Case Digest (G.R. No. 75663)
Facts:
The case involves Antonio G. Ambrosio as the petitioner against the Intermediate Appellate Court and the Commissioner of Internal Revenue as respondents. The events leading to this case began with the probate proceedings for the will and settlement of the estate of Juliana Vda. de Gabriel in the Court of First Instance of Manila. The Commissioner of Internal Revenue filed a formal claim against the estate, seeking payment of P318,223.93 for the decedent's deficiency income tax for the year 1978. The Commissioner asserted that a demand letter and Assessment Notice had been sent to the decedent's address, and since there was no contest to the assessment within the legal timeframe, it had become final and executory. Ambrosio, appointed as the estate's "Auditor-Tax Consultant," opposed the claim, arguing that the assessment was improperly served, as the demand was sent almost four years after the decedent's death and addressed to the Philippine Trust Com...
Case Digest (G.R. No. 75663)
Facts:
Background of the Case:
The case involves the probate of the will and settlement of the testate estate of the late Juliana Vda. de Gabriel. The Commissioner of Internal Revenue (CIR) filed a claim against the estate for P318,223.93, representing the decedent's deficiency income tax liability for 1978.The Claim and Opposition:
The CIR alleged that a demand letter and Assessment Notice No. NARD-78-I-82-00501 were sent to the decedent, but the estate, represented by Antonio G. Ambrosio, opposed the claim. Ambrosio argued that the assessment was improperly served, as it was sent four years after the decedent's death and addressed to the Philippine Trust Company, not the decedent. He also contended that the claim was barred by prescription.Probate Court's Decision:
The Probate Court denied the CIR's claim. The CIR timely filed a notice of appeal but mistakenly pursued a petition for review instead of an ordinary appeal. The Court of Appeals granted extensions for filing the petition for review and later treated it as a record on appeal.Appeal Proceedings:
The CIR filed a petition for review with the Court of Appeals, which Ambrosio moved to dismiss, arguing that the proper remedy was an ordinary appeal requiring a record on appeal. The Court of Appeals, however, gave due course to the appeal, treating the petition for review as a record on appeal.
Issue:
- Whether the Court of Appeals correctly treated the CIR's petition for review as a record on appeal, despite the procedural error in filing a petition for review instead of an ordinary appeal.
- Whether the CIR's failure to file a record on appeal within the prescribed period warranted the dismissal of the appeal.
- Whether the Court of Appeals acted within its discretion in giving due course to the appeal despite the procedural irregularity.
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Conclusion:
The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, emphasizing that courts should prioritize the resolution of cases on their merits over strict adherence to procedural technicalities. The Court of Appeals' decision to treat the petition for review as a record on appeal was upheld as a reasonable and justifiable exercise of discretion.