Omnibus Rules and Regulations Implementing the Migrant Workers and Overseas Filipinos Act of 1995 (R.A. No. 8042)

EN BANC [C.T.A. EB CASE NO. 684 . September 21, 2011.] (C.T.A. Case No. 8061) CRESCENT PARK 18-2 PROPERTY HOLDINGS, INC. , petitioner , vs . COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE , respondent . RESOLUTION CASANOVA , J p : This resolves petitioner Crescent Park 18-2 Property Holdings, Inc.'s Motion for Reconsideration filed on July 5, 2011, and respondent Commissioner of Internal Revenue's Comment/Opposition (To Petitioner's Motion for Reconsideration) filed on July 28, 2011. Petitioner seeks reconsideration of this Court's Decision (the "Assailed Decision") 1 promulgated on June 8, 2011, the dispositive portion of which reads as follows: "WHEREFORE , the instant Petition for Review is hereby DISMISSED for lack of merit. Accordingly, the Resolutions dated July 2, 2010 and September 1, 2010 of the CTA First Division are hereby AFFIRMED in toto . SO ORDERED ." Petitioner contends that, as shown in various decisions 2 of the Supreme Court, the two-year prescriptive period does not apply only to the filing of the administrative claim for refund but also to the filing of the judicial claim with the CTA; that the 120-day period provided in the 1997 National Internal Revenue Code (NIRC) is not mandatory but merely permissive; and, that the Aichi case should be applied prospectively. Respondent, on the other hand, counterargues that it has already been settled that judicial interpretation of a statute constitute a part of the law as of the date it was originally passed; that petitioner's reliance on the Atlas case as the prevalent doctrine, with regard to the filing of its judicial claim for refund of input VAT, is erroneous; that the instant Motion for Reconsideration is clearly a proforma motion since a perusal of the same would readily reveal that the arguments raised therein are mere repetition and reiteration of the arguments already passed and ruled upon by this Honorable Court. SAHIaD After a careful evaluation of the arguments and counterarguments of the parties, We find no valid or compelling reason to grant petitioner's Motion for Reconsideration. The motion does not raise any new, cogent or substantial ground to warrant reconsideration of Our decision dated June 8, 2011. WHEREFORE , petitioner's Motion for Reconsideration is hereby DENIED for lack of merit. SO ORDERED . (SGD.) CAESAR A. CASANOVA Associate Justice Ernesto D. Acosta, P.J., Juanito C. Castaeda, Jr., Erlinda P. Uy, Olga Palanca-Enriquez, Esperanza R. Fabon-Victorino, Cielito N. Mindaro-Grulla and Amelia R. Cotangco-Manalastas, JJ., concur. Lovell R. Bautista, J., consistent with my stand, I maintain my vote as promulgated by the Court En Banc in its Decision dated June 8, 2011. Footnotes 1. En Banc Rollo , pp. 138-148. 2. Intel Technology Philippines, Inc. vs. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, G.R. No. 166732, April 27, 2007; Atlas Consolidated Mining and Development Corporation vs. Commissioner of Internal Revenue , G.R. Nos. 141104 and 148763, June 8, 2007; San Roque Power Corporation vs. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, G.R. No. 180345, November 25, 2009; AT & T Communications Services Philippines, Inc. vs. Commissioner of Internal Revenue , G.R. No. 182364, August 3, 2010.