REX JAYSON MIRAFLOR TUOZO v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES COURT OF TAX APPEALS QUEZON CITY THIRD DIVISION REX JAYSON MIRAFLOR CTA CASE NO. 10638 TUOZO, Petitioner, Members: -versus- MANAHAN, Chairperson, REYES-FAJARDO, and ANGELES, JJ. COMMISSIONER OF Promulgated : INTERNAL REVENUE, uL ., ?O?~ Respondent. - - -�- -=--r-- -- - x- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -~- - -- ~-� '!~ _et_�~-� - - - - -x RESOLUTION MANAHAN, J.: For resolution of the Court is respondent's Motion for Reconsideration filed on April 15 , 2025,1 with petitioner's com ment filed on May 13 , 2025.2 Responden t seek s that the Cou rt reconsider its Decision d ated March 24, 2025 ("assailed Decision"),3 which cancelled and set aside the d eficiency tax assessments against petitioner for taxable year 2 018. To recall, in the assailed Decision, the Court fou nd t h at r esponden t failed to validly serve the Notice of Informal Conference ("NIC") and Preliminary Assessment Notice ("PAN") u pon petit ioner , th ereby viola ting the latter's right to due process and r end ering th e subject tax assessments void. The d ispositive p ortion of th e assailed Decision reads: 4 ACCORDINGLY, 1n light of the foregoing considerations, the present Petition for Review is GRANTED. The FLD dated December 2, 2020 (including I Docket, pp. 463-472. 2 Comment (Re: Respondent's Motionfor Reconsideration), Docket, pp. 476-48 1. 3 Docket, pp. 444-462. 4 Id. at 460-461. c,..._.....--

RESOLUTION CTA CASE NO. 10638 the corresponding Assessment Notices) covering deficiency income tax, VAT, FWT, and FWVAT, including increments thereto, for taxable year 2018, in the aggregate amount of P678,02 1.35, is h ereby CANCELLED a nd SET ASIDE for being VOID. SO ORDERED. In his Motion for Reconsideration, respondent points out that at the time petitioner filed his protest to the assessments, the statute of limitations for th e issu an ce and service of assessments was suspended due to the COVID-19 pandemic. Respondent also notes that during the pendency of petitioner's protest, p etitioner applied for transfer of r egistration from Makati City to Quezon City. These cir cumstances, according to respondent, warrants a fresh period to resolve petitioner's protest to the assessment. As to the service of the NIC and the PAN, respondent alleges that "th e Revenue Officer exerted diligence beyond what was stated under the regulations considering that he attempted several times to serve the PAN personally to the Petitioner but it seems that the Petitioner was evading him." Respondent also asserts that a copy of the PAN was served with the aid of the barangay and via registered mail. In his Comment (Re: Respondent's Motion for Reconsideration}, petitioner remarks that respondent's arguments on the extension of the assessment period are irrelevant to the case, and that respondent's allegations of the service of the NIC and the PAN are unfounded. Petitioner asks the Court to dismiss responden t's Motion for Reconsideration for being pro forma. We resolve. First, as aptly observed by petitioner, the extension of the statute of limitations for assessm ent does not have any b earing on the assailed Decision. Already settled is the fact that respondent issued the Formal Letter of Demand with attached Details of Discrepancies and Assessment Notices on December 2, 2020,5 and p etitioner timely protested the same on January s Decision dated Marc h 24, 2 025, Docket, p. 445 . ~

RESOLUTION CTA CASE NO . 10638 7, 2021.6 Whether the assessment was made within or beyond the statute of limitations was not put in issue. Second, in the assailed Decision, the Court found the records bereft of any evidence to show that respondent served the NIC on petitioner. The Court noted that even respondent's own witness failed to testify thereon and expressly admitted lack of firsthand knowledge of such service. Here in the present Motion for Reconsideration, respondent contests such finding but did not offer any substantive argument or evidence in support thereof. All respondent offers is bare allegation, which the Court cannot give credence to. Third, in the assailed Decision, the Court also found that respondent failed to comply with the requirements of valid service of the PAN. Respondent allegedly resorted to substituted service, but the records do not establish that the taxpayer's absence was attested to by a barangay official and two disinterested witnesses, and that the assessment notices were left with the barangay official, as required by the pertinent rules and regulations. Respondent likewise allegedly served the PAN through registered mail, but there is no evidence at all tending to prove such fact. In the present Motion for Reconsideration, respondent merely reiterated these bare allegations which are exceptionally unsubstantial to merit any reconsideration. A motion for reconsideration is deemed pro forma if does not substantiate the alleged errors in the ruling or decision sought to be reconsidered, or if it merely alleges that the same is contrary to law.7 As held in the case of Marina Properties Corporation v. Court ofAppeals: B Under our rules of procedure, a party adversely affected by a decision of a trial court may move for reconsideration thereof on the following grounds: ... (b) the evidence is insufficient to just ify the decision; or (c) the decision is contrary to law. A motion for reconsideration interrupts the running of the period to appeal, unless the motion is pro forma... 6 !d., p . 446. 7 Philippine National Bank v. Paneda, G.R. No. 149236 , Februa ry 14, 2 007 [Per J . Aus tria -Ma rtinez, Third Division]. s G.R. No. 125447 , Augu s t 14 , 1998 [Per J . Davide , J r., First Division]. a----

RESOLUTION CTA CASE NO. 10638 A motion for reconsideration based on the foregoing grounds is deemed pro forma if the same does not specify the findings or conclusions in the judgment which are not supported by the evidence or contrary to law, making express reference to the pertinent evidence or legal provisions. It is settled th at although a motion for r econsideration may merely r eiterate issues already passed upon by the court, that by itself does not make it pro forma and is immaterial because what is essential is complia n ce with the requisites of the Rules. In Luzon Stevedoring Co. v. Court of Industrial Relations,9 the Supreme Court declared that it is not enou gh that a motion for reconsideration simply states what part of th e decision is contrary to eviden ce or law; it should also point out why it is so. The purpose of a motion for reconsideration is to convince the court that its main ruling is erroneous, therefore, although the movant may dwell upon the points already raised and passed upon, there must be bona fide effort to explain why the court should be regarded as having erred. The lack of such effort is glaring in the instant case. ACCORDINGLY, the instant Motion for Reconsideration filed by respondent on April15, 2025 is hereby DISMISSED for being pro forma. SO ORDERED. v. /1~ . ~~�~4~-- WE CONCUR: CATHERINE T. MANAHAN Associate Justice r. ~ ~ ~~r~~~ MARIAN rv#. REY:&S-FAJARDO Associate Justice HENRY /JfrGELES Associa t e Justice 9 G.R. No. L - 16682 , July 26, 1963 [Per J . Regala, En bane].