Uniform Period and Procedure in the Payment of Fines in Administrative Matters

SPECIAL THIRD DIVISION [C.T.A. CASE NO. 7784. July 15, 2013.] NAGASE PHILIPPINES CORPORATION , petitioner , vs . COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE , respondent . RESOLUTION BAUTISTA , J p : For resolution are: a. Petitioner's "Notice of Change of Address," filed by registered mail on April 23, 2013; EaScHT b. Respondent's "Motion for Reconsideration," filed by registered mail on May 6, 2013; c. Petitioner's "Notice of Special Appearance," filed on June 13, 2013; and d. Petitioner's "Notice of Substitution of Counsel and Comments on Respondent's Motion for Reconsideration," filed on June 13, 2013. Considering that petitioner had already filed its comment to respondent's "Motion for Reconsideration," the same is now submitted for the Court's consideration. The dispositive portion of the Decision is read as follows: " WHEREFORE , premises considered, the Petition for Review is hereby GRANTED . The Assessment Notice No. IT-45612-03-07-0338 dated September 12, 2007 for deficiency Income Tax including fifty percent (50%) surcharge and interest, totaling P36,433,548.87 is hereby CANCELLED . SO ORDERED ." In respondent's Motion, she alleges that petitioner by requesting for a reinvestigation/reconsideration of the assessment, which she granted, tolled the running of the prescriptive period to assess taxes; and that the applicable period to assess is ten (10) years for petitioner made a false return. On the other hand, petitioner counters that respondent filed her Motion for Reconsideration beyond the reglementary period, therefore, the same should be dismissed; that respondent failed to present any evidence that petitioner filed a false or fraudulent return; and that it never requested for a reinvestigation/reconsideration of the assessment, hence the prescriptive period to assess was not suspended. The Motion for Reconsideration is bereft of merit. The resolution of the foregoing issues requires a re-examination of the evidence as it involves a question of fact. A question of fact arises when there is doubt as to the truth or falsity of the alleged facts in which it requires the examination of the probative value of the evidence. 1 In the instant case, the Court is called upon to re-evaluate on whether petitioner requested for a reinvestigation/reconsideration of the assessment, hence re-appreciation of the evidence. TCIDSa However, this Court cannot re-evaluate evidence unless it is shown that it is proper to review the case in order to arrive at a just resolution. 2 This respondent failed to do. Respondent has not point out to the findings or conclusions of the judgment or final order that are not supported by evidence or contrary to law. As the issue being raised has already been settled by this Court in its Decision 3 promulgated on April 18, 2013. On the other hand, a request for reconsideration does not toll the running of the period to assess, but it is the request for a reinvestigation that tolls the running of the said period, as held by the Supreme Court in the case of CIR vs. Philippine Global Communication, Inc. 4 In the instant case, it is shown that respondent is unclear whether petitioner requested for a reinvestigation or reconsideration as the allegation 5 pertains to both. In addition based on records, petitioner denied having requested for a reinvestigation as shown in its letter dated October 10, 2007. 6 Consequently, We cannot agree with respondent. Finally, We cannot agree with respondent that petitioner filed a false return for she failed to show that petitioner filed the same with intent of evading the tax. 7 In view of the foregoing, petitioner's "Motion for Reconsideration," is hereby DENIED for lack of merit. As regards to petitioner's "Notice of Change of Address," "Notice of Special Appearance," and "Notice of Substitution of Counsel," these are hereby NOTED . Accordingly, all notices, pleadings, judgments and other papers, shall be served to petitioner at Unit 1803, 18th Floor, Antel Global Corporation Center, Julia Vargas Avenue, Ortigas Center, 1605 Pasig City, Metro Manila . SO ORDERED . IESDCH (SGD.) LOVELL R. BAUTISTA Associate Justice Amelia R. Cotangco-Manalastas, J., concurs. Footnotes 1. Macababbad, Jr. vs. Masirag , G.R. No. 161237, January 14, 2009, 576 SCRA 70. 2. Ombudsman vs. Reyes , G.R. No. 170512, October 5, 2011, 658 SCRA 626, citing Dadulo vs. CA , G.R. No. 175451, April 13, 2007, 521 SCRA 357, 363. 3. Records, pp. 698-708. 4. G.R. No. 167146, October 31, 2006, 506 SCRA 427. 5. Motion for Reconsideration filed by registered mail on May 6, 2013. 6. Records, pp. 18-21. 7. CIR vs. Philippine Global Communication, Inc. , G.R. No. 167146, October 31, 2006.