COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE v. FIRST FAR EAST DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES COURT OF TAX APPEALS QUEZON CITY ENBANC COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL CTA EB NO. 2354 REVENUE, (CTA Case No. 9678) P e titio ne r, -vers u s- Present: Del Rosario, P.J. , Castaneda, Jr., Uy, Ringpis-Lib an, Manahan, Bacorro-Villena, Modesto-San Pedro, Reyes-Fajardo, and Cui-David, ]] FIRST FAR EAST DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, Respo nd ent. x---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- - - - ~ -- -----------x RESOLUTION RINGPIS-LIBAN, J.: For resolution is petitioner's "Motion for Reconsideration (Re: D ecisio n Promulgated 28 February 2022)"1 filed on March 15, 2022. In the instant mo tio n, petitioner avers that the Court E n Bane erred in ruling that petitio ner cannot collect the subjec t de ficiency taxes since the three- year prescrip tive period for collec ting from respondent the deficiency taxes has p r esc rib ed . Petitioner still m aintains that his right to collect deficiency taxes from respond ent has not yet prescribed. P etitioner's righ t to collect was suspended when petitioner granted respondent's request for a reconsideratio n. ~ 1 Docket, C L\ I �J~ NO. 2354, pp. 55-61.

Page 2 of4 RESOLUTION CTA EB NO. 2354 On April 5, 2022, the Court En Bane issued a Resolution ordering respondent to file its Comment on the "Motion for Reconsideration (Re: Decision Promulgated 28 February 2022)," within five (5) calendar days from notice."2 On April 21, 2022, the Court En Bane received respondent's "Comment (On Motion for Reconsideration)"3 ftled by registered mail on April18, 2022. In the said Comment (on Motion for Reconsideration), respondent states that petitioner is harping again on the tolling of the three-year prescriptive period to collect from respondent due to the granting of the latter's request for reinvestigation; and that petitioner offered no compelling evidence to support his assertions. After consideration of the motion submitted, the Court En Bane resolves to deny the petitioner's "Motion for Reconsideration (Re: Decision Promulgated 28 February 2022)." The Court En Bane notes that petitioner's motion merely reiterates or amplifies the arguments previously raised in the Petition for Review which were already considered and extensively discussed upon by the Court En Bane in the assailed Decision. In the case of Shangri-La International Hotel Management Ltd., et aL vs. Developers Gro11p of Companies, Im:, 4 the Supreme Court denied respondent's Motion for Reconsideration for being a mere reiteration of their previous arguments, and for failure to raise matters substantially plausible or compellingly persuasive to warrant the reversal of the assailed Decision, thus: "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 compellingly persuasive to warrant the desired course of action. 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 ,;1/' ' Ibid., pp. 63-64 ' Ibid., pp. 65-66. ~ G.R. No. 159938,January 22,2007.

RESOLUTION CTA EB NO. 2354 substantial legitimate ground or reason to justify the reconsideration sought." In view of the foregoing, the Court En Banr will no longer belabor to repeat its discussions in the assailed Decision since it would only result to mere superfluity. WHEREFORE, premises considered, the petitioner's "Motion for Reconsideration (Re: Decision Promulgated 28 February 2022)" is DENIED for lack of merit. SO ORDERED. ~.#..... -?/ '--- MA. BELEN M. RINGPIS-LIBAN Associate Justice WE CONCUR: Presiding Justice ~~~c. ~a~..,~. JUANITO C. CASTANEDA, JR. Associate Justice ER~P.UY /'~� ._ Associate Justice CA.'THERIN:;. MANAHAN .... Associate Justice

Page 4 of4 RESOLUTION CTA EB NO. 2354 ~ ~f REl4tvlrioS~/Fi~~J~O ~~~ MARIAN IViJF. LANEE S. CUI-DAVID Associate Justice Associate Justice