Semirara Mining Corp. v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue

FIRST DIVISION [C.T.A. CASE NOS. 7822 and 7849. June 3, 2011.] SEMIRARA MINING CORPORATION , petitioner , vs . COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE , respondent . RESOLUTION FABON-VICTORINO , J p : To resolve is the Motion for Reconsideration dated April 12, 2011, filed by respondent, praying for the reconsideration of the Decision dated March 28, 2011, directing respondent to refund or issue a tax credit certificate in the amount of P77,253,245.39, representing erroneously paid and remitted final withholding value-added tax. TDESCa According to respondent, the Court erred in granting the petition on the ground that petitioner's exemption from all taxes except income tax as provided under Presidential Decree (P.D.) No. 972 has been repealed by Republic Act No. 9337 effective July 01, 2005. Further, petitioner allegedly failed to submit all relevant documents in its administrative claim rendering the instant petition premature for failure to exhaust administrative remedies. In rejecting the motion, petitioner iterates that these arguments were taken verbatim from respondent's Memorandum which have been amply considered and rejected by the Court in the assailed Decision of March 28, 2011. That being the case, respondent's Motion for Reconsideration is pro forma and considered a dilatory tactic that should be denied outright. Being pro forma , the motion does not toll the running of the period to appeal making the Decision dated March 28, 2011 final and executory. In view thereof, petitioner prays that the Court order the issuance of an Entry of Judgment in addition to the denial of the herein Motion for Reconsideration. When the incident was heard on April 29, 2011, only counsel for petitioner appeared. Hence, the instant Motion for Reconsideration was deemed submitted for resolution as petitioner has filed its opposition thereto. Indeed, respondent raised the very same issues he invoked in his previous pleadings filed in this case. They have been considered and discussed at length in the assailed Decision and the Court sees no reason or rhyme to depart, much less reconsider its ruling. Anent petitioner's prayer for the issuance of an Entry of Judgment on account that the Motion for Reconsideration is pro forma , it has been held that the mere reiteration in a motion for reconsideration of the issues raised by the parties and passed upon by the court does not make a motion pro forma ; otherwise, the movant's remedy would not be a reconsideration of the decision but a new trial or some other remedy. But, as held in another case, among the ends to which a motion for reconsideration is addressed, one is precisely to convince the court that its ruling is erroneous and improper, contrary to the law or the evidence; and in doing so, the movant has to dwell of necessity upon the issues passed upon by the court. If a motion for reconsideration may not discuss these issues, the consequence would be that after a decision is rendered, the losing party would be confined to filing only motions for reopening and new trial. 1 WHEREFORE, the Motion for Reconsideration dated April 12, 2011, filed by respondent is hereby DENIED, for lack of merit. cSTHaE Petitioner's motion for the issuance of an Entry of Judgment is DENIED as well. SO ORDERED. (SGD.) ESPERANZA R. FABON-VICTORINO Associate Justice Ernesto D. Acosta, P.J., concurs. Erlinda P. Uy, J., is on leave. Footnotes 1. Philippine National Bank vs. Hon. Jose G. Paneda, et al. , G.R. No. 149236, February 14, 2007.