Apex Mining v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Petitioner Apex Mining Co., Inc. (Apex) was engaged in mining and selling minerals. During January to June 1988, Apex produced its own minerals and purchased from small-scale miners. The Bureau of Internal Revenue (BIR) assessed Apex for deficiency excise tax on minerals purchased from small-scale miners and on its own production. Procedural History: Apex protested the assessment. The BIR advised Apex to pay the uncontested portion of the deficiency tax on its own mineral products. Apex protested the ad valorem tax on minerals purchased from small-scale miners, while not contesting the assessment on its own production. The BIR denied the protest on minerals purchased from small-scale miners and demanded payment for both. Apex filed a petition for review with the Court of Tax Appeals (CTA). The CTA ordered Apex to pay the ad valorem tax on its own mineral products but declared the assessment for deficiency excise tax on minerals purchased from small-scale miners cancelled for lack of legal basis. The Commissioner of Internal Revenue appealed to the Court of Appeals (CA). The Petition: The CA modified the CTA decision, upholding the assessment of ad valorem tax on minerals purchased by Apex from small-scale miners and subsequently sold to the Central Bank. Apex received the CA decision on September 11, 1995. It filed a motion for extension of time to file a motion for reconsideration on September 22, 1995, and the motion for reconsideration itself on October 11, 1995. The CA denied the motion for extension and the motion for reconsideration for being filed out of time. Apex filed the instant petition for review on certiorari.
Issue(s)
Whether the Court of Appeals erred in upholding the assessment of deficiency excise tax on minerals purchased by petitioner from small-scale miners. Whether the Court of Appeals erred in denying petitioner's motion for extension of time to file a motion for reconsideration and the motion for reconsideration itself.
Ruling
The petition is DENIED. The Court of Appeals' decision has become final and executory due to petitioner's failure to file a timely motion for reconsideration.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of upholding the assessment of deficiency excise tax on minerals purchased from small-scale miners: This issue was rendered moot by the finality of the Court of Appeals' decision. The Court noted that the appellate court upheld the assessment, reasoning that the excise tax on extracted minerals could not be determined until they were sold to a buyer like Apex, thus giving them value. The CA concluded that Apex, by causing the removal of minerals from the mining locality and having their value determined by purchase, should be liable for the excise tax, as ruling otherwise would permit tax evasion. The CA found that Apex's liability stemmed from its actions in causing the removal and subsequent sale, making the excise tax due while the minerals were in Apex's possession and ownership. The Court, however, found it inappropriate to dwell on this issue given the procedural lapse. On the issue of denying the motion for extension and motion for reconsideration: The Court unequivocally ruled that the period for filing a motion for reconsideration is non-extendible. Petitioner received the CA decision on September 11, 1995, giving it fifteen (15) days, or until September 26, 1995, to file a motion for reconsideration. Instead, Apex filed a motion for extension on September 22, 1995, and the motion for reconsideration itself on October 11, 1995, which was 30 days after receipt of the decision. This was a fatal procedural lapse. The Court reiterated that the filing of a motion for extension of time does not suspend or toll the running of the reglementary period for filing a motion for reconsideration. Consequently, the CA decision had already attained finality when Apex filed its motion for reconsideration, placing it beyond the review jurisdiction of the Court. The Court emphasized that procedural rules setting the period for perfecting an appeal are generally inviolable and must be strictly followed, as they are jurisdictional and indispensable interdictions against needless delays. The Court also rejected Apex's plea for relaxation of the rules based on substantial justice and equity, citing that the excuses provided by counsel were not justifiable, especially since Apex was represented by a law firm.
Main Doctrine
The period for filing a motion for reconsideration is non-extendible. Failure to file within the reglementary period results in the finality of the judgment, and a subsequent motion for extension or reconsideration is a fatal procedural lapse that deprives the appellate court of jurisdiction.