Office of the City Treasurer and/or Makati City v. South China Resources, Inc. (now known as "Socresources, Inc.")

EN BANC [C.T.A. EB CASE NO. 2154. July 15, 2021.] (C.T.A. AC No. 197) OFFICE OF THE CITY TREASURER AND/OR MAKATI CITY , petitioner , vs. SOUTH CHINA RESOURCES, INC. (NOW KNOWN AS "SOCRESOURCES, INC.") , respondent . RESOLUTION RINGPIS-LIBAN , J p : For resolution is the petitioner's "Motion for Reconsideration" 1 filed on January 20, 2021. In the instant motion, petitioner avers that the decision of the Court En Banc is a direct attack to the local autonomy of the City of Makati and a collateral attack to the Revised Makati Revenue Code; and that the Court En Banc erred in holding that the imposition of local business tax on respondent falls within Section 133 (a) of the Local Government Code. On February 4, 2021, respondent filed its "Opposition (To Petitioners' Motion for Reconsideration dated 20 January 2021)." After consideration of the motion submitted, the Court En Banc resolves to deny the "Motion for Reconsideration." The Court En Banc notes that petitioner's motion merely reiterates or amplifies the arguments previously raised in the Petition for Review which were already considered and extensively discussed upon by the Court En Banc in the assailed Decision. In the case of Shangri-La International Hotel Management Ltd., et al. vs. Developers Group of Companies, Inc. , 2 the Supreme Court denied respondent's Motion for Reconsideration for being a mere reiteration of their previous arguments, and for failure to raise matters substantially plausible or compellingly persuasive to warrant the reversal of the assailed Decision, thus: HESIcT "The bulk of the aforementioned grounds is a mere rehash of movant's previous arguments. While DGCI is correct in stating that a motion for reconsideration, by its very nature, may tend to dwell on issues already resolved in the decision sought to be reconsidered and that this should not be an obstacle for a reconsideration, the hard reality is that movant has failed to raise matters substantially plausible or compellingly persuasive to warrant the desired course of action. Considering that the grounds presently raised have been sufficiently considered, if not squarely addressed, in the subject Decision, it behooves movant to convince the Court that certain findings or conclusions in the Decision are contrary to law. As it is, however, the instant motion does not raise any new or substantial legitimate ground of reason to justify the reconsideration sought." In view of the foregoing, the Court En Banc will no longer belabor to repeat its discussions in the assailed Decision since it would only result to mere superfluity. WHEREFORE , premises considered, the petitioner's "Motion for Reconsideration" is DENIED for lack of merit . SO ORDERED. (SGD.) MA. BELEN M. RINGPIS-LIBAN Associate Justice Juanito C. Castaeda, Jr., Erlinda P. Uy, Catherine T. Manahan, Jean Marie A. Bacorro-Villena and Maria Rowena Modesto-San Pedro, JJ. , concur. Roman G. del Rosario, P.J. , I reiterate my concurring opinion. Footnotes 1. Docket, CTA EB NO. 2154, pp. 93-101. 2. G.R. No. 159938, January 22, 2007.