GLOBE TELECOM, INC. v. COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS

11111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111 18-000323-0086 REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES COURT OF TAX APPEALS QUEZON CITY SPECIAL FIRST DIVISION CTA CASE NO. 9883 GLOBE TELECOM, INC., Petitioner, -versus - NOTICE OF RESOLUTION COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, Respondent. To: ASSISTANT SOLICITOR GENERAL DIANA H. CASTANEDA-DE VERA STATE SOLICITOR DONALITA R. LAZO OFFICE OF THE SOLICITOR GENERAL 134 Amorsolo St., Legazpi Village, Makati City HON. REV LEONARDO B. GUERRERO Commi ss ioner of Customs G/F, OCOM Building, Bureau ofCusloms South Harbor, Port Area, Mani la SYC IP SALAZAR H ERNANDEZ & GATMAITAN 7th Floor, SyCipLaw Center J05 Paseo de Roxas, Makati Cily GREETINGS: You are hereby notified by these presents that on June 27, 2023, a Resolution was rendered in the above-entitled case, copy of which is attached hereto. Quezon City, Phihppines, July 4, 2023. Atty. Marg ette Y. Guz an Executive erk of Court I

-� REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES COURT OF TAX APPEALS QUEZON CITY Special First Division GLOBE TELECOM, INC., CTA Case No. 9883 Petitioner, Members: -versus- DEL ROSARIO, P.J., Chairperson, MANAHAN, and REYES-FAJARDO, JJ. COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, Promulgated: [� Respondent. ____!o~ou..LJ~IL....I.~~~t,.:...!!..::...L_!_!_ ~ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - RESOLUTION MANAHAN,J.: This resolves respondent's Motion for Reconsideration (of the Honorable Court's Decision dated March 7, 2023)1 filed on March 30, 2023, praying for the grant of the instant motion, the reversal and setting aside of the Court's Decision dated March 7, 2023 (Assailed Decision), the dismissal of the instant petition, and the upholding of respondent's Reversal Order dated April 19, 2018. Respondent argues that: (1) he correctly disallowed petitioner's offer of settlement of the seizure case via redemption of the forfeited goods or shipment as there was a fraudulent misdeclaration of the goods; (2) he legally seized and forfeited the subject goods or shipment in favor of the Government to be disposed of in accordance with law; and (3) petitioner's claim of innocence regarding the alleged misdeclaration of the imported goodsor shipment cannot absolve the latter from the liability of forfeiture; (4) petitioner cannot simply shift the blame of the erroneo,:us or defective declaration in the import entry to its supplier, over which our courts have no jurisdiction; and, (5) by - :. --_ n~ason of fraud and discrepancy of duties and t~es amounting --- , - to �more than thirty percent (30�/o), settlement is unavailing and - ~ the forfeiture of the subject shipment is in accordance with law. 1 Docket, Volume III, CTA Case No . 9883 , pp. 1660-1686. ~

RESOLUTION CTA Case No. 9883 On the other hand, petitioner, in its Opposition to the Motion for Reconsideration dated March 29, 20232 filed on April24, 2023, counter argues that the motion should be denied outright for lack of merit as it merely rehashes respondent's arguments in his Memorandum dated December 21, 2021. Petitioner insists that respondent does not offer anything new as he merely reiterates his previous assertions and erroneous conclusions. The Ruling This Court shall determine first whether the instant motion was filed on time. Section 1, Rule 15 of the Revised Rules of the Court of Tax Appeals (RRCTA) provides that: "SECTION 1. Who may and when to file motion.- Any aggrieved party may seek a reconsideration or new trial of any decision, resolution, or order of the Court by filing a motion for reconsideration or new trial within fifteen days from the date of receipt of notice of the decision, resolution or order of the Court in question." (Emphasis supplied) The records of the instant case reveal that respondent received the Assailed Decision on March 15, 2023. In accordance with the abovementioned provision of the RRCTA, respondent had fifteen (15) days from receipt of notice of said decision from March 15, 2023 or until March 30, 2023 within which to file his motion for reconsideration. Thus, the filing of respondent's Motion for Reconsideration (of the Honorable Court's Decision dated March 7, 2023) on March 30, 2023 was on time. Having established the jurisdiction of the Court to hear the motion, We find it bereft of merit. A perusal of respondent's arguments in the discussion portion3 of his Memorandum posted on December 23, 2021 reveals that the arguments4 in the instant motion are 2 Id. at pp. 1689-1695. 3 Docket, Volume III, CTA Case No. 9883, Memorandum, pp. 1548-1570 . 4 Id., Motion for Reconsideration (of the Honorable Court's Decision dated March 7, 2023), pp. 1662-1683.~

RESOLUTION CTA Case No. 9883 substantially similar and are mere replication or rehash which have already been extensively passed upon and exhaustively discussed in the Assailed Decision. In Ortigas and Company Limited Partnership v. Judge Tirso Velasco, et al., 5 the Supreme Court ruled that: "The filing of a motion for reconsideration, authorized by Rule 52 of the Rules of Court, does not impose on the Court the obligation to deal individually and specifically with the grounds relied upon therefor, in much the same way that the Court does in its judgment or final order as regards the issues raised and submitted for decision. This would be a useless formality or ritual invariably involving m erely a reiteration of the reasons already set forth in the judgment or final order for rejecting the arguments advanced by the movant; and it would be a needless act, too, with respect to issues raised for the first time, these being, as above stated, deemed waived because not asserted at the first opportunity. It suffices for the Court to deal generally and summarily with the motion for reconsideration, and merely state a legal ground for its denial (Sec. 14, Art. VIII, Constitution); i.e., the motion contains merely a reiteration or rehash of arguments already submitted to and pronounced without merit by the Court in its judgment, or the basic issues have already been passed upon, or the motion discloses no substantial argument or cogent reason to warrant reconsideration or modification of the judgment or final order; or the arguments in the motion are too unsubstantial to require consideration, etc." (Emphasis supplied) There being no new and substantial arguments propounded by respondent in his motion, the Court finds no compelling reason to reverse the Assailed Decision. WHEREFORE, respondent's Motion for Reconsideration (of the Honorable Court's Decision dated March 7, 2023) is hereby DENIED for lack of merit. SO ORDERED. ~~- {/.~ CATHERINE T. MANAHAN Associate Justice s G.R. No. 109645, March 04, 1996.

RESOLUTION CTA Case No. 9883 WE CONCUR: Presiding Justice ~ 9~n~..F.f. R~ E~E~�-fFOAi(JUA'~RDO MARIAN Associate Justice