Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Ayala Land
REITERATIONFacts
1. The Antecedents: Ayala Land, Inc. (ALI) was assessed by the Commissioner of Internal Revenue (CIR) for deficiency value-added tax (VAT) amounting to P103,346,691.40 for its cinema operations in 2003. ALI protested this assessment, but the CIR denied the protest, issuing a Final Decision. 2. Procedural History: ALI filed a petition for review with the Court of Tax Appeals (CTA) Second Division, which granted the petition and cancelled the assessment. The CIR's motion for reconsideration was denied. The CIR then appealed to the CTA en banc, which affirmed the Second Division's decision. The CIR's subsequent motion for reconsideration was denied by the CTA en banc on March 25, 2009. The CIR claimed not to have received this resolution, and only learned of the entry of judgment on June 17, 2009. The CIR filed a manifestation and motion to reconsider the entry of judgment, which was denied by the CTA en banc on July 29, 2009. Subsequently, the CIR filed a petition for relief from judgment on October 2, 2009, which the CTA en banc dismissed as filed out of time. 3. The Petition: The CIR filed a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court, assailing the CTA en banc's resolution dismissing his petition for relief. The CIR argued that his 60-day period to file the petition for relief should have been counted from August 3, 2009, when he received the CTA en banc's July 29, 2009 resolution. The Supreme Court, however, found that the CIR had knowledge of the March 25, 2009 resolution much earlier, specifically by June 22, 2009, rendering his October 2, 2009 petition for relief untimely. The Court also noted the procedural infirmity of failing to file a motion for reconsideration before the CTA en banc prior to filing the certiorari petition.
Issue(s)
Whether the CTA committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction in ruling that the petition for relief of the CIR was filed beyond the 60-day reglementary period under Rule 38. Whether the CIR's failure to file a motion for reconsideration is a procedural infirmity, and whether the CIR filed the petition for relief out of time.
Ruling
The petition is DISMISSED. The Court of Tax Appeals did not commit grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction.
Ratio Decidendi
On the timeliness of the petition for relief: Even setting aside any procedural infirmity, the Court found the petition for relief to be filed out of time. Section 3, Rule 38 of the Rules of Court requires a petition for relief to be filed within sixty (60) days after the petitioner learns of the judgment, final order, or other proceeding to be set aside. The CIR claimed to have learned of the CTA en banc's Resolution dated March 25, 2009, only on August 3, 2009, when he received the Resolution dated July 29, 2009. However, the Court found this claim to be belied by the CIR's own evidence and admissions. Specifically, a letter dated June 24, 2009, from the OSG indicated that as of June 22, 2009, the OSG and the CIR's handling counsel had discussed the CTA's prior issuance of a resolution denying their motion for reconsideration. This discussion stemmed from the CIR's receipt on June 17, 2009, of the Resolution dated June 10, 2009, ordering the entry of judgment. The CIR's own petition for relief stated that upon inquiring from the CTA, he was informed that a Resolution dated March 25, 2009, existed. Therefore, the CIR had knowledge of the March 25, 2009 resolution on or before June 22, 2009. Counting the 60-day period from June 22, 2009, the petition for relief should have been filed by August 24, 2009. The petition filed on October 2, 2009, was thus clearly beyond the reglementary period. The OSG itself had advised the CIR that the petition for relief was filed out of time. On the procedural infirmity of failing to file a motion for reconsideration: The Court held that a motion for reconsideration is a condition sine qua non for the filing of a petition for certiorari under Rule 65. This rule is in place to give the court an opportunity to correct any perceived error. The Court noted that the CIR failed to file a motion for reconsideration of the CTA en banc's Resolution dated October 30, 2009, which dismissed his petition for relief. While exceptions to this rule exist, none were found to be applicable in this case. Therefore, the petition for certiorari was dismissible on this procedural ground alone.
Main Doctrine
A petition for relief from judgment must be filed strictly within the reglementary periods provided by Rule 38 of the Rules of Court. Failure to strictly comply with these periods, particularly the 60-day period from knowledge of the judgment, order, or proceeding to be set aside, warrants dismissal. Furthermore, a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 is generally dismissible for failure to file a motion for reconsideration of the assailed resolution, absent any valid exceptions.