COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE v. MINDANAO SANITARIUM AND HOSPITAL, INC.,

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES COURT OF TAX APPEALS QUEZON CITY ENBANC COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL CTA EB No. 1807 REVENUE, (CTA Case No. 8927) Petitioner, Present: -versus- Del Rosario, P.J, Castaneda, Jr., Uy, Fabon-Victorino, Mindaro-Grulla, Ringpis-Liban, Manahan, Bacorro-Villena, and Modesto-San Pedro, JJ MINDANAO SANITARIUM AND HOSPITAL, INC., Respondent. Promulgated: JAN 08 2020 dt: X--------------------------------------------------------------------------------~:~~~~ ' RESOLUTION CASTANEDA, JR., J.: This resolves the "Motion for Reconsideration [Re: Decision dated September 03 , 2019]" 1 filed by the Commissioner of Internal Revenue (CIR) on October 16, 2019. Mindanao Sanitarium and Hospital, Inc. (MSHI) filed its "Comment (on Petitioner's Motion for Reconsideration)" via registered mail on November 4, 2019, which was received by the Court on November 11,2019. This motion was submitted for resolution on November 13, 2019. The dispositive portion of the September 24, 2019 Decision states: WHEREFORE, premises considered, the present Petition for Review filed by the Commissioner of Internal Revenue is DENIED. Accordingly, the September 15, 2017fL 1 The correct date of the Decision is September 24, 2019.

RESOLUTION CTA EB No. 1807 (CTA Case No. 8927) Page 2 of3 Decision and the February 20, 2018 Resolution of the then CTA First Division in CTA Case No. 8927 are AFFIRMED. SO ORDERED. CIR's ground of the Motion for Reconsideration: The Honorable Court En Bane erred in ruling that there was violation of [MSHI]'s right to due process as [CIR] failed to show proof of actual receipt by [MSHI] of the PAN. After a careful review of the ground raised and arguments presented by CIR, We find no valid or cogent reason to deviate from our findings and conclusions reached in our Decision dated September 24, 2019, thus, the motion is denied. It is worthy to emphasize that there are irregularities in the mailing and service of the Preliminary Assessment Notice (PAN)2 as found by the then CTA First Division, which this Court agreed. The PAN is a part of due process.3 We reiterate that, "for failure of the CIR to prove the receipt of PAN by MSH[I], due process was not complied with." WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Motion for Reconsideration filed by the Commissioner oflntemal Revenue is DENIED for lack of merit. SO ORDERED. J: ~C.Q..:t-~ JID\NITO c. CASTANEDA, JR. Associate Justice WE CONCUR: Presiding Justice 2 Rollo, p. I03. 3 Commissioner ofInternal Revenue v. Transitions Philippines Optical, Inc., G.R. No. 227544, November 22, 2017.

RESOLUTION CTAEBNo. I807(CTACaseNo. 8927) Page 3 of3 ERL~.UY Associate Justice ~N.M~-C~ CIELITO N. MINDARO-GRULLA Associate Justice ~. ~ h~ <...._ MA. BELEN M. RINGPIS-LIBAN Associate Justice (JJ-'7~~ CATHERINE T. MANAHAN 'tssociate Justice MARIA