Case Digest (G.R. No. 111184)
Facts:
Magsaysay Lines, Inc., et al., G.R. No. 111184, August 12, 1996, Supreme Court Third Division, Panganiban, J., writing for the Court. Petitioners are Magsaysay Lines, Inc., Baliwag Navigation, Inc., FIM Limited of the Marden Group (HK) and the National Development Company; respondents are the Court of Appeals and the Commissioner of Internal Revenue. The petition to the Supreme Court is a Rule 65 petition for certiorari and prohibition seeking to annul two Resolutions of the Court of Appeals concerning a petition for review from a decision of the Court of Tax Appeals (CTA).On April 10 and July 14, 1989, petitioners filed an "Appeal and Petition for Refund" and a supplemental petition in the CTA contesting certain VAT rulings and seeking refund of P15,120,000 allegedly erroneously paid in 10% VAT on sale of five vessels. The CTA, in CTA No. 4354, rendered judgment on April 27, 1992 ordering the Commissioner to refund P15,120,000. The Commissioner's motion for reconsideration was denied by CTA resolution dated December 9, 1992, which the Commissioner received on January 6, 1993.
On January 6, 1993 the Commissioner, through the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG), filed a motion in the Court of Appeals for a 30-day extension (until February 6, 1993) to file a petition for review. On February 5, 1993 the OSG filed a second motion seeking another 30-day extension (until March 8, 1993); the second motion bore a February 5, 1993 receipt stamp by the Court of Appeals. The Court of Appeals issued a Resolution dated February 3, 1993 (received by OSG on February 11) granting the first 30-day extension but warning that no further extension would be entertained. The petition for review was eventually filed by registered mail on March 8, 1993 (dated March 5, 1993), i.e., within the period sought in the second motion.
In a May 3, 1993 Resolution the Court of Appeals denied admission of the petition for review and dismissed the petition for failure to file within the extension granted, citing Section 1(f), Rule 50 of the Revised Rules of Court. The Commissioner moved for reconsideration; the Court of Appeals, in a July 27, 1993 Resolution, granted the motion for reconsideration, set aside the May 3 dismissal, and direct...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Did the Court of Appeals commit grave abuse of discretion in setting aside its May 3, 1993 Resolution dismissing the petition for review and directing respondents to file comments?
- Should the technical rules on reglementary periods for appeal be strictly applied to bar the Government from appealing a CTA decision ordering...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)