGELIO A. TAN c/o JADEWELL PARKINGS SYSTEMS CORP., Promulgated: Respondent. JUl 0 7 2020 X- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ~ cfJ�...o-Vb5. ;....._X RESOLUTION /' MANAHAN, J .: On February 5 , 2020, the Court rendered its Decision finding that there is no reason to compel respondent Rogelio A. Tan to pay the alleged deficiency taxes considering that there is no proof that the assessment was received by respondent. 1 The dispositive portion states: WHEREFORE, premises considered, the instant Petition for Review is DENIED for lack of m erit. The Resolutions dated April 18, 2018 a nd June 28, 2018, rendered in CTA Crim. Case No. 0 -449 are hereby AFFIRMED . On February 27, 2020, petitioner People of the Philippines posted its Motion for Reconsideration (Re: D ecision dated February 5, 2020),2 which was received by the Court on March 3, 2020. Petitioner prays: (1) that the Decision dated 1 Rollo, Decision dated February 5, 2020, p. 95. 2 Rollo, pp 106- 111. ,v"

RESOLUTION CTA EB CRIM. No. 055 Page 2 of3 February 5, 2020 be reconsidered and set aside; (2) that the resolutions of the CTA Division be reversed and set aside; and, (3) that respondent be ordered to pay the total amount of Phpl59,546,129.79 as deficiency income tax, value-added tax, and documentary stamp tax, inclusive of increments. On June 3, 2020, respondent filed his Opposition, stating that the mailing of the Preliminary Assessment Notice (PAN) and Final Assessment Notice (FAN) cannot be equated as receipt of such notices. The Supreme Court has consistently held that while a mailed letter is deemed received by the addressee in the course of mail, this is merely a disputable presumption subject to controversion and a direct denial thereof shifts the burden to the party favored by the presumption to prove that the mailed letter was indeed received by the addressee.3 Acting on petitioner's Motion for Reconsideration (Re: Decision dated February 5, 2020), the Court finds the same without merit. The Court reiterates that there was a failure to prove that the PAN and FAN were sent to and received by the respondent. There being no valid assessment, there is no basis for the computation of civil liability, neither is there any reason to compel the payment of the alleged deficiency taxes. WHEREFORE, the Motion for Reconsideration (Re: Decision dated February 5, 2020) is DENIED for lack of merit. SO ORDERED. ~7~~-- CATHERINE T. MANAHAN Associate Justice WE CONCUR: Presiding Justice .1 Respondent's Opposition, pp. 2-3.

RESOLUTION CTA EB CRIM. No. 055 a~t: c ~.......-.<4 Q. JuANITO c. CASTANEDAYJR. Associate Justice ERL~.UY Associate Justice ~ ociate Justice OM. -I�J- ,.,-7 '-- MA. BELEN M. RINGPIS-LIBAN Associate Justice ..... JEAN MARl~ ~AeuRRO-VILLENA MARIA ROWENNM6>D~TO..--SAN PEDRO -......-