Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Dunlevy Food Corp.

EN BANC [C.T.A. EB CASE NO. 2294. July 18, 2022.] (C.T.A. Case No. 9361) COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE , petitioner , vs. DUNLEVY FOOD CORPORATION , respondent . RESOLUTION RINGPIS-LIBAN , J p : For resolution of the Court En Banc is petitioner Commissioner of Internal Revenue's Motion for Reconsideration [En Banc Decision dated 08 February 2022] 1 filed via registered mail on March 31, 2022 and received by the Court on April 19, 2022, with respondent Dunlevy Food Corporation's Comment to Motion for Reconsideration (En Banc Decision dated 08 February 2022) dated 31 March 2022 2 filed on June 13, 2022. Petitioner's Motion seeks reconsideration of the Decision of the Court En Banc promulgated on February 8, 2022, 3 ("Assailed Decision") affirming the judgment of the Second Division ("Court in Division") of this Court in CTA Case No. 9361. The dispositive portion of the assailed Decision reads: " WHEREFORE ,premises considered, the Petition for Review is DENIED .The assailed Decision dated December 11, 2019 and the Resolution dated June 16, 2020 of the Second Division in CTA Case No. 9361 are AFFIRMED . SO ORDERED. " In his Motion , petitioner insists that respondent is not entitled to the refund of, or issuance of tax credit certificate in the amount of P7,800,000.00. Petitioner maintains that, under RMO No. 19-2007, the Commissioner or his duly authorized representatives are not prevented from accepting a compromise penalty higher than what is provided therein. Petitioner likewise claims that the payment of compromise penalty in this case was made voluntarily by respondent and that there was no demand from petitioner to pay such amount. Petitioner also contends that respondent failed to comply with Section 229 of the National Internal Revenue Code of 1997, as amended. He also posits that this Court lacks jurisdiction to entertain the present case. On the other hand, respondent, in its Comment submits that the arguments raised by petitioner in his Motion are mere repetitions/rehashes of those raised in his Petition for Review, and that these arguments have already been judiciously passed upon by this Court in the Assailed Decision. As such, no new matters were raised in the present Motion . After careful evaluation of the arguments raised by petitioner vis--vis the records of the case, the Court En Banc resolves to deny petitioner's Motion for Reconsideration [En Banc Decision dated 08 February 2022] for lack of merit. Petitioner failed to raise any new or substantial matter let alone any compelling reason to warrant the modification much less reversal of this Court's findings. The Court En Banc maintains its position that this Court has jurisdiction to take cognizance of the present case. Moreover, the imposition of penalties in the present case should conform to Annex A of RMO No. 19-2007. As stated by this Court in the Assailed Decision, the imposition of the compromise penalties failed to strictly adhere to the requirements of RMO No. 19-2007. In view of the foregoing, respondent is entitled to its claim for refund. WHEREFORE ,petitioner's Motion for Reconsideration [En Banc Decision dated 08 February 2022] is DENIED for lack of merit. SO ORDERED. (SGD.) MA. BELEN M. RINGPIS-LIBAN Associate Justice Roman G. del Rosario, P.J.,Erlinda P. Uy, Jean Marie A. Bacorro-Villena, Maria Rowena Modesto-San Pedro, Marian Ivy F. Reyes-Fajardo and Lanee S. Cui-David, JJ. ,concur. Catherine T. Manahan, J. ,is on leave. Footnotes 1. En Banc Docket, pp. 139-145. 2. Id. ,pp. 150-157. 3. Id. ,pp. 123-135.