Case Digest (G.R. No. 168498)
Facts:
Rizal Commercial Banking Corporation v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, G.R. No. 168498, June 16, 2006, Supreme Court First Division, Ynares‑Santiago, J., writing for the Court. The petition is a Rule 45 appeal from the Court of Tax Appeals (CTA) En Banc decision of June 7, 2005 affirming CTA Second Division Resolutions of May 3, 2004 and November 5, 2004 denying petitioner’s Petition for Relief from Judgment and its Motion for Reconsideration in C.T.A. Case No. 6475.On May 25, 2001 the Commissioner of Internal Revenue issued a Formal Letter of Demand to Rizal Commercial Banking Corporation for alleged 1997 tax liabilities: Gross Onshore Tax (P53,998,428.29) and Documentary Stamp Tax on Special Savings Placements (P46,717,952.76). Petitioner filed a protest under Section 228 of the National Internal Revenue Code (NIRC) on July 20, 2001 and, after the Commissioner did not act, elevated the matter to the CTA by filing a petition for review on April 30, 2002 (C.T.A. Case No. 6475).
Respondent moved (July 15, 2003) to resolve first the CTA’s jurisdiction; the CTA granted that motion and, in a Resolution dated September 10, 2003, dismissed the petition for review as filed beyond the 30‑day period following the lapse of the 180‑day period provided in Section 228 and Section 11 of R.A. No. 1125. Petitioner did not file a motion for reconsideration or appeal to the CTA En Banc, so the September 10, 2003 Resolution became final and executory (October 1, 2003) and Entry of Judgment was recorded on December 1, 2003. Respondent thereafter issued a demand for payment.
On February 20, 2004 petitioner filed a Petition for Relief from Judgment under Rule 38 (alleging excusable negligence by its counsel’s secretary who supposedly misfiled/lost the September 10, 2003 Resolution). The CTA Second Division heard the petition (counsel appeared and orally argued on April 2, 2004) but denied relief i...(Pro-only)
Issues:
- Was petitioner denied due process when the CTA denied its request to adduce evidence of excusable negligence in support of its Petition for Relief from Judgment?
- Was petitioner entitled to relief from judgment under Rule 38 on the ground of excusable negligence by its counsel?
- Even if relief were granted, would petitioner’s action for cancellation of the tax assessments remain timely, or was it barred by the jurisdictional time limits in Section ...(Pro-only)
Ruling:
- (Pro-only)
Ratio:
- (Pro-only)
Doctrine:
- (Pro-only)