COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE v. SAN ROQUE POWER CORPORATION

Republic of the Philippines COURT OF TAX APPEALS Quezon City En Bane COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL CTA EB Case No. 1073 REVENUE, (CTA Case No. 7787) Petitioner, Present: DEL ROSARIO, P], CASTANEDA, JR., BAUTISTA, -versus- UY, CASANOVA, PABON-VICTORINO, MINDARO-GRULLA, COTANGCO-MANALASTAS, and RINGPIS-LIBAN, J.1. SAN ROQUE POWER CORPORATION, Promulgated: Respondent. IAN 07 2015 X- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ~ ,1/-'-Sf"c;P.. !P_�-~ ~ - - - - - - - - -X RESOLUTION CASANOVA, L.: Submitted for consideration is petitioner's "Motion for Reconsideration" 1 filed on October 30, 2014, with respondent's "Comment/Opposition (To Motion for Reconsideration)" 2 filed on November 28, 2014. In her Motion, petitioner alleges that the Court En Bane erred when it reduced the deficiency Expanded Withholding Tax and cancelled the deficiency Final Withholding Tax assessments issued by the Bureau of Internal Revenue. Thus, petitioner seeks that the Court En,. 1 CTA En Bane Rollo, pp. 187-192 z Ibid., pp. 196-202

RESOLUTION CTA EB Case No. 1073 (CTA Case No. 7787) Page 2 of3 Bane reconsider and set aside its Decision 3 ("assailed Decision") promulgated on October 15, 2014, which denied the Petition for Review filed on October 24, 2013 for lack of merit. On the other hand, respondent asserts that the arguments raised by petitioner are mere reiterations of the arguments sufficiently passed upon and decided by the Court En Bane in the assailed Decision. Respondent claims that petitioner's Motion for Reconsideration is merely a pro forma motion. After due consideration, We find no merit in petitioner's Motion for Reconsideration. Upon careful scrutiny of the arguments proffered by petitioner in her Motion for Reconsideration and, as correctly pointed out by respondent, We find that the discussions therein are mere rehash of the same facts and issues which have already been analyzed and passed upon by the Court En Bane in the assailed Decision. The grounds raised by the petitioner in her motion did not raise anything new to merit reconsideration thereof. Hence, as stated in the fallo of the Decision promulgated on October 15, 2014, the Court En Bane finds no cogent justification to disturb the findings and conclusions reached in the Decision and Resolution dated April 30, 2013 and September 13, 2013, respectively, rendered by the CTA Special First Division in CTA Case No. 7787. WHEREFORE, petitioner's Motion for Reconsideration is hereby DENIED for lack of merit. SO ORDERED. ~ CAESAR A. CASANOVA Associate Justice 3 CTA En Bane Rollo, pp. 165-182

RESOLUTION CTA EB Case No. 1073 (CTA Case No. 7787) Page 3 of3 WE CONCUR: Presiding Justice ~~ c. ~a..-w~/ 9.. fuANITO C. CASTANEDA, yR. Associate Justice ER~.U' Y Associate Justice Glt,a; N_ M~~ 6"'~ ~/.~ CIELITO N. MINDARO-GRULLA AMELIA R. COTANGCO-MANALASTAS Associate Justice Associate Justice I (yj\A. ~ ~.,.,L.... MA. BELEN M. RINGPIS-LIBAN Associate Justice