REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES
Court of Tax Appeals
QUEZON CITY
En Bane
BRYAN M. TORREGOSA, CTA EB NO. 2520
Petitioner, {CTA Case No. 9703)
Present:
DEL ROSARIO, P.J.,
RINGPIS-LIBAN,
-versus- MANAHAN,
BACORRO-VILLENA,
MODESTO-SAN PEDRO,
REYES-FAJARDO,
CUI-DAVID, and
REGIONAL DIRECTOR FERRER-FLORES, JJ
BUREAU OF INTERNAL REVENUE
DA VAO CITY Promulgated:
REVENUE REGION NO. 19, JUl 26 2023
Respondent. ~ 'd-2.
X ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------~::-~-==-~~ """-----
DECISION
MODESTO-SAN PEDRO, J.:
The Case
Before the Court En Bane is a PETITION FOR REVIEW
(" Petition"), fi led on 25 October 202 1,1 with respondents' COMMENT( Re:
Petition for Review) ("Comment"), fi led on 6 July 2022. 2
The Parties
Petiti oner BRYAN M. TORREGOSA is a registered taxpaye r, with
postal ajldress at Rizal Avenue, Barangay San Jose, Digos City, Davao Del
Sur.Y
1
Records, pp. 1-55.
/d., pp. 110- 11 5.
Assailed Decision, Annex ··s··, Petition, id.. p. 23.
DECISION
CTA EB NO. 2520 (CT A Case No. 9703)
Page 2 of 15
Respondent is the incumbent Regional Director of the Bureau of
Internal Revenue ("BIR") Revenue Region No. 19- Davao City. He holds
office at BIR Building, Bolton Ext., Davao City. He is impleaded in his
capacity as Regional Director of the BIR for the said Revenue Region, and is
mandated by law to administer and enforce internal revenue laws, rules and
regulations, including the assessment and collection of all internal revenue
taxes, charges and fees. 4
The Facts
The following is a summary of the facts, as duly found by the Court in
Division in the Assailed Decision: 5
On 5 October 2011, a Letter of Authority No. LOA-115-
2011-00000092 (SN:eLOA201000007208) was issued by then
Officer in Charge - Regional Director Glen A. Geraldino of
Revenue Region 19 - Davao City authorizing the audit and
examination of petitioner's books of accounts for all internal
revenue taxes covering the period from I January 2010 to 31
December 20 I 0.
On 7 November 2013, respondent issued a Preliminary
Assessment Notice against petitioner. In response thereto, petitioner
filed with the BIR a Letter, dated 16 December 2013, contesting the
findings of the BIR
On 27 February 2014, petitioner executed a Waiver of the
Defense of Prescription Under the Statute of Limitations of the
National Internal Revenue Code, as amended ("NIRC'')
("Waiver") consenting to the extension of the tax assessment for
taxable year ("TY") 20 I 0 until 31 October 2015.
On I 0 October 2014, respondent issued the Formal Letter of
Demand ("FLO"), maintaining that petitioner is liable to pay tax
deficiencies, including interests and compromise penalties in the
amount ofPhp4,763,738.84.
In response to the FLO, petitioner filed on 19 November 2014
a Letter, dated 13 November 2014, requesting for a re-investigation
of the tax assessment./
4
/d., pp. 23-24.
5
!d., pp. 24-26.
DECISIO~
CT A EB NO. 2520 (CT A C<t'>e No. 9703)
Page3of15
Subsequently, the BIR issued an Amended FLD, dated 16
November 2015, which assessed petitioner for deficiency taxes
amounting to Php4,827,486.48.
Then, on 20 November 2015, petitioner executed another
Waiver which sought to extend the prescriptive period to assess
until 31 December 2016.
On 5 January 2016, petitioner filed a Letter, dated 26
December 2015, requesting for a re-investigation of the Amended
FLD.
On 6 September 2017, Regional Director Nuzar N. Balatero
of Revenue Region No. 19- Davao City issued a Final Decision on
Disputed Assessment ("FDDA") finding petitioner liable for
deficiency taxes in the total amount ofPhp8,424,919.29.
On 23 October 2017, petitioner filed a Petition for Review
before the Court in Division assailing the FDDA.
On 9 September 2020, the Court in Division promulgated the Assailed
Decision dismissing the Petition for Review for being filed out oftime. 6
Accordingly, on 7 December 2020, petitioner moved for the
reconsideration of the Assailed Decision through a Motion for
Reconsideration. 7 The Court denied the same in the Assailed Resolution,
issued on 20 May 2021. 8
Thus, the instant Petition was filed before the Court En Bane on 25
October 2021.
Afterwards, this Court En Bane issued a Resolution, dated 16 February
2022, which dismissed the present case as petitioner failed to timely file an
appeal before the Court En Bane. 9
On 14 March 2022, petitioner filed, through registered mail, a Motion
for Reconsideration of the Resolution, dated 16 February 2022. Petitioner
alleged that the service of the Assailed Resolution before Atty. Marlo B.
Guiliano was improper as it was not made at the correct address of said
counsel and since the Assailed Resolution was merely served upon a security/
6
!d., p. 23.
7 !d., p. 4.
8
Assailed Resolution, Annex "A", Petition, /d., pp. 18-21.
9
/d., pp. 56-59.
DECISION
CTA £8 NO. 2520 (CTA Case No. 9703)
Page 4 of 15
guard who is not authorized to receive any pleadings on behalf of Atty.
Guiliano. Further, petitioner insisted that the service of the Assailed
Resolution to Atty. Guiliano did not start the running of the reglementary
period within which an appeal can be filed before the Court En Bane
considering that Atty. Guiliano is a mere corroborating counsel, and it is only
upon receipt by Atty. Noel L. Into, the main counsel of petitioner, of the
Assailed Resolution that the period to Appeal begins to run. 10 Respondent, on
2 May 2022, filed an Opposition (Re: Motion for Reconsideration of the
Decision dated 15 February 2022) interposing objections to petitioner's
Motion for Reconsideration. 11
In a Resolution, dated 29 June 2022, the Court En Bane reversed and
set aside its Resolution, dated 16 February 2022. The Court En Bane then
ordered respondents to file a Comment to the Petition. 12
Thus, on 6 July 2022, respondent filed his Comment.
On 26 July 2022, this Court En Bane issued a Resolution submitting the
case for Decision. 13
Hence, this Decision.
The Assigned Errors 14
In the Petition, petitioner raised the following issues for resolution by
the Court En Bane:
WHETHER OR NOT THE COURT IN
DIVISION CORRECTLY DISMISSED THE
23 OCTOBER 2017 PETITION FOR REVIEW
FOR BEING FILED OUT OF TIME;
WHETHER OR NOT A VOID ASSESSMENT
MAY BE ASSAILED ANYTIME;
IN THE ALTERNATIVE, ASSUMING AD
CAUTELAM THAT PETITIONER FILED A
BELATED APPEAL, WHETHER OR NOT /
THE COURT IN DIVISION SHOULD.Y"'
10
/d., pp. 62-92.
II /d., pp. 96-J 0 J.
12
/d., pp. I05-109.
11
/d.,pp.l16-119.
14 /d., p. 4.
DECISIO~
CT A EB NO. 2520 (CT A Case No. 9703)
Page 5 of 15
DISMISS THE CASE ON A MERE
TECHNICALITY;
WHETHER OR NOT RESPONDENT'S
RIGHT TO ASSESS THE DEFICIENCY TAX
OF PETITIONER FOR TY 2010 HAS
PRESCRIBED; and
IN THE ALTERNATIVE, ASSUMING AD
CAUTELAM THAT PRESCRIPTION DOES
NOT APPLY, WHETHER OR NOT
PETITIONER IS LIABLE TO PAY TAX
DEFICIENCIES FORTY 2010
Arguments of the Parties
Petitioner presented the following arguments in the Petition: 15
1. Petitioner timely filed its 23 October 2017 Petition for Review.
Petitioner received two (2) copies of the FDDA. The latest copy of the
FDDA was received on 19 October 201 7. Thus, when the Petition for
Review was filed before the Court in Division on 23 October 2017, the
same was timely filed.
a. Two (2) original copies of the FDDA were submitted in evidence
by petitioner before the Court in Division. Had the Court in
Division been more circumspect in examining the evidence
which petitioner offered, it would have found that the latest copy
of the FDDA was received on 19 October 2017. In fact, petitioner
himself testified that he received the latest copy of the FDDA on
19 October 201 7, and this was not refuted by respondents. For
failing to contest this factual allegation by petitioner, respondent
impliedly admitted that petitioner indeed received the latest copy
of the FDDA on 19 October 2017.
b. The Court in Division inappropriately considered only one
FDDA, which was the first one received by petitioner. The Court
in Division, in drafting the Assailed Decision, solely considered
Exhibit "P-1 ",the first copy of the FDDA received by petitioner,
despite the fact that Exhibit "P-13", which was the second copy
of the FDDA received by petitioner, was likewise offered in
evidence by petitioner. The Court in Division should have also
examined and considered the aforementioned evidence before
deciding the present case .. /
15
!d.• pp. 5-14.
DECISIO~
CTA EB NO. 2520 (CTA Case No. 9703)
Page 6of 15
c. The BIR willfully suppressed evidence as to the date of actual
receipt of the FDDA. Had they presented the registry receipts,
the Court in Division would have found that the FDDA was
indeed received by petitioner only on 19 October 2017.
d. Respondent had the burden of proof in producing the date of
receipt of the FDDA. He had the burden to present the registry
receipt of the assessment notices to prove that the assessment
notice had been released, mailed, and sent. The Court in Division
inappropriately shifted the aforesaid burden of proof to herein
petitioner.
2. Void assessments may be assailed anytime. Section 203 of the NIRC
only accepts assessments made within three (3) years. Petitioner filed
his income tax return ("ITR") on 15 April 2011, while the assessment
transpired on 16 November 2015, per Amended FLD. Between those
two dates, more than three (3) years had elapsed. Thus, respondents'
assessment had already prescribed. A prescribed assessment is wholly
void and may be assailed anytime.
3. Technical rules of procedure should be relaxed in this instance.
4. Petitioner is not liable for tax deficiencies forTY 2010.
In his Comment, respondent alleged that the Court in Division properly
dismissed the Petition for Review as the same was filed out of time. Contrary
to petitioner's stance, respondent offered in evidence a registry receipt which
showed that the FDDA was mailed on 6 September 2017, and the same was
duly received by petitioner's authorized representative, Nelson Bongabong,
on 14 September 2017. Accordingly, petitioner only had until 14 October
2017 (i.e., thirty (30) days from receipt of the FDDA) within which to file a
Petition for Review before the Court in Division. However, petitioner only
filed a Petition for Review before the Court in Division on 23 October 2017.
Clearly, the Court in Division had no jurisdiction to entertain the Petition for
Review. 16
The Ruling of the Court En Bane
This Court resolves to DENY the Petition for lack of merit./
16 /d., pp. 110-113.
DECISIO"'
CTA EB NO. 2520 (CTI\ Case No. 9703)
Page 7 of 15
The Court En Bane has
jurisdiction over the Petition.
Section 2 (a) (1), Rule 4 of the Revised Rules of the Court of Tax
Appeals ("CTA'') ("RRCTA'') 17 provides that the Court En Bane shall
exercise exclusive appellate jurisdiction to review by appeal the decisions or
resolutions on motions for reconsideration or new trial of the Court in Division
in the exercise of its exclusive appellate jurisdiction over cases arising from
the BIR.
In the present case, petitioner seeks to appeal the Assailed Decision,
dated 9 September 2020, and Assailed Resolution, dated 20 May 2021, of the
Court in Division which disposed of an appeal of a FDDA issued by the
Commissioner of Internal Revenue ("CIR"). Clearly, therefore, the subject
matter of the present case falls under the appellate jurisdiction of the Court En
Bane.
What remains to be determined is if the appeal before this Court En
Bane was timely filed. Section 3 (b), Rule 8 of the RRCTA provides that "[a]
party adversely affected by a decision or resolution of a Division of the Court
on a motion for reconsideration or new trial may appeal to the Court by filing
before it a petition for review within fifteen days from receipt of a copy of the
questioned decision or resolution."
As duly found by the Court En Bane in the Resolution, dated 29 June
2022, petitioner's main counsel, Atty. Into, received the Assailed Resolution
only on 20 August 2021. 18 Counting from said date, petitioner had until 4
September 2021 within which to file an appeal before the Court En Bane.
However, in view of the Modified Enhanced Community Quarantine in the
National Capital Region, which suspended the reglementary periods for the
filings of petitions, appeals, complaints, motions, pleadings, and other court
submissions, the Supreme Court issued Office of the Court Administrator
Circulars Nos. 117-2021 and 120-2021 and Administrative Circular No. 83-
2021, basically extending the submission of court pleadings until27 October
2021. Thus, when petitioner filed the instant Petition on 25 October 2021, the
same was timely filed.
Accordingly, the Court En Bane has jurisdiction over the instant
Petition~
17 A.M. No. 05-11-07-CTA.
18
Records. pp. I 05-109.
DECISION
CT A EB NO. 2520 (CT A Case No 9703)
Page 8 of 15
Due to petitioner's failure to
timely file the Petition for
Review before the Court in
Division, the latter did not
acquire jurisdiction over the
present case.
Before the Court in Division can rule on the arguments set forth by the
parties, it must first determine whether or not it has jurisdiction over the
present case. As plainly stated in Radiowealth Finance Co., Inc. v. Orande, 19
"O]urisdiction is defined as the power and authority of a court to try, hear, and
decide a case. In order for the court to have authority to dispose of the
case on the merits, it must acquire among others, jurisdiction over the
subject matter, which is conferred by law."
The jurisdiction of CTA is conferred by Republic Act No. ("RA '')
20
1125, as amended by RA 9282, 21 which provides as follows:
"SEC. 11. Who May Appeal; Mode of Appeal; Effect of AppeaL-
Any party adversely affected by a decision, ruling or inaction of the
Commissioner of Internal Revenue xxx may file an appeal with the
CT A within thirty (30) days after the receipt of such decision or
ruling or after the expiration of the period fixed by law for action as
referred to in Section 7(a)(2) herein.
Anneal shall be made by filing a petition for review under a
procedure analogous to that provided for under Rule 42 ofthe 1997
Rules of Civil Procedure with the CTA within thirty (30) days from
the receipt of the decision or ruling or in the case of inaction as herein
provided, from the expiration of the period fixed by law to act thereon.
XXX. "
(Emphases and underscoring supplied.)
Particularly for deficiency tax assessment cases, the jurisdiction of the
CTA can be cross-referenced with Section 228 of the NIRC, to wit:
"SEC. 228. Protesting of Assessment.- When the Commissioner or his duly
authorized representative finds that proper taxes should be assessed, he shall
first notify the taxpayer of his findings: Provided, however, 1)at a
preassessment notice shall not be required in the following cases/
XXX XXX XXX
19
G.R. No. 227148, II January 2023.
20
AN CREATING THE COURT OF TAX APPEALS.
21
AN ACT EXPANDING THE JURISDICTION OF THE COURT OF TAX APPEALS (CTA),
ELEVATING ITS RANK TO THE LEVEL OF A COLLEGIATE COURT WITH SPECIAL
JURISDICTION AND ENLARGING ITS MEMBERSHIP, AMENDING FOR THE PURPOSE
CERTAIN SECTIONS OF REPUBLIC ACT NO.! 125, AS AMENDED, OTHERWISE KNOWN AS
THE LAW CREATING THE COURT OF TAX APPEALS, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES.
DECISIO"
CT A EB NO. 2520 (CT A Case No. 9703)
Page 9 of 15
Within a period to be prescribed by implementing rules and regulations, the
taxpayer shall be required to respond to said notice. If the taxpayer fails to
respond, the Commissioner or his duly authorized representative shall issue
an assessment based on his findings.
Such assessment may be protested administratively by filing a request for
reconsideration or reinvestigation within thirty (30) days from receipt of the
assessment in such form and manner as may be prescribed by implementing
rules and regulations. Within sixty (60) days from filing of the protest, all
relevant supporting documents shall have been submitted; otherwise, the
assessment shall become final.
If the protest is denied in whole or in part, or is not acted upon within
one hundred eighty (180) days from submission of documents, the
taxpayer adversely affected by the decision or inaction may appeal to
the Court of Tax Appeals within thirtv (30) days from receipt of the
said decision, or from the lapse of the one hundred eighty (180)-day period;
otherwise, the decision shall become final, executory and demandable."
(Emphases and underscoring supplied.)
As provided in the above cited provisions, the CTA can only acquire
jurisdiction over a deficiency tax assessment case if the taxpayer timely files
an appeal before the CT A within thirty (30) days from receipt of the adverse
decision by the CIR or from the lapse of the one hundred eighty ( 180) days
given to the CIR to decide on disputed tax assessment cases.
In the case at bar, the adverse decision appealable before the Court in
Division is the FDDA. Petitioner alleges in the Petition that he received two
(2) copies of the FDDA, the latest of such it received on 19 October 2017.
Petitioner argues that since the latest copy of the FDDA was received on 19
October 2017, the Petition for Review was timely filed before the Court in
Division on 23 October 2017. Petitioner further posits that the latest copy of
the FDDA was offered in evidence as Exhibit "P-13", and the Court in
Division erred in disregarding such proof which showed that he indeed timely
filed his Petition for Review.
Petitioner's contentions are terribly misplaced.
Contrary to petitioner's insistence, there is nothing in Exhibit "P-13"
which will show that said copy of the FDDA was received on 19 October
2017. Exhibit "P-13" does not contain any markings, such as handwritten
proofs of receipt, showing that said copy of the FDDA was indeed received
on 19 Octol;J.er 2017. 22 Thus, petitioner's allegations have no leg upon which
to stand.Y
22
Exhibit "'P-13". Division Records, pp. 83-87.
DECISIO'i
CTA EB NO. 2520 (CTA Case No. 9703)
Page 10of15
Basic is the rule that mere allegation is not evidence and is not
equivalent to proof. An allegation is self-serving and devoid of any
evidentiary weight if not corroborated by other pieces of evidence. 23
Accordingly, bare allegations without proof deserve no credence. 24
Petitioner's sole basis in claiming that he received the latest copy of the
FDDA on 19 October 2017 is his very own testimony during cross-
examination.25 However, such testimony does not even work to petitioner's
advantage as he struggled to support his allegation that the second FDDA was
indeed received on 19 October 2017.
As duly found by the Court in Division, petitioner simply stated that he
received the FDDA in two instances, the first FDDA on 22 September 2017
and the second FDDA on 19 October 2017, without adducing proof to support
such claim, viz. :26
"Moreover, petitioner casually stated in his judicial affidavit
that he received the first FDDA on September 22, 2017 and the second
FDDA on October 19, 2017. When asked by respondent's counsel,
during his cross examinations, tor empirical proof that he indeed
received the alleged FDDAs on the said dates, other than his bare
allegation, petitioner answered as follows:
'ATIY. MANZANARES:
Q. Moving on Mr. Witness, on your Judicial Affidavit
specifically in Question No. 4, you were asked, when did you receive
the FDDA, Final Decision on Disputed Assessment, and you
answered, 'I received the first FDDA on September 22, 2017 and the
second FDDA on October 19, 2017'. Mr. Witness, do you have any
proof of receipt of FDDA on September 22 and October 19?
MR. TORREGOSA:
A. No, sir.
ATIY. MANZANARES:
Q. You have no proof of receipt of first FDDA on September
22,2017?
MR. TORREGOSA:
A. Yes, sir.
ATIY. MANZANARES:
Q. Yes? What is your answer, is it a yes or a no?
MR. TORREG98A:
A. Yes, sir._.../'
23
Amalia S. Menez v. Status Maritime Corporation, et al., G.R. No. 227523, 29 August 2018.
24
International Finance Corp. v. Imperial Textile Mills Inc., G.R. No. 160324, 15 November 2005, 511
PHIL 591-605.
25
Assailed Decision, Annex "B", Petition, !d., pp. 35-37.
26
Ibid.
DECISION
CTA t:B NO. 2520 (CTA Case No. 9703)
Page II of15
ATTY. MANZANARES:
Q. You would like to assume that you have a proof of your
receipt?
MR. TORREGOSA:
A. I assume we have received.
ATTY. MANZANARES :
Q. You received. And what I am asking is your proof of
receipt if you have any to support your answer?
MR. TORREGOSA:
A. I received on September 22, sir and the second was on
October 19, Your Honors.
JUSTICE CASTANEDA:
Did you acknowledge receipt?
MR. TORREGOSA:
A. Actually it was my Secretary.
JUSTICE CASTANEDA:
In the BIR Records, is there any acknowledgemen t?
A TTY. MANZANARES:
Based on record, Your Honor, the FDDA does not bear any
receipt particularly September 22, 2017."
(Emphasis, Ours)
This testimony does not in any way convince this Court En Bane that
petitioner actually received the second copy ofthe FDDA on 19 October 2017.
Instead, the Court En Bane agrees with the ruling ofthe Court in Division that
petitioner failed to discharge his burden in proving his claimed date of receipt
ofthe FDDA.
Tax litigation is akin to a civil suit. Hence, the party who asserts has the
burden to prove his or her assertion, as explained by the Supreme Court in
Spouses Cipriano Pamplona and Bibiana Intac v. Spouses Lilia I. Cueto
and Vedasto Cueto: 27
"[T]he burden of prooflies in the party who asserts, not in the party
who denies because the latter, by the nature of things, cannot produce any
proof of the assertion denied. Equally true is the dictum that mere
allegations cannot take the place of evidence. The party making an
allegation in a civil case has the burden of proving the allegation by
preponderance of evidence. In this connection, preponderance of evidence
is the weight, credit, and value of the aggregate evidence on either side and
is usually considered to be synonymous with the term 'greater weight of
evidence' or 'greater weight of credible evidence.'/
27
G.R. No. 204735, 19 February 2018.
'
DECISION
CT A EB NO. 2520 (CT A Case No. 9703)
Page 12ofl5
Thus, it was erroneous for petitioner to claim that the burden of proving
and determining the actual date of receipt of the FDDA was on respondent.
Petitioner, here, is the one alleging that he received the FDDA in two (2)
separate occasions: the first on 22 September 2017 and the second on 19
October 20 I 7. Hence, as the party asserting the same, it is petitioner who has
the duty to adduce evidence to support such allegations. He cannot shift such
burden to respondent, especially since the success of his case (i.e., that the
Court in Division obtained jurisdiction over the present tax issue) is dependent
on such assertion (i.e., that copies of the FDDA were received on 22
September 2017 and 19 October 201 7 and hence that the Petition for Review
was timely filed with the Court in Division) being proven.
Coming from the testimony of petitioner himself, it was his secretary
who actually acknowledged receipt of the FDDA. Accordingly, it was
incumbent upon petitioner to present the testimony of such secretary to
establish his claimed date of receipt of the FDDA. Petitioner cannot simply
rely on his own testimony that copies of the FDDA were received on 22
September 2017 and 19 October 2017 primarily because he had no personal
knowledge of the actual receipt of the copies of the FDDA.
The need for petitioner to adduce evidence that he actually received
copies of the FDDA on 22 September 2017 and 19 October 2017 is all the
more important considering that respondent presented positive evidence (i.e.,
the registry receipt and testimony of a revenue officer) showing that a copy of
the FDDA was actually received by an authorized representative of petitioner
(i.e., Mr. Bongabong) on 14 September 2017 .zs
Between petitioner's mere allegation without corresponding proof and
respondent's positive evidence as regards the actual date of receipt of the
FDDA, the latter deserves more weight. Hence, this Court En Bane, similar to
the findings of the Court in Division, finds that the FDDA was actually
received by petitioner on 14 September 2017.
Counting from 14 September 201 7, petitioner only had until 14 October
2017 to file a Petition for Review before the Court in Division. Thus, when
petitioner filed the Petition for Review before the Court in Division on 23
October 2017, he was already nine (9) days late. Consequently, since the
timely filing of an appeal before the CTA is jurisdictional, the Court in
Division did not acquire jurisdiction over the present issue.
Elementary is the rule that "findings of fact by the CTA in Division are
not to be disturbed without any showing of grave abuse of discretion
considering that the members of the Division are in the best position to~
28
Assailed Decision, Annex "8", Petition,/d, pp. 35-37.
DECISION
CT A EB NO. 2520 (CTA Case No 9703)
Page 13 ofl5
analyze the documents presented by the parties." 29 Accordingly, as petitioner
failed to show any grave abuse of discretion on the part of the Court in
Division, this Court En Bane has no reason to reverse or modify the factual
findings of the former.
More importantly, as the Court in Division did not acquire jurisdiction
over the present tax issue, the said Court cannot tackle the merits of the case.
Assuming that petitioner's argument (i.e., that the present tax assessment has
already prescribed) is true, the same still cannot be passed upon by the Court
in Division, regardless of whether or not a void assessment can be assailed
anytime, since the said Court did not acquire the authority to rule on the
present case. Simply put, before a void assessment can be cancelled, the CTA
must first acquire jurisdiction over a tax case through a timely filing of an
appeal.
Further, as this Court En Bane merely exercises appellate powers over
the decisions, resolutions and orders issued by the Court in Division/ 0 it is
likewise constrained from ruling on the merits of the present case since the
Court in Division did not initially acquire jurisdiction over the present tax
ISSUe.
Rules of procedure cannot be simply brushed aside at the will of the
parties especially in this case wherein the timeliness of an appeal is
jurisdictional. The Supreme Court itself emphasized this point in Land Bank
ofthe Philippines v. The Court of Appeals and Heirs ofManuel Bolanos, 31
to wit:
"The bare invocation of 'the interest of substantial justice' line is
not some magic wand that will automatically compel us to suspend
procedural rules. Procedural rules are not to be belittled, let alone dismissed
simply because their non-observance may have resulted in prejudice to a
party's substantial rights. Utter disregard of the rules cannot be justly
rationalized by harping on the policy of liberal construction."
Following the above discussions, this Court En Bane deems it
unnecessary to resolve the remaining issues.
WHEREFORE, the instant Petition is hereby DENIED for lack of
merit. Accordingly, the Assailed Decision, dated 9 September 2020, and
Assailed Resolution, dated 20 Ma~2021, promulgated by the Court in
Division are hereby AFFIRMED /
29
Republic of the Philippines. represented by the Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Team (Phi Is.)
Energy Corporation (formerly Mirant (Phils.) Energy Corporation), G.R. No. !880!6, 14 January 2015,
citing Sea-Land Service, Inc. v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 122605, 30 April200 I.
30
Section 2, Rule 4, RRCTA, A.M. No. 05-11-07-CTA.
31
G.R. No.221636,11 July2016.
DECISION
CTA EB NO. 2520 (CT A Case No. 9703)
Pagel4ofl5
SO ORDERED.
WE CONCUR:
Presiding Justice
~. ~ --z· ~
MA. BELEN M. RINGPIS-LIBAN
Associate Justice
~ ·J'.~~et.~·~~-
CATHERINE T. MANAHAN
Associate Justice
....-
JEANMA~~VILLENA sso iate Justice
(On Official Business)
MARIAN IVY F. REYES-FAJARDO
Associate Justice
LAN~~~D
Associate Justice
c~{f.'F~S
OECISIO~
CTA EB NO_ 2520 (CTA Case No. 9703)
Page 15 of 15
CERTIFIC ATION
Pursuant to Article VIII, Section 13 of the Constitution, it is hereby
certified that the conclusions in the above Decision were reached in
consultation before the case was assigned to the writer of the opinion of the
Court.
