Bureau of Internal Revenue v. Chevron
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Chevron Philippines, Inc. (Chevron) filed an administrative claim with the Bureau of Internal Revenue (BIR) for a refund or credit amounting to P131,175,480.18, representing alleged overpayment of excise taxes on imported unleaded premium gasoline and diesel fuel withdrawn in November 2003. When the BIR failed to act on the claim, Chevron elevated the matter to the Court of Tax Appeals (CTA) - Special First Division on October 28, 2005, seeking a review of the inaction. Procedural History: The CTA-Special First Division partially granted Chevron's petition on July 12, 2010, ordering the BIR to refund P108,585,162.95. The BIR filed a motion for reconsideration on August 3, 2010. Chevron argued that this motion was pro forma due to the BIR's failure to set it for hearing, as required by the Revised Rules of the CTA. The CTA-Special First Division agreed, considering the motion a mere scrap of paper and denying it on September 24, 2010. The BIR's subsequent motion for reconsideration of this denial was also denied on December 3, 2010, with the CTA declaring its July 12, 2010 decision final and executory. The BIR received notice of the Entry of Judgment on January 10, 2011, confirming the finality of the decision. The Petition: The Bureau of Internal Revenue filed a Petition for Certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court with the Supreme Court, assailing the CTA-Special First Division's Resolutions dated September 24, 2010, and December 3, 2010. The BIR argued that the CTA committed grave abuse of discretion by treating its motion for reconsideration as a mere scrap of paper and by declaring the decision final and executory, contending that technicalities should be disregarded to resolve the case on its merits. The BIR sought to have the resolutions nullified and to be allowed to pursue its intended appeal.
Issue(s)
Whether a Special Civil Action for Certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court is available as a remedy to the BIR, considering the availability of appeal to the CTA En Banc. Whether the CTA-Special First Division gravely abused its discretion in declaring the motion for reconsideration filed by the BIR as a pro forma motion, and in rendering the Decision promulgated on July 12, 2010 final and executory.
Ruling
The petition is dismissed. The Resolutions dated September 24, 2010 and December 3, 2010 of the Court of Tax Appeals-Special First Division are affirmed in toto.
Ratio Decidendi
On the availability of Certiorari: The Supreme Court reiterated that a special civil action for certiorari under Rule 65 is a remedy of last resort, available only when there is no appeal, or any plain, speedy, and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law. It is not a substitute for a lost appeal, especially when the loss is due to the petitioner's own negligence or error in choosing the remedy. For cases before the CTA, a decision rendered by a division is appealable to the CTA En Banc. The Resolution dated December 3, 2010, which declared the July 12, 2010 Decision final and executory, was a final judgment disposing of the case on the merits. Therefore, the appropriate remedy to challenge this resolution was an ordinary appeal to the CTA En Banc, not a petition for certiorari to the Supreme Court. The BIR had the opportunity to elevate the matter to the CTA En Banc but failed to do so, which is sufficient ground to dismiss the present petition. On grave abuse of discretion: The Court found that the CTA-Special First Division did not commit grave abuse of discretion. A petition for certiorari under Rule 65 requires proof of errors of jurisdiction or grave abuse of discretion so patent and gross as to amount to an evasion of a positive duty or a virtual refusal to perform a duty enjoined by law. The BIR failed to demonstrate that the CTA-Special First Division acted capriciously, whimsically, arbitrarily, or despotically. It is undisputed that the BIR's Motion for Reconsideration dated August 3, 2010, failed to comply with the Revised Rules of the CTA, specifically the requirement of a notice for hearing. The CTA-Special First Division correctly applied the applicable rules, which the BIR concededly failed to observe. Therefore, the dismissal of the motion for reconsideration was a valid exercise of discretion, not a misuse or abuse thereof. The BIR cannot substitute certiorari for an appeal, as these remedies are mutually exclusive.
Main Doctrine
A petition for certiorari under Rule 65 is not a substitute for a lost appeal, and it will not prosper if an appeal was available but not availed of due to negligence or error in the choice of remedy. The failure to comply with procedural rules, such as the requirement of a notice of hearing for a motion for reconsideration, can render the motion pro forma and prevent it from tolling the reglementary period to appeal.