Case Digest (G.R. No. 205925)
Facts:
Bases Conversion and Development Authority v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, G.R. No. 205925, June 20, 2018, Supreme Court Second Division, Reyes, Jr., J., writing for the Court.Petitioner Bases Conversion and Development Authority (BCDA) sought review before the Court of Tax Appeals (CTA) to preserve its claim for refund of Creditable Withholding Tax (CWT) totaling P122,079,442.53, which it paid under protest between March 19 and October 8, 2008, in connection with sales under the Serendra Project joint development. BCDA filed its petition for review with the CTA on October 8, 2010, accompanied by a Request for Exemption from the Payment of Filing Fees (Php1,209,457.90), asserting exemption from docket fees.
On October 20, 2010, the CTA First Division denied BCDA’s exemption request and ordered payment of the filing fees within five days. BCDA’s motion for reconsideration was denied on February 8, 2011, again requiring payment within five days. BCDA then filed a petition for review with the CTA En Banc on February 25, 2011, which was returned and “not deemed filed” for nonpayment of the correct legal fees. On March 28, 2011, the CTA First Division dismissed BCDA’s petition for review for failure to pay the prescribed fees. BCDA attempted to file a Motion for Reconsideration (including checks) but the First Division’s Officer‑In‑Charge refused to accept them; BCDA then mailed the motion by registered mail.
The CTA First Division issued a resolution on April 26, 2011 directing its clerk to accept BCDA’s mailed motion and to commence the procedure for paying docket fees if BCDA opted to pursue the case, but on June 9, 2011 it denied BCDA’s motions for reconsideration. BCDA again petitioned the CTA En Banc (June 28, 2011), which in its Decision of August 29, 2012 affirmed the First Division’s dismissal, holding that payment in full of docket fees within the prescribed period is mandatory and that the CTA had not acquired jurisdiction over the case. BCDA’...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Did the CTA En Banc err in ruling that BCDA is not a government instrumentality and therefore not exempt from payment of legal/docket fees?
- Did the CTA En Banc err in affirming the dismissal of BCDA’s petition for review for non‑payment of the prescribed legal fees within th...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)