DANTE R. GUTIERREZ v. THE COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE

CTA Form No. 8 (For DCC) 1111111111111111111111IIIII lllll llllllllllllllllllllllllllllll lllll1111111111111 21-000 I07-0060 REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES COURT OF TAX APPEALS QUEZON CITY SPECIAL FIRST DIVISION CTA CASE NO. 10477 DANTE R. GUTIERREZ, Petitioner, -versus- NOTICE OF RESOLUTION THE COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent. To: OFFICE OF THE SOLICITOR GENERAL 134 Amorsolo St., Legazpi Village Makati City ATTY. LARA NICOLET. GONZALES Bureau oflntemal Revenue Room 703, Litigation Division, BIR National Office Building Sen. Miriam P. Defensor Santiago Avenue Diliman, Quezon City VIRAY VIRAY BALATBAT UTULO CARLOS DAYRIT BAUTISTA DAVID & UTULO LAW OFFICE Room 20 I, 2nd Floor, St. Anthony Drug 2 Building B. Mendoza St., Sto. Rosario (Poblacion) City of San Fernando, Pampanga GREETINGS: You are hereby notified by these presents that on December 6, 2024, a Resolution was rendered in the above-entitled case, copy of which is attached hereto. Quezon City, Philippines, December 6, 2024. Atty. Maria J~a F. Chan-Te Executive~f Court II

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES COURT OFTAX APPEALS QUEZON CITY J SPECIAL FIRST DIVISION DANTE R. GUTIERREZ, CTA Case No. 10477 Petitioner, Members: - versus - DEL ROSARIO, PJ, Chairperson, MANAHAN, and REYES-FAJARDO, Il THE COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Promulgated: Respondent. DEC 0 6 ~J6A~1 X- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -~~ - - - - - - - -X RESOLUTION REYES-FAJARDO, J.: For the Court's resolution is petitioner Dante R. Gutierrez's Motion for Reconsideration1 of the Decision promulgated on May 10, 2024, where the Court upheld respondent Commissioner of Internal Revenue (CIR)'s denial of petitioner's Application for Compromise. After the CIR filed an Opposition, the instant motion was submitted for resolution on July 1, 2024. In the present motion, petitioner dwells on the same issues already passed upon by the Court, viz.: First, the Court's lack of jurisdiction to review the tax assessments issued and administrative collection measures implemented against petitioner; and second, petitioner's failure to demonstrate error on the part of the CIR in denying the Application for Compromise. In the absence of substantial arguments and only mere reiterations of past arguments to support the motion, there is no reason for the Court to reverse or modify the Assailed Decision.2 1 Docket - Vol. 2, pp. 741-770. 2 See Shangri-la International Hotel Management, Ltd. v. Developers Group ofCompanies, Inc., G.R. No. 159938 (Resolu tion), January 22, 2007, 541 PHIL 138-143.

RESOLUTION CIA Case No. 10477 Page 2 of3 Any further discourse will only be unnecessary and repetitive.3 In Social Justice Society Officers v. Lim,4 the Supreme Court held: The filing of a motion for reconsideration, authorized by Rule 52 of the Rules of Court, does not impose on the Court the obligation to deal individually and specifically with the grounds relied upon therefor, in much the same way that the Court does in its judgment or final order as regards the issues raised and submitted for decision. This would be a useless formality or ritual invariably involving merely a reiteration of the reasons already set forth in the judgment or final order for rejecting the arguments advanced by the movant; and it would be a needless act, too, with respect to issues raised for the first time, these being, as above stated, deemed waived because not asserted at the first opportunity. It suffices for the Court to deal generally and summarily with the motion for reconsideration, and merely state a legal ground for its denial (Sec. 14, Art. VIII, Constitution); i.e., the motion contains merely a reiteration or rehash of arguments already submitted to and pronounced without merit by the Court in its judgment, or the basic issues have already been passed upon, or the motion discloses no substantial argument or cogent reason to warrant reconsideration or modification of the judgment or final order; or the arguments in the motion are too unsubstantial to require consideration, etc. WHEREFORE, in light of the foregoing considerations, petitioner's Motion for Reconsideration of the Decision promulgated on May 10, 2024 is DENIED for lack of merit. SO ORDERED. ~ ~ F ~ -/--~-~ MARIAN 1\+Y F. R~YES-f'AJARDO Associate Justice 3 Social Justice Society (SJS) Officers, et al. v. Lim, G.R Nos. 187836 & 187916, March 10, 2015. Also see Roque, Jr. v. Commission on t:lections, G.R. No. 188456 (Resolution), February 10, 2010, 626 PHIL 75-92). ' Id., citing Ortigas & Co. Ltd. Partnership v. Velasco, G.R. Nos. 109645 & 112564 (Resolution), August 15, 1997, 343 Phil115-142.

RESOLUTION CTA Case No. 10477 Page3 o�3 WE CONCUR: (With due respect, reiterate y Dissenting Opinion.) ROMAN G. DEL ROSARIO Presiding Justice ~'r-4~ .. #- cATHERINE T. MANAHAN Associate Justice