COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE v. BRIGHT ALLIANCE ENTERPRISES CORPORATION

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES COURT OF TAX APPEALS QUEZON CITY ENBANC COMMISSIONER OF CTA EB NO. 2794 INTERNAL REVENUE, (CTA Case No. 9696) Petitioner, Present: -versus - DEL ROSARIO, P.J., RIN GPIS-LIBAN, BRIGHT ALLIANCE MANAHAN, ENTERPRISES BACORRO-VILLENA, CORPORATION, MODESTO-SAN PEDRO, REYES-FAJARDO, Respondent. CUI-DAVID, FERRER-FLORES, and ANGELES,JJ P rom ul gated : x--- - --- - ----- - ----- - -- - -- ------------------ ------------ - -- x RESOLUTION FERRER-FLORES, J.: For this Court's resolution is the Motion for Reconsideration filed by Commissioner of Internal Revenue (CIR/petitioner) via registered mail on January 2, 2025 , with Comment/Opposition to Motion for Reconsideration filed by Bright Alliance Enterprises Corporation (HAEC/respondent) via registered mail on January 20, 2025 . In the instant Mo tion for Reconsideration, the CIR prays for the Court En Bane to reconsider and set aside its Decision dated December 11, 2024 (assailed Decision), 1 wherein the Court denied the CIR' s Petition for Review for lack of merit and affirmed the Decision and Resolution issued by the First \ 1 Rollo, pp. 57 to 72.

RESOLUTION CTA EB No. 2794 (CTA Case No. 9696) Commissioner of Internal Revenue vs. Bright Alliance Enterprises Corporation Division of the Court (Court in Division), the dispositive portion of which reads: WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Petition for Review is hereby DENIED for lack of merit. Accordingly, the assailed Decision dated December 13, 2022, and assailed Resolution dated July 25, 2023 in CTA Case No. 9696 are AFFIRMED. SO ORDERED. To recall, in the assailed Decision, this Court held that the assessment did not attain finality in view of the timely filed Protest of respondent. In ruling so, the Court reckoned the 30-day period to file a protest from respondent's actual receipt of the Fonnal Letter of Demand (FLD) with corresponding Final Assessment Notices (FLD/FAN) on January 15, 2016 and held that the alleged substituted service by petitioner on January 12, 2016 was invalid. The Court also ruled that the subject deficiency tax assessments are void in view of the premature issuance of the FLD/FAN prior to the expiration of the 15-day period for respondent to file its Reply to the Preliminary Assessment Notice (PAN). Consequently, the assessment notices and the subsequently issued Warrant of Distraint and/or Levy (WDL) were also declared void. In the present Motion for Reconsideration, petitioner alleges the following grounds: I. The Court erred in ruling that the subject deficiency tax assessments failed to attain finality and that the protest of herein respondent against the final assessment notice was filed on time; and, II. The Court erred in ruling that the subject deficiency tax assessments and the subsequently issued warrant of distraint and/or levy are void for violating respondent's right to due process. As to the first ground, pet1t10ner insists that respondent initially received the FLD/FAN on January 12, 2016; therefore, the 30-day period to file protest should be reckoned therefrom. Since respondent filed the protest only on February 15, 2016, it was clearly filed out oftime; thus, the deficiency tax assessments have become final and executory. Petitioner maintains that BAEC is the owner of the branch located at "Space 14 Blk B 3/F Fanners Plaza, Cubao, Quezon City", as shown in the Integrated Tax System (ITS) Print-out of BAEC's branch registration, where a copy of the assessment I

RESOLUTION CTA EB No. 2794 (CTA Case No. 9696) Commissioner ofInternal Revenue vs. Bright Alliance Enterprises Corporation notice was served to BAEC and received by its allegedly authorized representative, Mr. Mark Anthony J. Mainit. With regard to the second ground, petitioner argues that the FLD/FAN was not prematurely issued on January 12, 2016 as the PAN was allegedly earlier served upon respondent on December 28, 2015 through a certain "Rosan Mollenido". On the other hand, BAEC counters that the grounds relied upon by petitioner have already been discussed by this Comt and do not warrant the reconsideration. After an evaluation of the respective arguments raised by the parties, this Court finds petitioner's Motion for Reconsideration bereft of merit. A cursory reading of the present Motion for Reconsideration would reveal that the grounds and supporting arguments raised by the petitioner were exact repetitions of the issues raised in his Petition for Review which have been considered and exhaustively discussed by the Court En Bane in the assailed Decision. In Department of Energy vs. Commissioner of Internal Revenue,2 the Supreme Court, citing Shangri-la International Hotel Management, Ltd. vs. Developers Group of Companies, Inc} held that, while a motion for reconsideration, by its nature, may tend to dwell on issues already resolved in the decision or resolution sought to be reconsidered, a circumstance which should not be an obstacle for a reconsideration, petitioners must still raise matters substantially plausible or compellingly persuasive to warrant a reversal of the Court's previous ruling. Clearly, there are no new matters which warrant the Comt's attention. As explained in the assailed Decision, respondent's Protest was timely filed on February 15,2016,4 which was within 30 days from its actual receipt of the FLD/FAN on January 15, 2016. At the risk of sounding repetitive, this Court cannot consider as valid the substituted service of the notice on January 12, 2016 as the person who received the notice, Mr. Mainit, was not authorized to receive the same. In fact, he is not even an employee ofBAEC. ~ G.R. No. 260912 (Resolution), August 30,2023. G.R. No. 159938 (Resolution), January 22,2007. ' The last day to file a Protest fell on February 14, 2016, which is a Sunday; thus, respondent had until February 15,2016 to file the same.

RESOLUTION CTA EB No. 2794 (CTA Case No. 9696) Conunissioner of Internal Revenue vs. Bright Alliance Enterprises Corporation Page 4 of5 Hence, the assessment did not become final and executory in view of the timely filing of respondent's protest. As to the second ground, the Court emphasizes that the petitioner failed to establish the validity of its service of the PAN on December 28, 2015 and the authority of the person to receive the PAN on behalf of respondent BAEC. At any rate, even assuming arguendo that the 15-day period for BAEC to file a Reply to PAN will be reckoned from December 28, 2015, as claimed by petitioner, BAEC had until January 12, 2016 within which to file the same. Thus, FLD/FAN issued on January 12, 2016 would still be prematurely issued, in violation ofBAEC's right to due process. All told, the Court En Bane finds no compelling reason to reverse or modify the assailed Decision. WHEREFORE, premises considered, petitioner's Motion for Reconsideration is DENIED for lack of merit. SO ORDERED. ES Associate Justice WE CONCUR: Presiding Justice L. ~ .-,--- MA. BELEN M. RINGPIS-LIBAN Associate Justice ~/. r -/~~--- CATHERINE T. MANAHAN Associate Justice

RESOLUTION CTA EB No. 2794 (CTA Case No. 9696) Commissioner of Internal Revenue vs. Bright Alliance Enterprises Corporation ~ BACORRO-VILLENA MARIARO N�W &... ti" ~ ~~ MARIAN Iv\4. REY~S~FAiARDO Associate Justice LAN D Associate Justice HENRY J/~GELES Associate Justice