Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. GB Global Exprez, Inc.

EN BANC [C.T.A. EB CASE NO. 2583. January 31, 2024.] (C.T.A. Case No. 10341) COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE , petitioner , vs. GB GLOBAL EXPREZ, INC. , respondent . RESOLUTION CUI-DAVID , J p : This resolves petitioner's Motion for Reconsideration (Re: Decision promulgated on 22 June 2023) 1 filed on July 12, 2023, with respondent's Comment/Opposition thereto filed on September 4, 2023. AcICHD Petitioner seeks reconsideration of the Court En Banc's Decision 2 dated June 22, 2023 (Assailed Decision) , the dispositive portion of which reads: WHEREFORE , premises considered, the Petition for Review filed by the Commissioner of Internal Revenue is DENIED for lack of merit. The assailed D ecisio n dated August 31, 2021, and Resolution dated March 1, 2022, are AFFIRMED . SO ORDERED. Petitioner anchors his Motion on the following grounds: I. WITH ALL DUE RESPECT, THIS HONORABLE COURT ERRED IN RULING THAT THE COURT OF TAX APPEALS HAS JURISDICTION ON THE INSTANT CASE. II. THE HONORABLE COURT ERRED IN APPLYING RMO 3-2009 TO THE SEIZURE, APPREHENSION, AND DETENTION OF [RESPONDENT'S] ILLICITLY MANUFACTURED PRODUCTS. III. WITHOUT SUBMITTING TO THIS HONORABLE COURT'S JURISDICTION, [PETITIONER] DID NOT VIOLATE [RESPONDENT'S] RIGHTS TO DUE PROCESS AND PRIVACY. IV. AGAIN, WITHOUT SUBMITTING TO THIS COURT'S JURISDICTION, THIS HONORABLE COURT ERRED IN ORDERING [PETITIONER] THE RETURN OF [RESPONDENT'S] SEIZED AND CONFISCATED UNREGISTERED ARTICLES. By way of Comment/Opposition thereto, respondent counters that: I. THE INSTANT MOTION IS A MERE REITERATION OF THE ALLEGATIONS THAT HAVE ALREADY BEEN CONSIDERED, SQUARELY PASSED UPON, AND FULLY RESOLVED BY THE HONORABLE COURT. II. THE HONORABLE COURT HAS JURISDICTION OVER THE INSTANT CASE. caITAC III. THE HONORABLE COURT CORRECTLY RULED THAT RMO 3-2009 APPLIES IN THE INSTANT CASE. IV. PETITIONER VIOLATED RESPONDENT'S RIGHT TO DUE PROCESS AND RIGHT AGAINST UNREASONABLE SEARCH AND SEIZURE. V. THE HONORABLE COURT'S FIRST DIVISION PROPERLY ORDERED THE RETURN OF RESPONDENT'S ILLEGALLY SEIZED CIGARETTES. After a thorough study of petitioner's Motion for Reconsideration , the Court En Banc finds that petitioner's issues and arguments therein have already been addressed, exhaustively discussed, and passed upon, first by the Court in Division and subsequently on appeal by the Court En Banc . Petitioner merely reiterated, if not rephrased, those contained in its previously filed pleadings and failed to "raise matters which are substantially plausible or compellingly persuasive" 3 to warrant the reversal of the assailed Decision . WHEREFORE , premises considered, petitioner's Motion for Reconsideration (Re: Decision promulgated on 22 June 2023) filed on July 12, 2023, is DENIED for lack of merit. SO ORDERED. (SGD.) LANEE S. CUI-DAVID Associate Justice Roman G. del Rosario, P.J., Ma. Belen M. Ringpis-Liban, Catherine T. Manahan, Jean Marie A. Bacorro-Villena, Maria Rowena Modesto-San Pedro, Marian Ivy F. Reyes-Fajardo, Corazon G. Ferrer-Flores and Henry S. Angeles, JJ. , concur. Footnotes 1. En Banc (EB) Docket, pp. 268-291. 2. EB Docket, pp. 216-263. 3. H. Harry L. Roque, Jr., et al. v. Commission on Elections, represented by Hon. Chairman Jose Melo, et al. , G.R. No. 188456, February 10, 2010.