Adopting the Guidelines for Continuous Trial of Criminal Cases in Pilot Courts

SECOND DIVISION [C.T.A. CASE NO. 8501. March 21, 2014.] DAKUDAO & SONS, INCORPORATED , petitioner , vs . COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE , respondent . RESOLUTION CASTAEDA, JR. , J p : Before this Court is respondent's " MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION (Re: Decision Promulgated January 13, 2014) " filed on February 3, 2014, with petitioner's " COMMENT/OPPOSITION (To Respondent's Motion for Partial Reconsideration dated 03 February 2014) " filed on February 18, 2014. Respondent prays that this Court set aside the Decision promulgated on January 13, 2014 and render a new one denying petitioner's claim for refund. The dispositive portion of the assailed Decision reads as follows: " WHEREFORE , premises considered, the instant Petition for Review is hereby GRANTED . Accordingly, respondent is hereby ORDERED TO REFUND in favor of petitioner the amount of P112,140,000.00, representing petitioner's erroneously paid VAT for the fourth quarter of taxable year 2011. SO ORDERED. " However, a simple perusal of the instant motion shows that it is a mere rehash of the same facts and issues which have already been analyzed and passed upon extensively by this Court in the assailed Decision and the grounds raised by respondent did not raise anything new to merit reconsideration. WHEREFORE , premises considered, respondent's Motion for Partial Reconsideration is DENIED for lack of merit. SO ORDERED. EISCaD (SGD.) JUANITO C. CASTAEDA, JR. Associate Justice Caesar A. Casanova and Amelia R. Cotangco-Manalastas, JJ., concur.