COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE v. RITEGROUP INCORPORATED

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES COURT OF TAX APPEALS QUEZON CITY ENBANC COMMISSIONER OF CTA EB NO. 2729 INTERNAL REVENUE, (CTA Case No. 9708) Petitioner, Present: -versus- DEL ROSARIO, P.J., RINGPIS-LIBAN, MANAHAN, BACORRO-VILLENA, MODESTO-SAN PEDRO, REYES-FAJARDO, CUI-DAVID, FERRER-FLORES, and ANGELES, JJ. RITEGROUP Promulgated: INCORPORATED, SEP 16 2024 Respondent. ; #? .. -i)Jt-Qi-,� t'-a-/ X - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -"'\,-X RESOLUTION CUI-DAVID, J.: For the Court En Bane's resolution is petitioner's Motion for Reconsideration (Decision dated 12 March 2024) posted on April 3, 2024 ,1 with respondent's Comment (to the Motion for Reconsideration dated 3 April 2024) posted on May 13, 2024.2 Petitioner's Motion for Reconsideration (Motion) assails the Court En Bane's Decision promulgated on March 12, 2024, with the following dispositive portion: WHEREFORE, in light of the foregoing, the instant Petition for Review is DISMISSED for lack of jurisdiction. i ' Dookot, pp. 100-104. 2 /d. , pp. 107-11 1.

RESOLUTION CTA EB No. 2729 (CTA Case No. 9708) Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Ritegroup Incorporated X------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------X Accordingly, the assailed Decision dated September 22, 2022, and the Resolution dated January 9, 2023, in CTA Case No. 9708 are AFFIRMED. SO ORDERED. In his Motion, petitioner alleges that the Court in Division erred in denying his motion for reconsideration filed via LBC on October 17, 2022. He invokes cases where the Supreme Court relaxed procedural rules when a rigid application of the rules "hinders substantial justice." Similar to his Petition for Review, petitioner alleges that the Court in Division erred in ruling that the amount stated in the FLD remains indefinite. According to petitioner, the case of CIR v. Fitness by Design (Fitness by Design case) 3 is inapplicable considering that the phraseology employed in the Final Assessment Notices ("FANs")/Formal Letter of Demand ("FLD") issued therein includes the word "if prior," which is absent in the FANs/FLD in this case. He posits that assuming no due date is stated in the FANs, such a date is readily determinable by counting 30 days from the date of receipt of the FANs/FLD. He further posits that the fact that the interest and the total amount due would have to be adjusted if paid after the due date does not amount to a lack of a fixed and determinate amount of tax liability. In its Comment, respondent states that petitioner's Motion is pro forma for failure to "specifically cite the grounds relied upon" and for being "a reiteration of the tired arguments in his Petition." Respondent states that the invocation of substantial justice has no merit, considering that petitioner has not offered a justifiable reason for his procedural mistake and that the utter disregard of the rules cannot be justly rationalized by harping on the policy of liberal construction. Respondent also states that the failure to indicate a due date and a definite amount on the assessment notice negates petitioner's demand for payment, quoting the assailed Decision. RULING OF THE COURT EN BANC The Court En Bane finds the instant Motion for Reconsideration without merit. 3 G.R. No. 215957. November 9, 2016.

RESOLUTION CTA EB No. 2729 (CTA Case No. 9708) Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Ritegroup Incorporated X------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------X A judicious examination of petitioner's Motion shows that the arguments raised are mere reiterations of the arguments in his Petition for Review that have been thoroughly considered, resolved, and passed upon by the Court En Bane in the assailed Decision. It is well-settled that a motion for reconsideration containing a mere reiteration or rehash of grounds and arguments that have already been considered, weighed, passed upon, and resolved by the court before the decision sought to be reconsidered is rendered does not need a new judicial determination.4 There is no necessity to discuss and rule again on these grounds since this would be a useless formality of ritual invariably involving merely a reiteration of the reasons for rejecting the arguments advanced by the movant already set forth in the judgment.5 In Shangri-La International Hotel Management v. Developers Group of Companies, Inc., 6 the Supreme Court made clear that it is incumbent upon the movant to raise substantially plausible matters to warrant the relief sought, to wit: "The bulk of the aforementioned grounds is a mere rehash of movant's previous arguments. While DGCI is correct in stating that a motion for reconsideration, by its very nature, may tend to dwell on issues already resolved in the decision sought to be reconsidered and that this should not be an obstacle for a reconsideration, the hard reality is that movant has failed to raise matters substantially plausible or compellingly persuasive to warrant the desired course of action. Considering that the grounds presently raised have been sufficiently considered, if not squarely addressed, in the subject Decision, it behooves movant to convince the Court that certain findings or conclusions in the Decision are contrary to law. As it is, however, the instant motion does not raise any new or substantial legitimate ground or reason to justify the reconsideration sought." ~ 4 People v. Agacer, G.R. No. 177751 (Resolution), January 7, 2013 citing People v. Larraiiaga, G.R. Nos. 138874-75, July 21, 2005; Madeleine Mendoza-Ong v. Han. Sandiganbayan, eta!., G.R. Nos. 146368-69 (Resolution), October 18, 2004. 5 People v. Agacer, G.R. No. 177751 (Resolution), January 7, 2013 citing People v. Larraflaga, G.R. Nos. 138874-75, July 21. 2005 and Ortigas Land Co. Ltd. Partnership v. Judge f'elasco. G.R. No. 109645 (Resolution), March 4, \996. 6 Shangri-/a International Hare! Management, Ltd. v. Developers Group of Companies, Inc., G.R. No. 159938 (Resolution). January 22. 2007.

RESOLUTION CTA EB No. 2729 (CTA Case No. 9708) Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Ritegroup Incorporated X------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------X This judicial pronouncement was similarly echoed in the case of Harry L. Roque, Jr. et al. v. Commission on Elections, represented by Han. Chairman Jose Melo et al., 7 where the Supreme Court En Bane ruled that whenever the motion for reconsideration fails to raise matters that are substantially plausible or compellingly persuasive enough to lead the court to rule in favor of the desired course of action, then the same must be denied by the court, thus: "Petitioner's above contention, as well as the arguments, citations and premises holding it together, is a rehash of their previous position articulated in their memorandum in support of their petition. They have been considered, squarely addressed, and found to be without merit in the Decision subject hereof. The Court is not inclined to embark on another extended discussion of the same issue agam ... XXX XXX XXX While a motion for reconsideration may tend to dwell on issues already resolved in the decision sought to be reconsidered - and this should not be an obstacle for a reconsideration - the hard reality is that petitioners have failed to raise matters substantially plausible or compellingly persuasive to warrant the desired course of action." Given the foregoing, the Court En Bane finds no compelling reason to reverse or modify the findings and conclusions in the assailed Decision. Accordingly, the Court En Bane maintains its ruling in the assailed Decision that (1) the Motion for Reconsideration before the Court in Division was filed out of time; consequently, the Court En Bane did not acquire jurisdiction over the instant case, (2) petitioner failed to convince the Court En Bane that the relaxation of procedural rules is merited in the instant case, and, (3) even if the Court En Bane relaxes its procedural rules, the assessment is still invalid for failure to indicate a due date and a definite amount of deficiency tax due. i WHEREFORE, premises considered, petitioner's Motion for Reconsideration (Decision dated 12 March 2024) is DENIED for lack of merit. 7 G.R. No. 188456 (Resolution), February 10,2010.

RESOLUTION CTA EB No. 2729 (CTA Case No. 9708) Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Ritegroup Incorporated X------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------X SO ORDERED. ~IAA-AM"t. WE CONCUR: LAN.Jt~~V~UI-DAVID Associate Justice Presiding Justice -- ~ ~ '------ MA. BELEN M. RINGPIS-LIBAN Associate Justice c~, 1- ~.<.4o"'�-,~4._ _ CATHERINE T. MANAHAN Associate Justice M~ ARIAN Iv~Y-f~.RE~Y_ESf-F=A;J~�R~DO Associate Justice CO~As~soc:iate~Ju~;i~R;)E~ S s! HENRY )�GELES Associate Justice