Phillips Seafood v. Board of Investments
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Petitioner Phillips Seafood (Philippines) Corporation, a domestic corporation engaged in exporting processed seafood, was registered with the Board of Investments (BOI) on January 8, 1993, on a non-pioneer status, and was granted an Income Tax Holiday (ITH) for six years from July 1993 to July 1999. Petitioner acquired assets of an affiliate corporation, Phillips Seafood (Phils.), Inc. (PSPI), and relocated its plant and office to Roxas City. Petitioner informed the BOI of the transfer and filed an application for registration of its new plant with expanded capacity. The BOI granted petitioner's application for registration of its new plant and also approved its registration as a "New Producer of Processed Fish." Petitioner filed applications for ITH for taxable years 1999 and 2000. On September 25, 2003, the BOI informed petitioner that its ITH would only be applicable from August 13, 1999, to October 21, 1999, before its transfer to a "not less-developed area." Petitioner's motion for reconsideration was denied by the BOI. Procedural History: Petitioner appealed to the Office of the President, which dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction, and the Office of the President denied petitioner's motion for reconsideration. Petitioner then filed a petition for review before the Court of Appeals, questioning the dismissal by the Office of the President. The Court of Appeals dismissed the petition for review for having been filed out of time, as petitioner opted to appeal to the Office of the President instead of filing a Rule 43 petition to the Court of Appeals within the reglementary period. The Court of Appeals also denied petitioner's motion for reconsideration. The Petition: Petitioner seeks review of the Court of Appeals' resolutions, arguing that its omnibus motion for amendment was to avoid multiplicity of suits, that the executive power of control over department secretaries should not be rendered illusory by procedural rules, and that it is entitled to the ITH.
Issue(s)
Whether the appeal from the BOI's denial of the Income Tax Holiday (ITH) application should have been filed with the Office of the President or directly with the Court of Appeals. Whether the Court of Appeals erred in dismissing the petition for review for being filed out of time. Whether the petitioner is entitled to the Income Tax Holiday (ITH).
Ruling
The petition for review on certiorari is DENIED, and the resolutions of the Court of Appeals dated May 24, 2006, and November 24, 2006, in CA-G.R. SP No. 89327 are AFFIRMED. Costs against petitioner.
Ratio Decidendi
On the proper appellate procedure for BOI decisions: The Court held that the right to appeal is a statutory privilege, not a constitutional right, and must be exercised in accordance with law. Executive Order (E.O.) No. 226, the Omnibus Investments Code of 1987, provides for remedies from BOI actions. Article 7 and Article 36 of E.O. No. 226 allow appeals to the Office of the President in specific instances, such as controversies between registered enterprises and government agencies or decisions concerning registration. However, Article 82 of E.O. No. 226 provides a catch-all provision for appeals from "all other decisions of respondent BOI involving the other provisions of E.O. No. 226," mandating that "all appeals shall be filed directly with the Supreme Court within thirty (30) days from receipt of the order or decision." Furthermore, Section 1 of Rule 43 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure expressly includes the BOI as a quasi-judicial agency whose judgments or final orders are appealable to the Court of Appeals via a verified petition for review. The denial of petitioner's application for an ITH does not fall under the specific instances enumerated in Articles 7 and 36 that allow recourse to the Office of the President. Therefore, petitioner should have elevated its appeal to the Court of Appeals under Rule 43, or directly to the Supreme Court under Article 82, not to the Office of the President. The Court emphasized that the principle of expresio unius est exclusio alterius applies, meaning the enumeration of specific instances for appeal to the Office of the President excludes other cases. On the timeliness of the appeal: Since the petitioner incorrectly appealed to the Office of the President instead of the Court of Appeals as mandated by Rule 43 and E.O. No. 226 (specifically Article 82 for cases not covered by Articles 7 and 36), the petition filed before the Court of Appeals was correctly dismissed for being filed out of time. The petitioner's chosen appellate route was not sanctioned by law or procedure. The Court clarified that the executive power of control, while significant, is not absolute and can be limited by statute and the Supreme Court's rule-making power. Administrative Order No. 18, which might suggest an appeal to the Office of the President, contains an exception for cases where a special law provides a different mode of appeal, such as E.O. No. 226 in this instance. On entitlement to the ITH: The Court did not reach the substantive issue of whether petitioner was entitled to the ITH because the procedural misstep in filing the appeal barred its case from being heard on the merits by the appellate courts. The focus of the decision was on the correct procedural avenue for appealing decisions of the BOI concerning ITH applications.
Main Doctrine
The appeal from decisions of the Board of Investments (BOI) involving the denial of an Income Tax Holiday (ITH) application falls under Article 82 of E.O. No. 226, requiring direct appeal to the Supreme Court, and not to the Office of the President, as Rule 43 of the Rules of Civil Procedure mandates appeals from quasi-judicial agencies to the Court of Appeals.