This case has been cited 2 times or more.
|
2014-04-21 |
ABAD, J. |
||||
| The Bureau of Internal Revenue (BIR) treated the transaction between the two banks purely as a sale of specified assets and liabilities when it rendered its opinion[22] on the tax consequences of the transaction given that there is a difference in tax treatment between a sale and a merger or consolidation. | |||||
|
2012-09-13 |
REYES, J. |
||||
| At the outset, this Court holds that a dismissal of the petition is warranted in view of the petitioner's failure to file before the CTA en banc a motion for reconsideration of the assailed resolution. The settled rule is that a motion for reconsideration is a condition sine qua non for the filing of a petition for certiorari. Its purpose is to grant an opportunity for the court to correct any actual or perceived error attributed to it by the re-examination of the legal and factual circumstances of the case. The rationale of the rule rests upon the presumption that the court or administrative body which issued the assailed order or resolution may amend the same, if given the chance to correct its mistake or error. The "plain speedy, and adequate remedy" referred to in Section 1, Rule 65 of the Rules of Court is a motion for reconsideration of the questioned order or resolution.[12] While the rule is not absolute and admits of settled exceptions, none of the exceptions attend the present petition. | |||||