Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Waterfront Mactan Casino Hotel, Inc.

EN BANC [C.T.A. EB CASE NO. 1060. February 9, 2016.] (C.T.A. Case No. 8222) COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE , petitioner , vs. WATERFRONT MACTAN CASINO HOTEL, INC. , respondent . RESOLUTION BAUTISTA , J p : For resolution is petitioner's "Motion for Reconsideration" filed on October 7, 2015; without respondent's comment despite due notice. On September 15, 2015, the Court promulgated a Decision, disposing of the case as follows: WHEREFORE , premises considered, the Petition for Review is hereby DENIED . Accordingly, the Decision dated May 31, 2013 and the Resolution dated August 23, 2013 are hereby AFFIRMED . SO ORDERED . On October 7, 2015, petitioner filed the subject Motion for Reconsideration, which alleges that respondent's protest failed to conform to the form and manner prescribed by Section 3.1.5 of Revenue Regulations No. 12-99 ; and that petitioner is not required to identify the documents to be submitted by respondent in support of its protest. On November 6, 2015, the Court issued a Resolution ordering respondent to file its comment within ten (10) days from receipt thereof. On January 14, 2016, the Judicial Records Division issued a Records Verification Report stating that respondent failed to file its comment on petitioner's Motion for Reconsideration. After a careful study of the arguments raised by petitioner, the Court finds no merit in her Motion for Reconsideration since it was a mere reiteration of the allegations in the Memorandum 1 which were already passed upon and fully considered by the Court En Banc in its September 15, 2015 Decision. Consequently, petitioner's "Motion for Reconsideration" is hereby DENIED for lack of merit. SO ORDERED. AIDSTE (SGD.) LOVELL R. BAUTISTA Associate Justice Roman G. del Rosario, P.J., Juanito C. Castaeda, Jr., Erlinda P. Uy, Caesar A. Casanova, Esperanza R. Fabon-Victorino, Cielito N. Mindaro-Grulla, Amelia R. Cotangco-Manalastas and Ma. Belen M. Ringpis-Liban, JJ., concur. Footnotes 1. Petitioner adopted her arguments in the Petition for Review as her Memorandum per "Manifestation" filed on July 11, 2015.