Robinsons Convenience Stores, Inc. v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue

THIRD DIVISION [C.T.A. CASE NO. 9178. September 13, 2017.] ROBINSONS CONVENIENCE STORES, INC. , petitioner, vs. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE , respondent . RESOLUTION For resolution is respondent's Motion for Reconsideration Re: Resolution dated 15 June 2017 ("Motion for Reconsideration"), with petitioner's Comment/Opposition (Re: CIR's Motion for Reconsideration dated July 4, 2017) ("Comment/Opposition") filed on August 10, 2017. On January 19, 2017, 1 the Court issued a Pre-Trial Order ("PTO"). On April 18, 2017, respondent filed an Omnibus Motion I. Urgent Motion for Correction of Admitted/Stipulated Fact; and II. Urgent Motion to Reset Hearing Scheduled on 25 April 2017. On June 15, 2017, the Court issued a Resolution ("Assailed Resolution") denying respondent's Omnibus Motion for Correction of Admitted/Stipulated Fact. The dispositive portion of said Resolution reads as: WHEREFORE , premises considered, respondent's Omnibus Motion [-] Urgent Motion for Correction of Admitted/Stipulated Fact is hereby DENIED . Anent respondent's Urgent Motion to Reset Hearing Scheduled on 25 April 2017, the same is rendered MOOT and ACADEMIC in view of the hearing held on April 25, 2017. SO ORDERED . In his Motion for Reconsideration, the Court notes that respondent reiterated the issues and arguments raised in his Urgent Motion for Correction of Admitted/Stipulated Fact filed on April 18, 2017, which has already been exhaustively discussed by this Court in the Assailed Resolution. Respondent failed to raise any new argument that would convince the Court to reverse or modify its earlier ruling. The Court would like to remind respondent that candor in all dealings is the very essence of membership in the legal profession. Lawyers are obliged to observe rules of procedure in good faith, not to misuse them to defeat the ends of justice. 2 Indeed, the Court may relax the rules of procedure for valid cause, which, in this case is unavailing. Respondent made a mistake, which mistake could have been detected at the earliest opportunity if only he and his counsels exercised due diligence in reviewing the documents presented before it. WHEREFORE , premises considered, respondent's Motion for Reconsideration is hereby DENIED . SO ORDERED . Lovell R. Bautista, Esperanza R. Fabon-Victorino and Ma. Belen M. Ringpis-Liban, JJ ., concur. Footnotes 1. Not June 19, 2017, as indicated in the June 15, 2017 Resolution. 2. Sixto M. Bayas and Ernesto T. Matuday vs. The Sandiganbayan, et al ., 2 G.R. Nos. 143689-91, November 12, 2002, 391 SCRA 415.