Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. First Far East Development Corp.

EN BANC [C.T.A. EB CASE NO. 2354. June 22, 2022.] (C.T.A. Case No. 9678) COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE , petitioner , vs. FIRST FAR EAST DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION , respondent . RESOLUTION RINGPIS-LIBAN , J p : For resolution is petitioner's "Motion for Reconsideration (Re: Decision Promulgated 28 February 2022)" 1 filed on March 15, 2022. In the instant motion, petitioner avers that the Court En Banc erred in ruling that petitioner cannot collect the subject deficiency taxes since the three-year prescriptive period for collecting from respondent the deficiency taxes has prescribed. Petitioner still maintains that his right to collect deficiency taxes from respondent has not yet prescribed. Petitioner's right to collect was suspended when petitioner granted respondent's request for a reconsideration. On April 5, 2022, the Court En Banc issued a Resolution ordering respondent to file its Comment on the "Motion for Reconsideration (Re: Decision Promulgated 28 February 2022)," within five (5) calendar days from notice." 2 On April 21, 2022, the Court En Banc received respondent's "Comment (On Motion for Reconsideration)" 3 filed by registered mail on April 18, 2022. In the said Comment (on Motion for Reconsideration), respondent states that petitioner is harping again on the tolling of the three-year prescriptive period to collect from respondent due to the granting of the latter's request for reinvestigation; and that petitioner offered no compelling evidence to support his assertions. After consideration of the motion submitted, the Court En Banc resolves to deny the petitioner's "Motion for Reconsideration (Re: Decision Promulgated 28 February 2022)." 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. , 4 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: "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 or 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 (Re: Decision Promulgated 28 February 2022)" 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, Catherine T. Manahan, Jean Marie A. Bacorro-Villena, Maria Rowena Modesto-San Pedro, Marian Ivy F. Reyes-Fajardo and Lanee S. Cui-David, JJ. , concur. Footnotes 1. Docket, CTA EB NO. 2354, pp. 55-61. 2. Ibid. , pp. 63-64. 3. Ibid. , pp. 65-66. 4. G.R. No. 159938, January 22, 2007.