COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE v. DOOSAN HEAVY INDUSTRIES & CONSTRUCTION CO. LTD. (Philippine Branch)

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES COURT OF TAX APPEALS QUEZON CITY ENBANC COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL CTA EB NO. 1422 REVENUE, (CTA CASE NO. 8796) Petitioner, -versus- Present: Del Rosario, P.J. , Castaneda, Jr., Bautista, Uy, Casanova, Fabon-Victorino, Mindaro-Grulla, Ringpis-Liban, and Manahan,]]. DOOSAN HEAVY INDUSTRIES & CONSTRUCTION CO. LTD. (Philippine Branch), Respondent. Promulgated: SEP 15 2017 :;;:;..,� X- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ------ - - - - - - - - X RESOLUTION RINGPIS-LIBAN,J.: Submitted for resolution is petitioner's "Motion for Reconsideration" filed on May 24, 2017. Petitioner seeks reconsideration of the Court En Bane's Decision, the dispositive portion of which reads as follows: "WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Petition for Review is DENIED for lack of merit. Accordingly, the D ecision

RESOLUTION CTA EB NO. 1422 (CTA CASE NO. 8796} dated October 16, 2015 and Resolution dated January 6, 2016 are hereby affirmed in toto. SO ORDERED." The "Motion for Reconsideration" is anchored on the ground that the Court En Bane erred in ruling that there is no need for respondent to prove actual remittance of the withholding tax to the BIR. In the Resolution dated June 13, 2017, the Court En Bane required respondent to ftle its Comment on the "Motion for Reconsideration." However, to date respondent has not filed its Comment. After consideration, the Court En Bane resolves to deny the instant motion. The Court En Bane reviewed the grounds relied upon by petitioner in support of his "Motion for Reconsideration" but finds no cogent reason to grant the same. The issue raised and the arguments contended in the instant "Motion for Reconsideration" are the same issues and arguments presented in the Petition for Review which have already been passed upon, discussed and judiciously resolved. ,In Ferdinand Marcos et aL vs. Hon. Raul Manglapus et aL 1 the Supreme Court , emphasized that in all motions for reconsideration, the burden is upon the movant, petitioner herein, to show that there are compelling reasons to reconsider the decision of the Court. In this case, petitioner did not satisfy this burden. WHEREFORE, premises considered, the "Motion for Reconsideration" is hereby DENIED for lack of merit. SO ORDERED. IN~~'-' MA. BELEN M. RINGPIS-LIBAN Associate Justice WE CONCUR: ROMAN G. DEL ROSARIO Presiding Justice 1 Marcos us. Manglapuz, G.R. No. 88211, October 27, 1989.

Page 3 of3 LOVEYa. BAUTISTA RESOLUTION CTA EB NO. 1422 (CTA CASE NO. 8796) Associate Justice 9- C.Qr-~.~ #- JUANifo c. CASTANEDA,"JR. CAESARA. CASANOVA Associate J�ustice Associate Justice ERL~P.UY Associate Justice . . ll. M~~~ ~~ CIELITO N. MINDARO-GRULLA Associate Justice ~'7�/14~~ CATHERINE T. MANAHAN Associate Justice