MAKATI CITY AND HON. NELIA A. BARLIS, IN HER CAPACITY AS CITY TREASURER vs. DESTINY CABLE, INC.

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES COURT OF TAX APPEALS Quezon City ENBANC MAKATI CITY AND HON. NELIA CTA EB NO. 1890 A. BARLIS, IN HER CAPACITY (CTA AC No. 182) AS CITY TREASURER, (Civil Case No. 14-612) Petitioners, Present: - versus- DEL ROSARIO, P.J. , CASTANEDA, JR. , UY, RINGPIS-LIBAN, MANAHAN, BACORRO-VILLENA, and MODESTO-SAN PEDRO, JJ. DESTINY CABLE, IN~~sponden~ ___ ~P~ro-~m~ul-g~a~ted:~~ ~l{r-lf" ' X- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - RESOLUTION BACORRO-VILLENA, J.: For the Court's resolution is petitioners' "Motion for Reconsideration (of the Decision dated 01 July 2020)"1 (MR) on 29 July 2020. It seeks the reversal of the Decision2 reached by this Court in the above-captioned case. The dispositive portion of the assailed Decision reads: WHEREFORE, the Amended Petition for Review dated January 8, 2019, filed by petitioners Makati City and Hon . Nelia A. Barlis, in her capacity as City Treasurer is DENIED. The Decision dated March 14, 2018, and Resolution dated June 22 , 2018, both rendered by the Court in Division in CTA AC No. 182 are AFFIRMED. SO ORDERED; Rollo, pp. 193- 198. ld., pp. 177- 188.

RESOLUTION CTA EB No. !B.2.!!. (CTA AC No. 182) Makati City and Hon. Nelia A. Barlis, in her capacity as City Treasurer v. Destiny Cable, Inc. x--------------------------------------------------------------------x In the assailed Decision, the Court denied petitioners' petition on the ground of irregularities in the conduct of their assessment of respondent Destiny Cable, Inc. (respondent/DCI). As the Court found, petitioners served DCI's Notice of Assessment (NOA) and Final Notice of Assessment (FNA) through a certain Renario Cu Gartin (Gartin), an employee of Sky Cable Corporation (SCC), a separate and distinct entity from that of respondent. In sum, the Court held such erroneous service invalid and could not constitute as sufficient notice to DCI of its tax liabilities therefore, resulting in the violation of the latter's right to due process. A review of the records shows that Gartin received a Letter of Authority (LOA) and Final Notice of Compliance (FNC) addressed to DCI. Gartin forwarded the foregoing documents to DCI's Accounting Manager, Cecilia Lo (Lo). Lo, in compliance with petitioners' directives, submitted to the latter the documents requested in the FNC. As a result of such compliance, petitioners were thus informed of DCI's correct address at Solid House Building, Pasong Tamo Extension, Makati City. Having been apprised of their previous error in serving the LOA and FNC to sec at U-102, Global Tower cor. Capt. Reyes and Gen. Mascardo Sts., Brgy. Bangkal, Makati City, there was no longer any reason for petitioners to issue its subsequent notices to the wrong address, not to mention, the wrong taxpayer. However, despite such fact, petitioners continued to serve the NOA and FNA at SCC's office. The facts are clear cut. Petitioners failed to rectify the error in their service of the NOA and FNA despite due notice of their mistake. Consequently, respondent DCI was not given the opportunity to contest petitioners' assessment of the former. Petitioners have no reasonable expectation that Gartin, who was not DCI's employee, to continue forwarding petitioners' issuances to the correct address moreso, that DCI had already notified petitioners with its correct address prior to the NOA and FNA's service. We, therefore, find no cogent reason to abandon Our previous ruling on the matter especially since petitioners' sole argument res~

RESOLUTION CTA EB No. .1.!!2.1!. (CTA AC No. 182) Makati City and Hon. Nelia A. Barlis, in her capacity as City Treasurer v. Destiny Cable, Inc. X�������������� �� ����� ������������������������������������� ����������X on the premise that DCI never directed Gartin to refrain from receiving notices on its behalf, and the latter could be expected to forward all of petitioners' issuances to respondent. Despite such issue having been raised and previously passed upon in the assailed Decision, it is propitious to likewise note that petitioners' own argument is a further admission of the NOA's and FNA's service to the wrong taxpayer. As cited in the assailed Decision, for the principle of apparent authority to apply in the case at bar in a manner as to constitute Gartin as DCI's agent, petitioners must prove concurrence of the following elements: ... (a) the acts of the respondent justifying belief in the agency by the petitioner; (b) knowledge thereof by the respondent which is sought to be held; and, (c) reliance thereon by the petitioner consistent with ordinary care and prudence.3 Given the established facts, the Court remains unconvinced that petitioners have sufficiently proven the existence of any of the foregoing requisites to justify their erroneous service of the NOA and FNA to Gartin. WHEREFORE, the foregoing considered, petitioners' "Motion for Reconsideration (of the Decision dated 01 July 2020)" filed on 29 July 2020 is hereby DENIED for lack of merit. Accordingly, the assailed Decision of this Court dated 01 July 2020 is hereby AFFIRMED. SO ORDERED. .... ORRO-VILLENA Woodchild Holdings. Inc. v. Roxas Electric and Construction Company, Inc.� G.R. No. 140667, 12 August 2004.

RESOLUTION CTA EB No.!B2Q (CTAAC No. 182) Makati City and Han. Nelia A. Barlis, in her capacity as City Treasurer v. Destiny Cable, Inc. x--------------------------------------------------------------------x WE CONCUR: ROMAN G. DEL WOSARIO Presiding Justice SL ��; c. ~06. ?~,.R; . ER~P.UY JUSf(NITo C. CASTANEDA, Associate Justice Associate Justice ~� T-~- _,_,t - ~. ~ ---/ (.___ CATHERINE T. MANAHAN Associate Justice MA. BELEN M. RINGPIS-LIBAN Associate Justice