Leonida v. Fortich

EN BANC [C.T.A. EB CASE NO. 1925. November 3, 2020.] (C.T.A. Case No. 9036) MYRNA S. LEONIDA OIC-REGIONAL DIRECTOR, BIR REVENUE REGION NO. 12 , petitioner , vs. MARY SUSAN R. FORTICH , respondent . RESOLUTION RINGPIS-LIBAN , J p : This resolves Petitioner's "Motion for Reconsideration (Re: Decision promulgated 4 February 2020)" 1 ("Motion for Reconsideration") filed on February 19, 2020, with Respondent's "Comments to the Motion for Reconsideration (Re: Decision promulgated 4 February 2020)" 2 ("Comment") filed on September 04, 2020 via registered mail, seeking to reconsider and set aside the Decision 3 promulgated on February 04, 2020 ("Assailed Decision"), and another one be rendered ordering Respondent to pay the deficiency income tax and value-added tax ("VAT") assessments for taxable year 2010, as well as fifty percent (50%) surcharge and deficiency and delinquency interests thereon. The dispositive portion of the Assailed Decision reads: " WHEREFORE , premises considered, the Petition for Review filed with the Court En Banc on September 12, 2018 is DENIED for lack of merit. Accordingly, the May 10, 2018 Decision and August 17, 2018 Resolution in CTA Case No. 9036 are AFFIRMED . SO ORDERED. " 4 In his Motion for Reconsideration, Petitioner claims that this Court erred in ruling that (1) estoppel cannot apply in the instant case, (2) the waivers executed validly extended the period to assess, and (3) absence of a Letter of Authority ("LOA") violated Respondent's right to due process. On the other hand, Respondent, in her Comment, believes and asserts that the motion is pro-forma because the same merely submits, reiterates, repleads, or reaffirms the same arguments that had been considered and resolved in the Assailed Decision. We find for Respondent. HESIcT Petitioner's contentions are mere recapitulation of the arguments he has raised in his "Petition for Review" filed with this Court, which as We have previously pointed out as also a reproduction of the Motion for Reconsideration (Re: Decision promulgated 10 May 2018)" filed by Petitioner on May 28, 2018 before the Second Division. Moreover, these issues have been amply considered, weighed and resolved in the Assailed Decision. Thus, to discuss anew the explanation of the Court on these matters is superfluity. In sum, the Court En Banc finds no cogent reason to warrant a reconsideration of the Assailed Decision. WHEREFORE , premises considered, Petitioner's "Motion for Reconsideration (Re: Decision promulgated 4 February 2020)" 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., Catherine T. Manahan, Jean Marie A. Bacorro-Villena and Maria Rowena Modesto-San Pedro, JJ. , concur. Erlinda P. Uy, J. , is on leave. Footnotes 1. Rollo , pp. 152-171. 2. Id. , pp. 180-215. 3. Id. , pp. 127-147. 4. Id. , pp. 145-146.