COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE v. VITALO PACKAGING INTERNATIONAL, INC.

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES COURT OF TAX APPEALS QUEZON CITY En Bane COMMISSIONER OF CTAEB NO. 2148 INTERNAL REVENUE, (CTA Case No. 9231) Petitioner, Present: - versus - DEL ROSARIO, P], CASTANEDA, JR., VITALO PACKAGING UY, INTERNATIONAL, INC., RINGPIS-LIBAN, MANAHAN, Respondent. BACORRO-VILLENA, and MODESTO-SAN PEDRO,.ll Promulgated: .SEP16 ~ >l.'s-.y.~ )(----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------)( RESOLUTION RINGPIS-LIBAN, 1.: For resolution is the "Motion for Reconsideration (Re: Decision promulgated 3 February 2021)" 1 of petitioner Commissioner ofinternal Revenue (CIR) timely flied on February 19, 2021, asking the Court En Bane to reconsider its Decision dated February 3, 2021 2 on the following grounds: 1. T he Court En Bane erred in ruling that the deficiency tax assessments are null and void for having been issued in violation of the due process requirements under the law; and 2. The Court En Bane erred in enjoining the BIR from further taking action against Respondent. ~ 1 Rollo, pp. 163-173. 2 /d., pp. 137-156.

RESOLUTION CTA EB No. 2148 {CTA Case No. 9231} On June 7, 2021, respondent Vitalo Packaging International, Inc. (Vitalo) timely filed its "Comment/Opposition (to CIR's Motion for Reconsideration). Vitalo argued that the motion should be outrighdy denied for being pro forma as the arguments raised by the CIR were a mere rehash and/ or restatement of its Petition for Review on Certiorari. After considering the arguments of both parties, it is apparent to this Court that, indeed, the arguments raised by the CIR in its Motion for Reconsideration are not new. They have been previously discussed and considered in the Decision dated July 5, 20193 and the Resolution dated September 12, 20194 of the Special Second Division in CTA Case No. 9231. More importandy, they have also been exhaustively studied and considered by this Court prior to rendering our Decision dated February 3, 2021. In La Bugal B'Laan Tribal Association, Inc. v. Ramos', the Supreme Court, noting that the arguments and positions raised in the Motion for Reconsideration therein were already raised and discussed extensively, held that a further discussion of the same issues would not serve any useful purpose. "A close perusal of the above issues and the discussions thereof shows that they are a mere rehash of arguments and positions already raised and discussed extensively in the 246-page Resolution of December 1, 2004 penned by Justice Arternio V. Panganiban; as well as in the 125-page Dissenting Opinion of Justice Antonio T. Carpio, the 100-page Dissenting Opinion of Justice Conchita Carpio-Morales, the 29-page Separate Opinion ofJustice Dante 0. Tinga, and the 10-page Concurring Opinion ofJustice Minita V. Chico-Nazario. Further discussion of these issues would not serve any useful purpose, as it would merely repeat the same justifications and reasons already taken up in the foregoing Opinions, which tackled precisely those matters and even more; any further elucidations, disquisitions and disputations would merely reiterate the same points already passed upon." (Emphasis supplied) Considering that no new matters have been raised, the CIR's "Motion for Reconsideration (Re: Decision promulgated 3 February 2021)" is DENIED for lack of merit. ;'-/ 3 /d., pp. 23-70. 4 /d., pp. 71-76. 5 G.R. No. 127882, February 1, 2005.

RESOLUTION CTA EB No. 2148 {CTA Case No. 9231} SO ORDERED. (/b.f, ~ --4~ MA. BELEN M. RINGPIS-LIBAN Associate Justice WE CONCUR: (I re'!terate my Concu'Adl(g Opinion) ROMAN G. DEL ROSARIO Presiding Justice ~~ C.Cl$.~ _Q E~P.UY AssoClate Justice JUANITO C. CASTANEDA:)R. Associate Justice C~'J'.~ -- CATHERINE T. MANAHAN Associate Justice ,__ � r.fY\..,VI\.I\.V........._LLDl..,A MARIA SAN PEDRO