COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE v. PUEBLO DE ORO DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES Court of Tax Appeals QUEZON CITY En Bane COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL CTA EB NO. 2303 REVENUE, (CTA Case No. 9553) Petitioner, Present: -versus- DEL ROSARIO, P.J., UY, RINGPIS-LIBAN, MANAHAN, BACORRO-VILLENA, MODESTO-SAN PEDRO, REYES-FAJARDO, CUI-DAVID, and FERRER-FLORES, JJ. PUEBLO DE ORO DEVELOPMENT Promulgated: CORPORATION, JAN 2 3 2023 42. x ----------------------------------------------~-~s!!_~~~~~~------------------------'fj(JT)-css~, RESOLUTION MODESTO-SAN PEDRO, J.: For resolution by this Court En Bane is petitioner's Motion for Reconsideration (Re: Decision dated 18 April 2022), filed on 5 May 2022 through registered mail ("Motion for Reconsideration"),1 with respondent's Comment on the Motion for Reconsideration ("Comment"), filed on 8 June 2022.2 In his Motion for Reconsideration, petitioner presented the following arguments: 1. Respondent is liable for deficiency Income Tax ("IT"); and Records, pp. 558-566. !d., pp. 570-578.

RESOLUTION CTA EB NO. 2303 (CTA Case No. 9553) Page 2 of5 2. A Letter of Authority ("LOA") is not a requirement when the audit investigation is conducted by the Office of the Commissioner of Internal Revenue ("CIR"). In its Comment, respondent counter-alleged as follows: 1. Respondent is not liable for deficiency IT. Petitioner's failure to issue a LOA to respondent violated the latter's right to due process making the deficiency IT assessment void. Further, petitioner did not conduct its own examination of respondent's books of accounts and accounting records as it solely relied on the findings ofthe Board oflnvestment but did not verify the same; and 2. Elementary is the rule that a LOA is indispensable in all audit investigations. Following a studied review of the arguments, we DENY the Motion for Reconsideration for lack of merit. In Ortigas and Company Limited Partnership vs. Judge Tirso Velasco and Dolores V. Molina, and Dolores V. Molina vs. Hon. Presiding Judge, RTC, Quezon City, Br.JOS, and Manila Banking Corporation,3 the Supreme Court had the occasion to rule in this wise: "Effect, and Disposition of Motion for Reconsideration The filing of a motion for reconsideration, authorized by Rule 52 of the Rules of Court, does not impose on the Court the obligation to deal individually and specifically with the grounds relied upon therefor, in much the same way that the Court does in its judgment or final order as regards be issues raised and submitted for decision. This would be a useless formality or ritual invariably involving merely a reiteration of the reasons already set forth in the judgment or final order for rejecting the arguments advanced by the movant; and it would be a needless act, too, with respect to issues raised for the first time, these being, as above stated, deemed waived because not asserted at the first opportunity. It suffices for the Court to deal generally and summarily with the motion for reconsideration, and merely state a legal ground for its denial (Sec. 14, ART. VIII, Constitution); i.e., the motion contains merely a reiteration or rehash of arguments already submitted to and pronounced without merit by the Court in its judgment, or the basic issues have already been passed upon, or the motion discloses no substantial argument or cogent reason to warrant reconsideration or modification of the judgment or final order; or the arguments in the motion are too unsubstantial to require consideration, etc." G.R. Nos. 109645 and 112564, Resolution, 4 March 1996.

RESOLUTION CTA EB NO. 2303 (CTA Case No. 9553) Page 3 of5 Moreover, in H. Harry L. Roque, Jr., eta/. v. Commission on Election, represented by Hon. Chairman Jose Melo, et a/.,4 the Supreme Court En Bane ruled that whenever the issues raised in the Motion for Reconsideration have already been addressed and passed upon in the Decision, and the Motion for Reconsideration failed to raise matters which are substantially plausible or compellingly persuasive, enough to lead the Court to rule in favor of the desired course of action, then the Motion for Reconsideration will be denied by the Court, to wit: "Petitioners' 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 oftheir 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 again... 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 equally enunciated in Shangri-La International Hotel Management, Ltd., et at. v. Developers Group ofCompanies, Inc. :5 "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." A perusal of the Motion for Reconsideration would show that the arguments raised therein have already been sufficiently passed upon, discussed, threshed out, and judiciously resolved in the Decision, dated 18 G.R. No. 188456, Resolution, I0 February 20 I0 G.R. No. 159938, Resolution, 22 January 2007.

RESOLliTION CTA EB NO. 2303 (CTA Case No. 9553) Page 4 of5 April 2022, which is sought to be reconsidered. The Motion for Reconsideration discloses no cogent reason to disturb the findings and conclusions which this Court made in said Decision. Applying the judicial pronouncements, above, nothing is left for this Court to do but to deny the same. WHEREFORE, the instant Motion for Reconsideration is hereby DENIED for lack of merit. SO ORDERED. EDRO ustice WE CONCUR: Presiding Justice ER�b.UY Associate Justice ~ ~ -t '----- MA. BELEN M. RINGPIS-LIBAN Associate Justice /~�7-~ CATHERINE T. MANAHAN Associate Justice \ A~~LENA

RESOLUTION CTA EB NO. 2303 (CTA Case No. 9553) Page 5 of5 ~~r.~-~ MARIAN Ivtk. RE4is-FA~ARDO Associate Justice s.J,uAAA'JyJJI..... LANt; CUI-DAVID Associate Justice co~<!~Es