SHENILYN ABALOS, RUEL GATCHALIAN, DONNA LACUNA, ANDREW GUTIERREZ, ROSARIO VERGARA, MARIA SUSAN TORRES, MARILYN MEDRANO, MA. CRISTINA DUENAS, GEMMA ESTHER ESTRADA, MARIA CYNTHIA PETALCORIN, PILIPINAS QUISING, SHIELA ROMANCE, ALELI ROSARIO, NICK ANGELO VILLALUZ, MARIA CARMELA ABADEZA, MARIA CONCHITA ABAO, ANNABELLE ABELLO, MINERVA ABRERA, REXEL ABRIGO, LOURDES ADRIANO, SHERWIN AGBAYANI, WILFREDO AGLIAM, AILEEN M. AGUILAR, BERNADETH AGUSTIN, JANICE ALALAY, MARIA CRISELDA ALANO, JANELYN ALCANTARA, MARIA CHARMAINE ALCANTARA, RAQUEL ALDABA, ANGELICA ALEJANDRO, LEONOR ALEJANDRO, ELIZABETH ALIMURUNG,

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES COURT OF TAX APPEALS QUEZON CITY SPECIAL SECOND DIVISION SHENILYN ABALOS, ET AL., CTA CASE NO. 9089 Petitioners, Members: -versus- Castaneda, Jr., Chairperson Manahan, and Fabon-Victorino, JJ. COMMISSIONER OF Promulgated: INTERNAL REVENUE, JAN 1 4 2020 / Respondent. J7 J: n/�~. x--------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------x RESOLUTION CASTANEDA, JR., J.: For the Court's resolution is petitioners' December 12, 2019 Manifestation with Motion for the Resolution of Petitioners' Motion for Reconsideration . Based on the records of the case, it will be recalled that on August 10, 2018 the Court rendered a decision which denied the petition for lack of merit. A copy of the decision was received by the petitioners' counsels on August 14, 2018.1 On August 29, 2018, petitioners filed a Motion for Reconsideration, without a comment from respondent. Thereafter, on January 11, 2019, the Court issued a resolution which denied ~ 1 Notice of Decision, Docket, Vol. II, p. 845.

RESOLUTION CfA CASE NO. 9089 petitioners' motion for lack of merit.2 A copy of said resolution was received by petitioners' counsels on January 16, 2019.3 On May 27, 2019, or more than four (4) months thereafter, the Court issued a Resolution which stated, thus: "Records show that no appeal was taken by the parties within the prescribed period, thus rendering our Decision dated August 10, 2018 final and executory. It, therefore, becomes the ministerial duty of this Court to issue the corresponding Entry of Judgment in this case. ACCORDINGLY, let Entry of Judgment be issued in this case, and the Clerk of Court shall forthwith enter the Decision dated August 10, 2018 in the Book of Entries of Judgments (Section 6, Rule 14, Revised Rules of the CfA)."4 A copy of the resolution was received by petitioners' counsel on June 8, 2019.5 Accordingly, on June 14, 2019, petitioners filed a Motion for Reconsideration praying that the May 27, 2019 Resolution be reconsidered and set aside in the interest of substantial justice, without a comment from respondent despite notice.6 On July 29, 2019, the Court issued a Resolution which deniedthe motion for lack of merit on the ground that petitioners failed to perfect their appeal in the manner and within the period set by law which is not only mandatory but jurisdictional as well.7 A copy of the Resolution was received by petitioners' counsel on August 15, 2019.8 Thus, contrary to petitioners' allegation in the Manifestation with Motion for r- the Resolution of Petitioners' Motion for Reconsideration/ their motion was acted upon and duly resolved by the Court. 2 Docket, Id., pp . 889-892. 3 Notice of Resolution, !d., p. 888 . 4 !d., p. 895. 5 Notice of Resolution, !d., p. 894. 6 !d., pp. 896-901. 7 !d., pp. 906-910. 8 Notice of Resolut ion, Id., p. 905. 9 !d., pp. 918-920 .

RESO LUTI ON CTA CASE NO. 9089 On August 28, 2019, an Entry of Judgment was issued by the Clerk of Court which was received by petitioners' counsel on November 28, 2019.10 Hence, on December 12, 2019, petitioners filed the Manifestation with Motion for the Resolution of Petitioners' Motion for Reconsideration. The Court remains unconvinced. Petitioners have raised no new matter or issue which would justify reconsideration of the previous resolutions of the Court. Furthermore, Section 7 of Rule 15 of the Revised Rules of the Court of Tax Appeals prohibits the filing of a second motion for reconsideration of a decision, final resolution or order. WHEREFORE, for reasons stated in the January 11, 2019, May 27, 2019 and July 29, 2019 Resolutions, petitioners' motion is DENIED with finality. The case is now deemed CLOSED and TERMINATED and no further motions shall be entertained from the petitioners. SO ORDERED. WE CONCUR: J. . ~-&;-c.~at-. ~ JU~NITO C. CASTAN EDA, JR. Associate Justice ~';-.~ CATHERINE T. MANAHAN Associate Justice � 10 Id., p. 915.