PIONEER FLOAT GLASS MANUFACTURING, INC. v. SECRETARY OF TRADE AND INDUSTRY, SECRETARY OF FINANCE, COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, AND THE TARIFF COMMISSION

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES Court of Tax Appeals QUEZON CITY Special Third Division PIONEER FLOAT GLASS CTA CASE N0.10356 MANUFACTURING, INC., Petitioner, Members: -versus- RINGPIS-LIBAN, Chairperson, and SECRETARY OF TRADE AND MODESTO-SAN PEDRO, JJ INDUSTRY, SECRETARY OF FINANCE, COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, AND THE Promulgated: TARIFF COMMISSION, 'JAN 0 8 20~ Respondents. X ------------------------------------------------------------------------~-~~-~-:-~:----------------------------- X RESOLUTION MODESTO-SAN PEDRO, J.: For the Court's resolution is petitioner's "Motion for Reconsideration (of the Honorable Court's Decision dated 15 September 2023 )" ("Motion"), fi led on 24 October 2023, with respondents' "Comment [on the Petitioner's Motion for Reconsideration] ", filed on 13 November 2023. 'I Petitioner, through its Motion, seeks the reversal and setting aside of the Decision, dated 15 September 2023 ("Assailed Decision"), which denied its Petition for Review for lack of merit. Petitioner claims that this Court has the jurisdiction to review a final determination of the Tariff Commission, as adopted by the Secretary of Trade and Industry. Respondents counter this by observing that the Motion is a mere rehash of an argument already raised in petitioner's Memorandum and thus already covered by the Assailed Decision. The Motion must be den ied . As noted by respondents, the Motion's sole argument has already been considered but found wanting by this Court in the Assailed Decision. Petitioner may have slightly edited the argument, which is mostly a verbatim reproduction of the argument in its Memorandum, and may have added a quote the case of Southern Cross Cement Corporation v. Cement Manufacturers Association ofthe Philippines, eta/. However, such edits do not substantially change the argument, and the additional quotation, ,9/

RESOLliTION CTA Case No. I0356 Page2of4 which mentions the Tariff Commission only in passing, does not refute the specific points We raised in the Assailed Decision. RaCpanrToMedCuvorDi,totQiIoruonulsunollOeeyrzdferooasttrinnhgVdRaaC.tseiisMatcayoiC,nonnBldsositurnieC.draatoe1,drmi0saaa5ptlnn,ilaoodoanntwnDyodteobhLdMllaioitmtgoarmeeindtdsieeeltdraaVoel.PlBaywMadarirdnottehrnklieietissnenrusrasgachethCvaiespcsmo.hrvaHopsirt.noogiJodrnuuani.mvdtgPiiegodenrenunet,aseTs'lriitpadrahalsirelnosgysgSu:eVmudJepuelruadnepsgtmcoeionne, "Effect, and Disposition of Motion for Reconsideration TRittfaatwtmCahnimhraooolnhdueredrrearoeegvoclegmiidiineruvsaaotvsuteiesifssaasdnmisnemoliatdmulyslycsidjnliioeuutueeetineuydnbagsesfnddgtdetelsseetgwislsCottrirobcnymaosaaaryaranfeioctitfaynoalueer)siurlritnao;roeisnaestrhtttlhdendsteithauhlea,.,meeyddeaanssiof.moyltpmdoon,oarrlaeottitreonnstohnnitcteahguhoovdmhetdvitsseaibenafheaosiolsnCmescrejsnnumdfbtiuuaruo;oaoimiatfgbaldtobufbretiltsarrsigrmytemrdleicontsirytcmidaoateudwamaitdntotncrntitieittiootsinipoooiednttiltsmehhcvoanydnatuuwsoleossnetoenewfinlhofi,odfdsorvasnoteiuiuferarirtrfophtngslhriibgihdnrantttnaguesrshodvitsaootsmttbienehaejtlmseouphuecomneenopnijaeeduntbsua,ordedilrmgntieadredrrsoeCanemciletleognnnouyuareelrottimee.gydortndeiauhflona,ydilioerTrwtocntealtyenrraeordbhoeiq.sit(fsrgrtteiizrSouIhueshesteeetoareieijfpoennrtdaebirrscwoueenrtcacuo.erpntoatbttoffcva,ciiralimbfyuoontteneois1thilolcnngoaaoesin4dRegerlssseorns,rdotsotiaidui,headtbdeotnflffoetwiAebereeureoootrrdyhrdprraiRatnaa5toe,ea,orrstthttT2rgehihini;todnrrohu.euowre,eeoneenamsomagCoae,Cssfe,Vsrdarrmpehelouootarreenethltcuatdnuneacslhcthoehnrlsdsslrsd.etet,"ftt ECRDstouleoeebcuccrsoirtutstinalioMesnoEnitndsino,ia,enrlarelBranyoeftadvpiapnoevrtlenhreoa,esurreshuMininaolbtevofeldeHetdit.ohotbahnerylHarcfteHodaoarermowdrsRnyhyip.reeeecnlCLbdloei.ehnnvecasgeRnoiilrdroyumeaqrtrpshduaaeeedentrir,sooeiJusnsfJosasrussfe.aaeie,dvcisltMesei,aorttenaneolid,naosr/o,e.atudpihesgavete.hsinansm/teC.o,tdta2hohtletmeeeutarhmpMMsdeoiwstonoShstthiueiioiooipcnnCnnrheomtafofuhoornreeerrt Reconsideration must be denied by the Court, to wit: aacDenroxetdnticecsinuipsddliraoeee"trnmdePeddidess,utiieinsbtscsitjquohehusnceosateiirlrrodhesmniel'nyreaogembofaofiotdt.hvrdeaetTroneshcgdsaeoesumnetmChdteee,oinrinus,tasrisnotuiusdneips,apafagnoosraoruetiwtnhnodaie.fns.lt.lhchtolayeiosnirbeftpdehteehttweoiatiiirrtoeghmnupo.mrbueTatevhrnikmeotysue,oshrnciatpivtaoaeinstnoibiotteihntoehesnne,r G.R. Nos. 109645 and 112564, Resolution, 4 March 1996. G.R. No. 188456, Resolution, 10 February 2010.

RESOLLITION CT A Case No. I 0356 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. XXX XXX XXX WHEREFORE, the instant separate motions for reconsideration of the main and intervening petitioners are DENIED." This was earlier expressed in Shangri-La International Hotel Management, Ltd., et al. v. Developers Group ofCompanies, Inc. :3 '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 j ustity the reconsideration sought." Given that, again, petitioner's argument has already been passed upon, discussed, threshed out, and judiciously resolved by this Court in the Assailed Decision, the Motion discloses no cogent reason to disturb Our earlier findings and conclusions. Accordingly, nothing is left for this Court to do but to deny the Motion. WHEREFORE, petitioner's Motion for Reconsideration (of the Honorable Court's Decision dated 15 September 2023) is hereby DENIED. The Decision, dated 15 September 2023, is hereby AFFIRMED. SO ORDERED. MARIA PEDRO G.R. No. 159938, Resolution, 22 January 2007.

RESOLLITION CTA Case No. I 0356 I CONCUR: /bJ. ~ _.,.. '----- MA. BELEN M. RINGPIS-LIBAN Associate Justice