Revised Rules and Regulations of Book V (Special Investors Resident Visa) of Executive Order No. 226, Otherwise Known as Omnibus Investments Code of 1987, as Amended

SPECIAL FIRST DIVISION [C.T.A. CASE NO. 7395. March 4, 2011.] CE CEBU GEOTHERMAL POWER COMPANY, INC. , petitioner , vs . COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE , respondent . RESOLUTION BAUTISTA , J p : For resolution is petitioner's "Motion for Reconsideration (Re: Denial of the Petition for Review) (With Motion for Leave to Submit attached Supplemental Evidence)" filed on December 17, 2010, without respondent's comment/opposition thereto despite notice, seeking the reconsideration of this Court's Amended Decision promulgated on November 25, 2010, which reversed and set aside the Decision dated January 5, 2010 and denied the Petition for Review. Petitioner prays for the reinstatement of the Decision dated January 5, 2010, granting the refund of unutilized input Value-Added Tax (VAT) attributable to its effectively zero-rated sales of power in the amount of P15,618,980.98 or in the event of insufficiency of the evidence presented, that petitioner be granted leave to submit and offer supplemental evidence and allows the admission of the Certificate of Compliance (COC) and/or that the Court allows the recall of petitioner's witness who will identify the Energy Regulatory Commission's (ERC) COC. In support thereof, petitioner raises that the non-submission of the COC should not be deemed fatal to petitioner's claim for refund considering that it was able to present sufficient and uncontroverted evidence that it is a generation company engaged in zero-rated sales of power; that the EPIRA does not require petitioner to show its COC to be considered a generation company for purposes of treating its sales as VAT zero-rated; that this Court could have taken judicial notice of the fact that petitioner is a generation company; and in view of the attachment of the COC 1 to this Motion for Reconsideration, this Court can have the COC admitted in evidence and consider the same in reconsidering the Amended Decision . Petitioner's Motion is devoid of merit. ATcaEH Section 7, Rule 15 of the Revised Rules of the Court of Tax Appeals (RRCTA), explicitly provides that: "RULE 15 MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION OR NEW TRIAL xxx xxx xxx "SEC. 7. No second motion for reconsideration or for new trial. No party shall be allowed to file a second motion for reconsideration or for new trial of a decision, final resolution or order. (Rules of Court, Rule 52, sec. 3a)" Accordingly, a second motion for reconsideration is a prohibited pleading, which shall not be allowed, except for extraordinarily persuasive reasons and only after an express leave shall have first been obtained. 2 In the instant case, records show that this Court promulgated a Decision on January 5, 2010. Subsequently, both parties filed their respective Motions for Reconsideration on January 25, 2010 and January 26, 2010. Then, this Court promulgated the assailed Amended Decision on November 25, 2010. Aggrieved by the said Amended Decision , petitioner filed the instant Motion for Reconsideration. The filing of the instant Motion is tantamount to a filing of a second Motion for Reconsideration, which is within the prohibition of Rule 15, Section 7 of the RRCTA. Thus, this Court finds no persuasive reason to justify petitioner's exemption from the strict application of the prohibition. Notably, after the promulgation of the assailed Amended Decision , the available remedy for petitioner is to file a Petition for Review with the Court en banc pursuant to Section 4 (b), Rule 8 of the RRCTA, to wit: "SEC. 4. Where to appeal; mode of appeal. xxx xxx xxx. (b) An appeal from a decision or resolution of the Court in Division on a motion for reconsideration or new trial shall be taken to the Court by petition for review as provided in Rule 43 of the Rules of Court. The Court en banc shall act on the appeal. ( n )." Rules of procedure exist for a purpose, and to disregard such rules in the guise of liberal construction would be to defeat such purpose. Procedural rules are not to be disdained as mere technicalities. They may not be ignored to suit the convenience of a party. Adjective law ensures the effective enforcement of substantive rights through the orderly and speedy administration of justice. Rules are not intended to hamper litigants or complicate litigation. But they help provide for a vital system of justice where suitors may be heard in the correct form and manner, at the prescribed time in a peaceful though adversarial confrontation before a judge whose authority litigants acknowledge. Public order and our system of justice are well served by a conscientious observance of the rules of procedure, particularly by government officials and agencies. 3 TaDSHC Finally, even if the said COC is admitted in Court, a perusal thereof reveals that it was issued on October 5, 2005 or after the taxable period, subject of petitioner's claim for refund/issuance of tax credit certificate. Thus, in the absence of evidence that petitioner is duly authorized by the ERC to operate facilities used in the generation of electricity in the year 2004, the instant motion must fail. WHEREFORE , petitioner's Motion for Reconsideration (Re: Denial of the Petition for Review) (With Motion for Leave to Submit attached Supplemental Evidence) filed on December 17, 2010 is hereby DENIED for lack of merit. SO ORDERED. (SGD.) LOVELL R. BAUTISTA Associate Justice Ernesto D. Acosta, P.J. and Caesar A. Casanova, J., concur. Footnotes 1. Annex "A" of the Motion for Reconsideration (Re: Denial of the Petition for Review) (With Motion for Leave to Submit attached Supplemental Evidence), rollo , p. 636. 2. Ma. Wenelita S. Tirazona vs. Philippine EDS Techno-Service, Inc. (PET, Inc.) and/or Ken Kubota, Mamoru Ono and Junichi Hirose , G.R. No. 169712, January 20, 2009. 3. United Pulp and Paper Co., Inc. vs. United Pulp and Paper Chapter-Federation of Free Workers , G.R. No. 141117, March 25, 2004.