COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE v. EL PASO PHILIPPINES ENERGY COMPANY, INC.

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES COURT OF TAX APPEALS QUEZON CITY EN BANC COMMISSIONER OF CTA EB NO. 1319 INTERNAL REVENUE, (CTA Case No. 8013) Petitioner, Present: DEL ROSARIO, PJ - versus - CASTANEDA, JR., BAUTISTA, UY, CASANOVA, FABON-VICTORINO, MINDARO-GRULLA, RINGPIS-LIBAN, and MANAHAN I )). EL PASO PHILIPPINES ENERGY COMPANY, INC., Promulgated: Respondent. AUG 0 4 2017 .3-'s-{,!~ . )(- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ---------- ?iF- --)( RESOLUTION Fabon-Victorino, J.: On March 22, 2017, petitioner filed the instant Motion for Reeonsideration 1 assailing the Decision 2 of the Court En Bane dated March 6, 2017 which denied his Petition for Review for lack of merit, thereby effectively sustaining the Decision of the Court in Division dated February 23, 2015 in favor of respondent. Petitioner claims that the Court En Bane erred in affirming the ruling of the Court in Division cancelling the assessment on deficiency Income Tax (IT) in the amount of P28,134,150.84, deficiency Expanded Withholding Tax (EWT) / J in the amount of P186,395. 72, deficiency Improperly 1 En Bane docket, pp. 222 ~ 228. 2 En Bane docket, pp . 187-217 .

RESOLUTION CTA EB NO. 1319 Accumulated Earnings Tax (!EAT) in the amount of P35,153,053.99, and Compromise Penalty in the amount of P25,000.00 for taxable year 2004. By way of Comment 3 , respondent counters that petitioner's motion should be denied outright for utter lack of merit. For respondent, the arguments set forth by petitioner in its Motion for Reconsideration are nothing more than a rehash of the issues and arguments already considered by the Court En Bane in the assailed Decision of March 6, 2017. Petitioner's motion must fail. Indeed, the issues raised by petitioner in his Motion for Reconsideration are the very same issues he raised in his main pleading, all of which have already been determined and passed upon, first by the Court in Division and subsequently on appeal by the Court En Bane. To -rule on the same issues all over again is a waste of time and dwindling resources of the Court. WHEREFORE, the Motion for Reconsideration filed by petitioner Commissioner of Internal Revenue is hereby DENIED, for lack of merit. SO ORDERED. We Concur: Presiding Justice 3 En Bane docket, pp. 242-262.

RESOLUTION CTA EB NO. 1319 Jl.f9 fitNuITO~C~. c CA. ST~ AN~ ED1 A~;JR. ~- Assoc~:e LOVEL BAUTISTA Justice Associate Justice ? (I ma/!il:?my COO) CAESAR A. CASANOVA ERLINDA P. UY Associate Justice Associate Justice mr.~Loi:'T+-oNN. M~~-C~ ~- ~ -1 '-- MINDARO-GRULLA MA. BELEN RINGPIS-LIBAN Associate Justice Associate Justice ~ 7� /11/nt~~ CATHERINE T. MANAHAN Associate Justice