Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Omya Chemical Merchants, Inc.

EN BANC [C.T.A. EB CASE NO. 2384. October 5, 2022.] (C.T.A. Case No. 9047) COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE , petitioner , vs. OMYA CHEMICAL MERCHANTS, INC. , respondent . RESOLUTION For the Court's Resolution is petitioner's Motion for Reconsideration ("Motion") , 1 filed via registered mail on 22 July 2022 and received by the Court on 2 August 2022, with respondent's Comment/Opposition (Re: Motion for Reconsideration dated 22 July 2022) ("Comment") , 2 filed on 5 September 2022. In his Motion, petitioner prays for the reversal of this Court En Banc 's Decision, dated 12 July 2022, 3 arguing as follows: (a) As petitioner's authorized representative, the Regional Director is authorized under Section 6 (A) of the National Internal Revenue Code of 1997, as amended ("Tax Code") , to conduct the examination of a taxpayer; 4 (b) The cancellation of the disputed assessments has no legal basis as the lack of authority cited refers to Revenue Officers and not to the Regional Director; 5 (c) The Letter of Authority ("LOA") issued by the Regional Director is valid for the purpose of auditing respondent's taxes for taxable year 2010; 6 (d) The alleged lack of authority of the Revenue Officers to conduct the audit should have been raised during the administrative protest and not on appeal; 7 and (e) The Medicard Case 8 is inapplicable to this case as it involves a mere Letter Notice, while a valid LOA was issued in this case. 9 In its Comment, meanwhile, respondent counter-argues as follows: (a) This Court in Division correctly ruled that the reassignment of the audit through a mere Memorandum of Assignment ("MOA") is not equivalent to reassignment via LOA, rendering reports and assessments arising from such unauthorized audit null and void; 10 (b) While the Medicard Case involved a mere Letter Notice, it provided the significance of a LOA in giving rise to a valid audit, a principle that has been applied to similar cases; 11 and (c) Despite the issue not being raised at the administrative level, the Court of Tax Appeals has the authority to rule on the validity of the audit that gave rise to the disputed assessment, as what is at issue is a purely legal question. 12 Petitioner's Motion lacks merit. As observed by respondent, petitioner's arguments are a mere rehash of those that he raised in his Petition for Review 13 and that this Court has already passed upon and discussed in the Assailed Decision. There is thus no need to explain their deficiencies again. The Court need not "cut and paste" pertinent portions of the Decision or re-write the ponencia in accordance with the outline of the Motion. 14 Therefore, it is unnecessary to discuss and rule again on these grounds since this would be a useless formality of ritual invariably involving merely a reiteration of the reasons for rejecting the arguments advanced by the movant already set forth in the judgment. 15 Considering the above, the Court sees no reason to grant petitioner's Motion. WHEREFORE , petitioner's Motion for Reconsideration is hereby DENIED for lack of merit. SO ORDERED. (SGD.) MARIA ROWENA MODESTO-SAN PEDRO Associate Justice Roman G. del Rosario, P.J., Erlinda P. Uy, Ma. Belen M. Ringpis-Liban, Catherine T. Manahan, Jean Marie A. Bacorro-Villena, Marian Ivy F. Reyes-Fajardo and Lanee S. Cui-David, JJ. , concur. Footnotes 1. Records, pp. 128-144. 2. Id. , pp. 149-158. 3. Id. , pp. 104-119. 4. Motion for Reconsideration, pp. 2-3, Records, pp. 129-130. 5. Id. , p. 4, Records, p. 131. 6. Id. , pp. 4-5, Records, pp. 131-132. 7. Id. , pp. 6-7, Records, pp. 133-134. 8. Medicard Philippines, Inc. v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue , G.R. No. 222743, 5 April 2017. 9. Motion for Reconsideration, pp. 7-14, Records, pp. 134-141. 10. Comment/Opposition (Re: Motion for Reconsideration dated 22 July 2022), pp. 3-6, Records, pp. 151-154. 11. Id. , pp. 7-8, Records, pp. 155-156. 12. Id. , pp. 8-9, Records, pp. 156-157. 13. Records, pp. 8-24. 14. Land Bank of the Philippines v. Gallego, Jr. , G.R. No. 173226, 31 January 2018 citing Social Justice Society (SJS) Officers v. Lim , G.R. No. 187836, 10 March 2015 and Ortigas Land Co. Ltd. Partnership v. Judge Velasco , G.R. No. 109645, 4 March 1996. 15. Ibid. ; People v. Agacer , G.R. No. 177751, 7 January 2013 citing People v. Larraaga , G.R. Nos. 138874-75, 21 July 2005 and Ortigas Land Co. Ltd. Partnership v. Judge Velasco , G.R. No. 109645, 4 March 1996.