Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Travel Warehouse, Inc.

EN BANC [C.T.A. EB CASE NO. 1722. August 9, 2019.] (C.T.A. Case No. 9103) COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE , petitioner , vs. TRAVEL WAREHOUSE, INC. , respondent . RESOLUTION RINGPIS-LIBAN , J p : For resolution is the petitioner's "Motion for Reconsideration (Decision dated 18 February 2019)" 1 received by the Court on March 11, 2019, with respondent's Comment filed on May 20, 2019. Petitioner seeks reconsideration of this Court's Decision, the dispositive portion of which reads as follows: " WHEREFORE , premises considered, the Petition for Review is DENIED for lack of merit. The assailed Decision dated August 7, 2017 and the assailed Resolution dated September 22, 2017 are AFFIRMED . SO ORDERED. " Petitioner claims that the Court En Banc erred in affirming the Court in Division's Decision and Resolution granting the Petition for Review of Travel Warehouse, Inc., which declared the Formal Letter of Demand and Assessment Notices and Warrant of Garnishment as null and void. On the other hand, respondent states that the motion for reconsideration is a mere rehash of petitioner's motion for reconsideration before the Court in Division and in the present Petition for Review; that it failed raise any new or substantial ground which can persuade the Court to reverse its Decision. After consideration, the Court En Banc resolves to deny the "Motion for Reconsideration (Decision dated 18 February 2019)." The Court En Banc reviewed the grounds relied upon by petitioner in support of his Motion for Reconsideration but finds no cogent reason to grant the same. The Court En Banc agrees with the contention of respondent that petitioner basically rehashed his arguments which were sufficiently passed upon and discussed by the Court in Division in its Decision and Resolution, and in the assailed En Banc Decision. In the assailed En Banc Decision, it was stated that the petitioner's right to appeal has already lapsed since the assailed Decision of the Court in Division has become final and executory for failure of petitioner to timely file a motion for reconsideration. Despite thereof, the Court En Banc proceeded to evaluate and discuss the petitioner's arguments raised before this Court. However, the Court En Banc finds no valid justification to compel a modification or reversal of the assailed Decision promulgated on February 18, 2019. It must be stressed that 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 law or the evidence. 2 If the movant failed to do so, the motion for reconsideration must necessarily fail. CAIHTE WHEREFORE , premises considered, the "Motion for Reconsideration (Decision dated 18 February 2019)" is DENIED for lack of merit . SO ORDERED. (SGD.) MA. BELEN M. RINGPIS-LIBAN Associate Justice Roman G. del Rosario, P.J., Juanito C. Castaeda, Jr., Erlinda P. Uy, Cielito N. Mindaro-Grulla, Catherine T. Manahan and Maria Rowena G. Modesto-San Pedro, JJ. , concur. Esperanza R. Fabon-Victorino, J. , is on leave. Jean Marie A. Bacorro-Villena, J. , took no part. Footnotes 1. Rollo , CTA EB NO. 1722, pp. 91-97. 2. Teodulo M. Coquilla vs. The Hon. Commission on Elections and Mr. Neil M. Alvarez , G.R. No. 151914, July 31, 2002.