The CITY OF TAGUIG and ATTY. MARIANITO D. MIRANDA in his official capacity as the City Treasurer of the City of Taguig v. UNION CEMENT HOLDINGS CORPORATION

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES COURT OF TAX APPEALS QUEZON CITY THIRD DIVISION The CITY OF TAGUIG and ATTY. CTA AC NO. 313 MARIANITO D. MIRANDA in his official capacity as the City Member s : Treasurer of the City of Taguig, Petitioners, MANAHAN, Chairperson, REYES-FAJARDO, and -ve rs u s - ANGELES, JJ. UNION CEMENT HOLDINGS Promulgated : CORPORATION, Respondent. DE~ 1q 1'\~y X --- .3 ��-o"r"'f ile' ?-"--- - -- X- --------- - - ------ - --- ---- RESOLUTION MANAHAN,J.: This resolves petition ers' Motion for Reconsideration (of the Decision dated 29 July 2025)1 posted on August 29, 2025, prayin g for th e reversal and setting aside of th e Cou rt's Decision dated J uly 29, 2 025 (Assailed Decision).2 Petition ers argue th at th e City of Taguig h as adopted in their Local Tax Ordinance, particularly in its Ordinance No. 24 Series of 19933 and Ordinance No. 85 Series of 2005,4 the "best available eviden ce" ru le wh ich can be "equ ated" to Presum ptive Income Level Assessm ent Approach (PILAA). On the other hand, responden t in its Opposition (To: the Motion for Reconsideration dated August 29, 2025)5 filed on Sep temb er 23, 2025, counter argues t h at this Court correctly ruled th at petition ers cann ot invoke or rely u pon the PILAA for 1 Docket, CTA AC No. 313, pp. 288-299. :l !d., pp. 274-286. 3 Taguig Revenue Code. 4 An Ordinance Amending Certain Provisions of Municipal Ordinance No. 24 Series of 1993 oth erwise known as "Th e Revenue Code of Taguig" and Adopting the New Rates prescribed under this Ordinance. s Docket, pp. 353-374. ~

RESOLUTION CTA AC NO. 3 13 Page 2 of4 the purpose of determining its gross sales or receipts for the year 2010. Further, respondent asserts that it presented ample evidence to explain the reduction in its gross sales or receipts from the year 2009 to 2010 which was never controverted by petitioners. This Court shall determine first whether the instant Motion was filed on time. Section 1, Rule 15 of the Revised Rules of the Court of Tax Appeals (RRCTA) provides that: SECTION 1. Who may and when to file motion.- Any aggrieved party may seek a reconsideration or new trial of any decision, res olution, or order of the Court. He sha ll file a motion for reconsidera tion or n ew tria l within fifteen days from the date he received notice of the decision, resolution or order of th e Court in question. (Emphas is supplied) The records of the instant case reveal that petitioners received the copy of the Assailed Decision on August 14, 2025.6 In accordance with the abovementioned provision of the RRCTA, respondent has fifteen (15) days from receipt of notice of said decision from August 14, 2025 or until August 29, 2025 within which to file his motion for reconsideration. Thus, the filing of the instant motion on August 29, 2025 was on time. Ruling now on the substance of the motion, the Court sees no merit therein. As notably emphasized in the disquisitions of the Assailed Decision, without being repetitive, we quote: First, aside from the word "best a va ila ble eviden ce" being m ention ed in Section 82(d) of Taguig City's Revenue Code , petitioners failed to a dduce or present a ny evidence that PILAA was a dopted in the local tax ordina n ce of Taguig City nor h as it condu cted public h earings a nd publication s. XXX XXX XXX There was no eviden ce tha t respondent was proper ly a pprised of th e s ta nda rd u sed by peti tion ers in applying the 6 Docket , Notice of Decision , p . 273. ~

RESOLUTION CTA AC NO. 3 13 a lleged PILAA to which the former should h ave agreed. Such was very evident wh en the assessment of LBT for the year 2011 was based on respondent's gross sales or receipts in the year 2009 instead of the taxable year 20 10 as provided under Section 143 of R .A. No. 7160 that the assessment should be based on "gross sales or receipts of the preceding calendar year. " XXX XXX XXX In t h e ins tant case, petit ion ers failed to comply with the abovementioned procedures. Instead, they imposed arbitrarily an assessment not based on respondent's declared gross sales or receipts for th e immediately preceding calendar year but on respondent's 2009 presumptive income level. Hence, it is an invalid assessment. Petitioners must be reminded in adopting specific method or system in assessment, there must be a categorical declaration in a particular Ordinance and not mere presumption in the letter of such ordinance. Further, the issues raised in the instant motion were already exh austively discussed in the Assailed Decision, hence, petitioners cannot burden the Court to repeat such disquisitions as ruled in the case of Social Justice Society (SJS}, et al. v. Alfredo S. Lim, in his capacity as Mayor of the City of Manila,7 which held: � The grounds relied on being mere reiterations of the issues a lready passed upon by the Court, there is no n eed to "cut and p aste" pertinent portions of the Decision or re-write the ponencia in accordance with t h e outline of t h e instant m otion . As succinctly put by then Chief Justice Andres R. Narvasa in Ortigas and Co. Ltd. Partnership v. Judge Velasco on the effect and disposition of a motion for reconsideration: The filing of a motion for reconsideration, authorized by Rule 52 of the Rules of Court, does not impose on th e Court the obligation to deal individua lly and specifically with th e 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 m erely a reiteration of the reasons already set forth in the judgment or final order for rejecting the a rguments advanced 7 G.R. Nos. 187836 and 187916, March 10, 2015. ~

-, RESOLUTION CTA AC NO. 313 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 a lready 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. There being no new and substantial arguments propounded by petitioners in their m otion, the Court finds no compelling reason to reverse the Assailed Decision. WHEREFORE, petitioners' Motion for Reconsideration (of the Decision dated 29 July 2025) is h ereby DENIED for lack of merit. SO ORDERED. Cc ATH~ ERIN� ~. M- ANA~ HAN Associate Justice WE CONCUR: ~ IbVY~.fRE~ ~S-F.AFja.-jcAwJR.oDO MARIAN Associate Justice /JfL HENRY S. ANGELES Associate Justice