Case Digest (G.R. No. 168498)
Facts:
Rizal Commercial Banking Corporation v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, G.R. No. 168498, April 24, 2007, Supreme Court Third Division, Ynares‑Santiago, J., writing for the Court.Petitioner Rizal Commercial Banking Corporation (RCBC) sought review of tax assessments imposed by the Commissioner of Internal Revenue (CIR). RCBC filed a petition for review with the Court of Tax Appeals (CTA) after the CIR allegedly failed to act on a disputed assessment within the 180‑day period provided by Section 228 of the National Internal Revenue Code of 1997 (NIRC). The CTA Second Division dismissed RCBC’s petition for review as filed beyond the 30‑day period after the 180‑day lapse; RCBC did not timely move for reconsideration of that dismissal.
RCBC later filed a Petition for Relief from Judgment and a Motion for Reconsideration before the CTA Second Division (C.T.A. Case No. 6475), both of which were denied by resolutions dated May 3 and November 5, 2004. The CTA En Banc, in C.T.A. EB No. 50, affirmed the Second Division by Decision dated June 7, 2005. RCBC elevated the matter to the Supreme Court; the Court rendered a Decision on June 16, 2006 affirming the CTA. RCBC then filed a Motion for Reconsideration of the Supreme Court’s June 16, 2006 Decision.
In its motion, RCBC principally argued (A) that denial of its petition for relief from judgment will deny substantive justice because the assessment had already prescribed; (B) that, following the Lascona line and the 2005 Revised Rules of the CTA, its petition for review was timely and the CTA had jurisdiction; and (C) that, because the assessment involved an industry issue (documentary stamp tax on special savings accounts and gross onshore tax), it should be allowed to fully litigate the matter in the interest of uniformity. RCBC also asserted that its former counsel’s failure to file timely was excusable because the counsel’s secretary misplaced the CTA Resolution.
The Supreme Court denied the motion for reconsideration. It held that counsel’s neglect did not meet the standard of excusable neglect, reiterated the jurisdictional and mandatory nature of the 30‑day filing period after the 180‑day lapse under Section 228 and the CTA rules, and refused to consider RCBC’s prescription argument because it was raised for the first time in the motion for reconsideration. The Court relied on statutory provisions (R.A. No. 9282 amending R.A. No. 1125; NIRC Section 228), CTA Revised Rules (Rule 4 §3; Rule 8 §3(a), A.M. No. 05‑11‑07‑CTA), and precedents including ...(Pro-only)
Issues:
- Was petitioner’s counsel’s neglect excusable to warrant relief from judgment?
- Did the Court of Tax Appeals have jurisdiction because petitioner timely filed its petition for review under the Lascona line and the 2005 Revised Rules of the CTA?
- May petitioner raise prescription and other substantive defenses for the first time in its motion for reconsidera...(Pro-only)
Ruling:
- (Pro-only)
Ratio:
- (Pro-only)
Doctrine:
- (Pro-only)