COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE v. ED & F MAN PHILIPPINES INC.,

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES Court of Tax Appeals QUEZON CITY En Bane COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL CTA EB NO. 2851 REVENUE, (CTA Case No. 10053) Petitioner, Present: -versus- DEL ROSARIO, P.J., RINGPIS-LIBAN, MANAHAN, BACORRO-VILLENA, MODESTO-SAN PEDRO, REYES-FAJARDO, CUI-DAVID, FERRER-FLORES, and ANGELES,JJ ED & F MAN PHILIPPINES INC., Promulgated: Respondent. MAR 0 3 2025 X ----------------------------------------------------------------------- --------------- X RESOLUTION MODESTO-SAN PEDRO, J.: For the Court's resolution is petitioner's Motion for Reconsideration (Re: Decision dated 03 October 2024), filed on October 22, 2024, with respondent's Comment {To Petitioner 's Motion for Reconsideration dated 22 October 2024), filed on December 20, 2024. The Motion lacks merit. The Court first notes that the vast majority of the Motion is a mere rehash of the arguments petitioner already raised in his Petition. The only additions are (1) a section on the jurisdiction of this Court En Bane over the present petition; and (2) a reference to Marcos 11 v. Court of Tax Appeals, et /"'

RESOUTIO:\ CT A F.B No_ 2851 (CTA Case No. I00.53 l Page 2 ofJ al. 1 in support of the contention that the Court in Division did not have jurisdiction over the original Petition for Review filed by respondent. However, addition (I) is irrelevant as this Court did, in fact, assume jurisdiction over this case, as We excused petitioner's late filing of his Petition.2 Meanwhile, addition (2) is unconvincing: the case cited by petitioner predates Commission of Internal Revenue v. T Shuttle Services, 3 which We used as the basis for Our finding that the Court in Division did, in fact, correctly assume jurisdiction over respondent's Petition. The latter must thus prevail. As for the rest of petitioner's arguments, the same have already been address in the assailed Decision, said arguments being mere rehashes of the contents of the present Petition. The Court thus need not discuss them here.4 There being no new substantial arguments in the Motion, the Court sees no reason to disturb Our previous findings. ACCORDINGLY, petitioner's Motion for Reconsideration (Re: Decision dated 03 October 2024), filed on October 22, 2024, is hereby DENIED for lack of merit. SO ORDERED. MARIARO ESTO-SAN PEDRO WE CONCUR: ustice (With ue respect-! eiterate my CDO on the assailed Decision ofthe Court in Division) ROMAN G. DEL ROSARIO Presiding Justice G.R. No. 120880. June 5. 1997. Decision. dated October 3. 2024. pp. 7-8. Rollo. pp. 188-189. G.R. No. 240729 (Resolution). August 24. 2020. See RocJUe v. Commission on Efecihm, G.R. No. \88456 (Resolution), Februmy I0. 2010: see also Shangri-La International Hotel Ji..fanagement, Ltd. v. Developers Group ofCompanies, Inc., G.R. No. 159938 (Resolution), January 22, 2007: see also Ortigas ami Company Limited Partnership v. l"elasco. G.R. Nos. 109645 & 112564 (Resolution). March 4. 1996.

RESOUTIO" CTA EB No. 2851 (CTA Case 1\o. 1005.3) Page 3 of3 @....~~ MA. BELEN M. RINGPIS-LIBAN Associate Justice Associate Justice M~ ARI~ AN rF vVF. . RE~ YES-~fAiilA'R~DO Associate Justice LAN~~VID Associate Justice A (With due res I join the CDO ofPresiding Justice Roman G. Del Rosario) HENRY S. ANGELES Associate Justice