Documente Academic
Documente Profesional
Documente Cultură
*
COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, petitioner,
vs. COURT OF TAX APPEALS and CBK POWER
COMPANY LIMITED, respondents.
_______________
* THIRD DIVISION.
213
PERALTA, J.:
_______________
1 Penned by Associate Justice Lovell R. Bautista, with Associate
Justices Olga PalancaEnriquez and Amelia R. CotangcoManalastas,
concurring, Rollo, p. 24.
2 Id., at pp. 2526.
3 Id., at pp. 3233.
214
_______________
4 Records, p. 81.
215
On January 6, 2012, petitioner filed a Motion to Lift
Order of Default6 alleging that the failure to attend the
pretrial conference on November 3, 2011 was due to
confusion in office procedure in relation to the consolidation
of CTA Case No. 8246 with CTA Case No. 8302 since the
latter was being handled by a different lawyer; that when
the pretrial conference was reset to December 1, 2011,
petitioners counsel, Atty. Sandico, had to attend the
hearing of another case in the CTAs First Division also at
9:00 a.m., hence, he unintentionally missed the pretrial
conference of the consolidated cases. Private respondent
was ordered to file its comment on the motion to lift order
of default but failed to do so.
On April 19, 2012, the CTA issued the second assailed
Resolution denying the motion to lift order of default,
stating among others:
_______________
5 Rollo, p. 24.
6 Id., at pp. 2731.
216
Petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration on April 27,
2012. The CTA directed private respondent to file its
Comment thereto but failed to do so.
In a Resolution dated June 13, 2012, the CTA denied the
motion for reconsideration.
Petitioner files the instant petition for certiorari raising
the following grounds for the allowance of the petition.
_______________
7 Id., at p. 26.
217
We first address the procedural issue raised by private
respondent in its Comment. Private respondent claims that
petitioner chose an erroneous remedy when it filed a
petition for certiorari with us since the proper remedy on
any adverse resolution of any division of the CTA is an
appeal by way of a petition for review with the CTA En
Banc; that it is provided under Section 2(a)(1) of Rule 4 of
the Revised Rules of the Court of Tax Appeals (RRCTA)
that the Court En Banc shall exercise exclusive appellate
jurisdiction to review by appeal the decision or resolutions
on motions for reconsideration or new trial of the Court in
division in the exercise of its exclusive appellate
jurisdiction over cases arising from administrative agencies
such as the Bureau of Internal Revenue.
We are not persuaded.
In Santos v. People, et al.9 where petitioner argues that
a resolution of a CTA Division denying a motion to quash,
an interlocutory order, is a proper subject of an appeal to
the CTA En Banc under Section 18 of Republic Act No.
1125, as amended, we ruled in the negative and disposed
the argument as follows:
_______________
218
There was no need for such rule under Republic Act No. 1125,
prior to its amendment, since the CTA then was composed only of
one Presiding Judge and two Associate Judges. Any two Judges
constituted a quorum and the concurrence of two Judges was
necessary to promulgate any decision thereof.
The amendments introduced by Republic Act No. 9282 to
Republic Act No. 1125 elevated the rank of the CTA to a collegiate
court, with the same rank as the Court of Appeals, and increased
the number of its members to one Presiding Justice and five
Associate Justices. The CTA is now allowed to sit En Banc or in
two Divisions with each Division consisting of three Justices. Four
Justices shall constitute a quorum for sessions En Banc, and the
affirmative votes of four members of the Court En Banc are
necessary for the rendition of a decision or resolution; while two
Justices shall constitute a quorum for sessions of a Division and
the affirmative votes of two members of the Division shall be
necessary for the rendition of a decision or resolution.
In A.M. No. 051107CTA, the Revised CTA Rules, this Court
delineated the jurisdiction of the CTA En Banc and in Divisions.
Section 2, Rule 4 of the Revised CTA Rules recognizes the
exclusive appellate jurisdiction of the CTA En Banc to review by
appeal the following decisions, resolutions, or orders of the CTA
Division:
219
220
RULE 7
PROCEDURE IN THE COURT OF TAX APPEALS
RULE 8
PROCEDURE IN CIVIL CASES
xxx xxx xxx
SEC. 4. Where to appeal; mode of appeal.
xxx xxx xxx
221
_______________
222
Given the differences between a final judgment and an
interlocutory order, there is no doubt that the CTA Order
dated December 23, 2011 granting private respondents
motion to
_______________
223
Hence, petitioners filing of the instant petition for
certiorari assailing the interlocutory orders issued by the
CTA is in conformity with the above quoted provision.
As to the merit of the petition, petitioner argues that the
order declaring it as in default and allowing the ex parte
presentation of private respondents evidence was excessive
as it has no intention of defying the scheduled pretrial
conferences.
In Calalang v. Court of Appeals,13 we held that unless a
partys conduct is so negligent, irresponsible,
contumacious,
_______________
13 G.R. No. 103185, January 22, 1993, 217 SCRA 462, 470.
224
It appears, however, that the CTA proceeded with the ex
parte reception of private respondents evidence and had
already rendered its decision on the merits on June 10,
2014 ordering petitioner to issue a tax certificate in favor of
private respondent in the reduced amount of
P22,126,419.93 representing unutilized input VAT incurred
in relation to its zerorated sales of electricity to the NPC
for the first and second quarters of 2009. Petitioner filed a
motion for reconsideration which the CTA had also denied.
Petitioner then filed a peti
_______________
14 Bahia Shipping Services, Inc. v. Mosquera, 467 Phil. 766, 722; 423
SCRA 305, 308 (2004).
15 Akut v. Court of Appeals, 201 Phil. 680, 687; 116 SCRA 213, 219
(1982).
16 Id.
226
_______________