COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE v. FAR EAST SEAFOOD, INC.

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES COURT OF TAX APPEALS QUEZON CITY ENBANC COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL CTAEB NO. 2033 REVENUE, (CTA Case No. 8909) P e titio ner, P resen t: DEL ROSARIO, P.J. } -versus - CASTANEDA, JR., UY, FAR EAST SEAFOOD, INC., RINGPIS-LIBAN, MANAHAN, BACORRO-VILLENA, and MODESTO-SAN PEDRO, ]].. Respondent. ){- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - RESOLUTION RINGPIS-LIBAN, .L: T his resolves Petitioner's "Mo tion for Reconsideration (Re: D ecision promulgated 14July 2020)"1 ("Motion for Reconsideration") ftled on Augus t 17, 2020 via registered mail, with Respondent's "Comment (To Petitioner's Motion for Reconsideration)"2 ("Comment") flied on J anuary 19, 2021, seeking to set aside the D ecision3 promulgated on July 14, 2020 ("Assailed D ecision"), and another one be rendered denying Respondent's original petition flied with the court a quo for lack of merit and ordering Respondent to pay the to tal amount of Php29,420,114.49 for deficiency income ta){, e){p anded withholding ta){, withholding ta){ - compensation, value-added ta){, documentary stamp ta){ for the ta){able year 2010 as well as surcharge, compromise penalty and deficiency and delinquency interest. T he disp ositive portion of the Assailed D ecision reads: 1 Rollo, pp. 193-206. 2 Id., pp. 210-214. 3 !d., pp. 177-92 .

RESOLUTION erA EB No. 2033 (erA Case No. 8909) "WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Petition for Review filed with the Court En Bane on April 08, 2019 is DENIED for lack of merit. Accordingly, the October 19, 2018 Decision and March 04, 2019 Resolution in CTA Case No. 8909 are AFFIRMED. SO ORDERED."4 In his Motion for Reconsideration, Petitioner avers that Respondent is estopped from denying receipt of the Preliminary Assessment Notice ("PAN"). All the notices issued by Petitioner were served directly to Respondent's registered address at Davao Fish Port Complex, Lizada Toril, Davao City. Petitioner also asserts that the presumption of regularity that the mandated personnel from the Post Office exercised their functions with diligence and regularity, should tilt the balance of justice in its favor. Moreover, Petitioner contends that bare denial by Respondent without competent proof does not contradict the disputable presumption laid down in Section 3 of Rule 131 of the Rules of Court. Lastly, Petitioner maintains that Respondent was never denied its right to due process. Under the law and applicable jurisprudence, there can only be denial of due process if there is failure on the part of Petitioner to inform Respondent of the facts and law upon which the assessment was made. On the other hand, Respondent, in its Comment, states that thirty-three (33) of the thirty-seven (37) paragraphs of arguments in Petitioner's Motion for Reconsideration replicate those in his Petition for Review. We agree with Respondent. Petitioner's contentions are mere reiterations of the arguments he has raised in his "Petition for Review". Moreover, these issues have been amply considered, weighed and resolved in the Assailed Decision. Thus, to discuss anew the explanation of the Court on these matters is superfluity. In sum, the Court En Bane finds no cogent reason to warrant a reconsideration of the Assailed Decision. 4 Id., p. 191.

RESOLUTION erA EB No. 2033 (erA case No. 8909) WHEREFORE, premises considered, Petitioner's "Motion for Reconsideration (Re: Decision promulgated 14 July 2020)" is DENIED for lack of merit. SO ORDERED. ~. ~ --f~ MA. BELEN M. RINGPIS-LIBAN Associate Justice WE CONCUR: (On Oflicial Leave) ROMAN G. DEL ROSARIO Presiding Justice Q-.-r;- cC.. .CA~ STAN.E..Dd~,{,"'~J'R. ERL~.UY Associate Justice JlfANITO Associate Justice / ~' 7: ,4.e...,c.~,e._~--- - \6(THERINE T. MANAHAN JEAN MAR~~Ol:mb-VILLENA Associate Justice MARlAR