THIRD DIVISION
[G.R. No. 172129. October 16, 2013.]
COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, petitioner, vs. MIRANT PAGBILAO CORP. [FORMERLY SOUTHERN ENERGY QUEZON, INC.], respondent.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Third Division, issued a Resolution dated October 16, 2013, which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 172129 (Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Mirant Pagbilao Corp. [Formerly Southern Energy Quezon, Inc.]). — Acting on respondent Mirant Pagbilao Corp.'s Motion for Clarificatory Resolution dated March 19, 2012, asking the Court to (a) resolve its Motion to Revisit, (b) reverse and set aside the Decision insofar as it granted petitioner's Petition for Review, and the November 26, 2008 Resolution insofar as it denied respondent's Motion for Reconsideration, and to (c) refer the case to the Court En Banc for resolution and re-evaluation and as may be necessary, for the reception of oral arguments in support of the Motion to Revisit, with the end in view that the Decision, as well as the Resolutions dated November 26, 2008 and January 18, 2012, be reversed and set aside through a full-length decision, the Court hereby treats said motion as a subsequent motion for reconsideration, filed after the finality of the questioned Decision, and RESOLVES to DENY said motion. HTCAED
It is well to recall the following developments in the present case. On September 12, 2008, the Court resolved to partly grant the petition, disposing thereof in this wise:
WHEREFORE, the petition is PARTLY GRANTED. The Decision dated December 22, 2005 and the Resolution dated March 31, 2006 of the CA in CA-G.R. SP No. 78280 are AFFIRMED with the MODIFICATION that the claim of respondent MPC for tax refund or credit to the extent of PhP135,993,570, representing its input VAT payments for service purchases from Mitsubishi Corporation of Japan for the construction of a portion of its Pagbilao, Quezon power station, is DENIED on the ground that the claim had prescribed. Accordingly, petitioner Commissioner of Internal Revenue is ordered to refund or, in the alternative, issue a tax credit certificate in favor of MPC, its unutilized input VAT payments directly attributable to its effectively zero-rated sales for the second quarter in the total amount of PhP10,766,939.48.
No pronouncement as to costs.
SO ORDERED.
Aggrieved, respondent filed a Motion for Partial Reconsideration of the above Decision on October 17, 2008.
On November 26, 2008, the Court denied with finality respondent's Motion for Partial Reconsideration, with a caveat that no further pleadings or motions will be entertained. Thus, on January 22, 2009, the Decision of the Court became final and executory and was recorded in the Book of Entries of Judgments. TIESCA
Despite the Court's November 26, 2008 Resolution and the subsequent finality and entry of the Court's Decision, respondent filed a Motion to Revisit Decision and to refer the Case en consulta to the Supreme Court En Banc on February 5, 2009. While said motion was pending resolution, respondent filed, on March 27, 2009, an Urgent Motion to Set Aside Entry of Judgment, Recall the Records, and Resolve Respondent's Motion to Revisit Decision and to Refer Case en consulta to the Supreme Court En Banc.
On January 18, 2012, the Court resolved to DENY respondent's Urgent Motion to Set Aside Entry of Judgment, Recall the Records, and its Motion to Revisit Decision and to Refer Case en consulta to the Supreme Court En Banc, the Court en banc not being an appellate court to which decisions and resolutions of a Division may be appealed.
From the above, it is obvious that respondent, in sum, sought reconsideration of Our September 12, 2008 Decision once prior to its finality, and thrice, including the present motion, after its finality; although in the latter case, respondent masked it with different designations, i.e., Motion to Revisit Decision, Motion to Set Aside Entry of Judgment, and Motion for Clarificatory Resolution. It is well to emphasize that the latter motions, despite not being termed as motions for reconsideration, in reality seek the re-examination and, consequently, the modification of Our September 12, 2008 Decision, whether it be by the Division or by the Court en Banc.
It is a basic procedural tenet that a second motion for reconsideration is a prohibited pleading; more so for subsequent ones, as in the case at bar. And while there have been instances that the Court gave merit to second motions for reconsideration, We cannot extend the same liberality to the case at bar for lack of extraordinary persuasive reasons to do so.
Furthermore, it is elementary that the Supreme Court en banc is not an appellate court to which decisions or resolutions of the Divisions of the Court can be forwarded for review. EcHaAC
WHEREFORE, the Motion for Clarificatory Resolution is hereby DENIED. No further pleadings will be entertained in this case. (Abad, J., on leave; Brion, J., designated Acting Member per Special Order No. 1554 dated September 19, 2013;Leonen, J., on leave; Leonardo-de Castro, J., designated Acting Member per Special Order No. 1570 dated October 14, 2013.)
SO ORDERED."
Very truly yours,
(SGD.) LUCITA ABJELINA SORIANODivision Clerk of Court