COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE v. DIGOS MARKET VENDORS MULTI-PURPOSE COOPERATIVE (DIMAVEMC), represented by its CHAIRMAN OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS, CONSTANTINO L. RABAYA, JR.

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES COURT OF TAX APPEALS QUEZON CITY ENBANC COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL CTA EB NO. 2518 REVENUE, (CTA Case No. 9131) Petitioner, Present: DEL ROSARIO, P.J. , -versus- RINGPIS-LIBAN, MANAHAN, BACORRO-VILLENA, MODESTO-SAN PEDRO, REYES-FAJARDO, DIGOS MARKET VENDORS CUI-DAVID, MULTI-PURPOSE FERRER-FLORES, and COOPERATIVE (DIMAVEMC), ANGELES, JJ. represented by its CHAIRMAN OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS, CONSTANTINO L. Promulgated: sEP 16 2021t RABAy A, JR.' Respondent. ~ J{--- - --------- - - - ------------- -~~ <>O;Ioi. ~. RESOLUTION CUI-DAVID, J.: For the Court En Bane's resolution is petitioner's Motion for Reconsideration (Re: Decision dated 30 November 2023)1 filed on December 18, 2023, without respondent's comment per Records Verification dated June 19, 2024.2 Petitioner assails the Decision promulgated by the Court En Bane on November 30, 2023 (assailed Decision), with the following dispositive portion: WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Petition for Review is DENIED for lack of merit. Accordingly, the Decision 0 and the ResolutiondatedAugus: ' En Bano~::::,:,~:,e:~:r 16, 2020 , j 2 /d. , unpaged. ~'

RESOLUTION CTA EB No. 2518 (CTA Case No. 9131) Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Digos Market Vendors Multi-Purpose Cooperative (DIMAVEMC), represented by its Chairman of the Board of Directors, Constantino L. Rabaya, Jr. X------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------X 31,2021, of the Court's First Division in CTA Case No. 9131 are AFFIRMED. SO ORDERED. Petitioner argues that the Court in Division has no jurisdiction over the original Petition for Review filed by respondent because the deficiency tax assessments against it have become final, executory, and demandable for failure to file a protest to the Preliminary Assessment Notice (PAN) and Formal Letter of Demand and Final Assessment Notice (FLD/FAN) within the period provided under Section 228 of the National Internal Revenue Code (NIRC) of 1997, as amended, and its implementing regulations, i.e. Revenue Regulations (RR) No. 12-99. Petitioner alleges that since there is no disputed assessment over which this Court can take jurisdiction, it should dismiss the original Petition for Review outright for lack of jurisdiction over the subject matter. The instant Motion for Reconsideration (Motion) is without merit. Petitioner's Motion raised the same argument that has been sufficiently considered and passed upon by the Court En Bane in the assailed Decision. In Shangri-La International Hotel Management v. Developers Group ofCompanies, Inc., 3 the Supreme Court made clear that it is incumbent upon the movant to raise substantially plausible matters to warrant the relief sought, to wit: "The bulk of the aforementioned grounds is a mere rehash of movant's previous arguments. While DGCI is correct in stating that a motion for reconsideration, by its very nature, may tend to dwell on issues already resolved in the decision sought to be reconsidered and that this should not be an obstacle for a reconsideration, the hard reality is that movant has failed to raise matters substantially plausible or :~~;'~UiJ pcrnue,icc to warrant the de,ired courne of 3 Shangri-la International Hotel Management, Ltd. v. Developers Group of Companies, Inc., G.R. No. 159938 (Resolution), January 22,2007.

RESOLUTION CTA EB No. 2518 (CTA Case No. 9131) Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Digos Market Vendors Multi-Purpose Cooperative (DIMAVEMC), represented by its Chairman of the Board of Directors, Constantino L. Rabaya, Jr. X------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------X Considering that the grounds presently raised have been sufficiently considered, if not squarely addressed, in the subject Decision, it behooves movant to convince the Court that certain findings or conclusions in the Decision are contrary to law. As it is, however, the instant motion does not raise any new or substantial legitimate ground or reason to justify the reconsideration sought." This judicial pronouncement was similarly echoed in the case of Harry L. Roque, Jr. et al. v. Commission on Elections, represented by Han. Chairman Jose Melo et al., 4 where the Supreme Court En Bane ruled that whenever the motion for reconsideration fails to raise matters that are substantially plausible or compellingly persuasive enough to lead the court to rule in favor of the desired course of action, then the same must be denied by the court, thus: "Petitioner's above contention, as well as the arguments, citations and premises holding it together, is a rehash of their previous position articulated in their memorandum in support of their petition. They have been considered, squarely addressed, and found to be without merit in the Decision subject hereof. The Court is not inclined to embark on another extended discussion of the same issue agam ... XXX XXX XXX While a motion for reconsideration may tend to dwell on issues already resolved in the decision sought to be reconsidered - and this should not be an obstacle for a reconsideration - the hard reality is that petitioners have failed to raise matters substantially plausible or compellingly persuasive to warrant the desired course of action." Petitioner failed to persuade the Court En Bane to reverse its finding that respondent's right to due process was violated when petitioner caused the service of PAN and FLD/FAN on the same day, Apri121, 2010. Well-settled is the rule that an assessment that fails to strictly comply with the due process requirements set forth in Section 228 of the NIRC of 1997, as amended, and RR No. 12- 99, a' amended, is void and pmduce' no effect.'' 4 G.R. No. 188456 (Resolution), February 10,2010. 5 Prime S!eel A1iil, fncorporatedv. Commissioner ofInternal Revenue, G.R. No. 249153. September 12,2022.

RESOLUTION CTA EB No. 2518 (CTA Case No. 9131) Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Digos Market Vendors Multi-Purpose Cooperative (DIMAVEMC), represented by its Chairman of the Board of Directors, Constantino L. Rabaya, Jr. x------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------x Given the foregoing, the Court En Bane finds no compelling reason to reverse or modify the findings and conclusions in the assailed Decision. WHEREFORE, premises considered, petitioner's Motion for Reconsideration (Re: Decision dated 30 November 2023) is DENIED for lack of merit. SO ORDERED. LA.JL~AV~"~,;11C1U1I'~iAVID WE CONCUR: Associate Justice Presiding Justice 9Jv.~ ~'-- MA. BELEN M. RINGPIS-LIBAN Associate Justice c~�r-~ CATHERINE T. MANAHAN Associate Justice JEAN MA ~~F. ~-trA1'~ MARIAN 1~. REYi'S-FAJXRDO Associate Justice

RESOLUTION CTA EB No. 2518 (CTA Case No. 9131) Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Digos Market Vendors Multi-Purpose Cooperative (DIMAVEMC), represented by its Chairman of the Board of Directors, Constantino L. Rabaya, Jr. X------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------X co~cf~R~ES Associate Justice/ HENRY s/}fNGELES Associate Justice