CIR v. Nippon Express
CLARIFICATIONFacts
1. The Antecedents: Respondent Nippon Express Philippines Corporation (Nippon Express) filed a claim for refund or tax credit certificate (TCC) in the amount of PHP 43,068,252.54 for unutilized input value-added tax (VAT) for the period of April 1, 2018, to June 30, 2018. The Commissioner of Internal Revenue (CIR) filed an Answer electronically but failed to provide a hard copy within the required period as mandated by CTA En Banc Resolution No. 4-2021. Consequently, the CTA Second Division issued a Resolution setting the case for the ex-parte presentation of Nippon Express's evidence. 2. Procedural History: The CIR moved for reconsideration, citing oversight by the former handling lawyer, but the CTA Division denied the motion, ruling the negligence inexcusable. The CIR then elevated the matter to the CTA En Banc via a Petition for Certiorari under Rule 65, alleging grave abuse of discretion. The CTA En Banc dismissed the petition for lack of jurisdiction, with a split vote (4 Justices voting to dismiss, 4 dissenting). The CTA En Banc ruled that the proper remedy to challenge interlocutory orders of a CTA Division is a petition for certiorari filed directly before the Supreme Court. 3. The Petition: The CIR filed the present Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45 before the Supreme Court. The CIR argued that the CTA En Banc inherently possesses the authority to issue a writ of certiorari in aid of its appellate jurisdiction. The CIR further contended that requiring parties to elevate such petitions directly to the Supreme Court would violate the principle of hierarchy of courts and result in a split-jurisdiction scenario, undermining the orderly administration of justice.
Issue(s)
Whether the CTA En Banc has jurisdiction over a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 challenging an interlocutory order issued by a CTA Division.
Ruling
The Petition for Review on Certiorari is DENIED. The Supreme Court AFFIRMED the CTA En Banc's dismissal, ruling that the CTA En Banc lacks jurisdiction over certiorari petitions assailing interlocutory orders of its Divisions.
Ratio Decidendi
On Issue 1: The Supreme Court ruled that the CTA En Banc's jurisdiction is strictly appellate as defined by Republic Act No. 1125, as amended by Republic Act No. 9282. The law does not expressly grant the CTA En Banc original certiorari jurisdiction over interlocutory orders issued by a CTA Division. Furthermore, the exercise of certiorari presupposes a relationship of superiority between the reviewing court and the tribunal being reviewed. Since the CTA is a collegial body, the CTA Divisions and the CTA En Banc constitute one and the same body, differentiated only by procedural composition; thus, no hierarchy exists between them. Allowing the CTA En Banc to review interlocutory orders of its Divisions via certiorari would violate the principle of collegiality and the legal maxim 'nemo debet esse judex in propria causa,' as Justices would be passing judgment on their own interlocutory acts or those of their immediate colleagues. Legislative intent behind Republic Act No. 9282 supports the realignment of appellate functions for final judgments but does not indicate the creation of two distinct courts within the CTA. Consequently, petitions for certiorari assailing interlocutory orders of CTA Divisions are cognizable only by the Supreme Court as the higher and distinct tribunal.
Main Doctrine
The CTA En Banc's jurisdiction is strictly appellate and limited to final decisions or resolutions of its Divisions. As a collegial body, there is no hierarchical relationship of superiority between the CTA En Banc and the CTA Divisions; they are merely functional configurations of the same judicial entity. Therefore, the CTA En Banc cannot exercise supervisory certiorari jurisdiction over interlocutory orders of its Divisions. Such extraordinary remedies must be sought from a higher and distinct tribunal, which is the Supreme Court.