ATTY. KIM S. JACINTO-HENARES, in her capacity as the COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE and MELQUIADES A. CANCELA, in his capacity as the OIC-REVENUE DISTRICT OFFICER OF REVENUE DISTRICT NO. 70, MASBATE CITY v. ATLAS CONSOLIDATED MINING AND DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES COURT OF TAX APPEALS QUEZON CITY EN BANC ATTY. KIM S. JACINTO- C.T.A. EB NO. 1101 HENARES, in her capacity as (C.T.A. Case No.8150) the COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE and Present: MELQUIADES A. CANCELA, in his capacity as the Ole- DEL ROSARIO, PJ REVENUE DISTRICT OFFICER CASTANEDA, JR., OF REVENUE DISTRICT NO. BAUTISTA, 70, MASBATE CITY, UY, CASANOVA, Petitioners, FABON-VICTORINO, MINDARO-GRULLA, - versus - COTANGCO-MANALASTAS,and RINGPIS-LIBAN, JJ. ATLAS CONSOLIDATED Promulgated: MINING AND DEVELOPMENT JAN Z9 Z016 3.~�'"". CORPORATION, Respondent. x- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -x RESOLUTION Fabon-Victorino, J.: Before the Court En Bane is the Motion for Reconsideration (re: Decision promulgated on 14 August j 2015) 1 posted by petitioners on September 10, 2015, assailing the Decision2 promulgated on August 14, 2015, the dispositive portion of which reads: 1 En Bane docket, pp . 317-327 . 2 Id., pp. 269-292.

RESOLUTION CTA EB NO. 1101 WHEREFORE, the instant Petition for Review dated December 23, 2013 is DENIED, for lack of merit. Accordingly, the assailed Decision and Resolution dated October 1, 2013 and November 26, 2013, respectively, are hereby AFFIRMED. SO ORDERED. The assailed Decision sustained the cancellation and withdrawal of the Assessment Notices dated February 29, 2000, as ruled by the Court in Division due to petitioners' failure to enforce collection of the alleged tax liabilities within the period allowed by law. Petitioners maintain that their right to collect the alleged deficiency taxes from respondent has not yet prescribed since they exerted efforts to collect the said deficiency taxes as early as 2000 with the filing of the criminal complaint before the public prosecutor followed by the lodging of the Information with the trial court on November 9, 2000. Respondent however counters that the arguments proffered by petitioners are a mere rehash of their previous arguments which have already been determined and passed upon by the Court En Bane. And as correctly pointed out by the Court En Bane, respondent was not impleaded in the criminal action, thus, the prescriptive period to collect was not suspended. Indeed, the arguments raised by petitioners were all squarely discussed and passed upon, first by the Court in Division and subsequently on appeal, by the Court En Bane. Petitioners failed to advance any new or substantial reason to justify a departure from the previous conclusion and findings of the Court. j WHEREFORE, there being no new matters and issues raised that will merit a reconsideration, let alone modification of the assailed Decision of August 14, 2015,

RESOLUTION CTA EB NO. 1101 petitioners' Motion for Reconsideration dated September 10, 2015 is hereby DENIED, for lack of merit. SO ORDERED. R. FABON-VICTORINO We Concur: Presiding Justice Q. c ,ClJ!-~-c4, Q. LOVELL~UTISTA JUANfTO C. CASTANED(" JR. Associate Justice Associate Justice ER~P.UY CAESAR A. CASANOVA Associate Justice Associate Justice ~N.M~-6~ ~,J_~~~ CIELITO N. MINDARO-GRULLA AMELIA R. COTANGCO-MANALASTAS Associate Justice Associate Justice ( MA. BELEN M. RINGPIS-LIBAN Associate Justice