RCBC versus - CIR

G.R. No. 168498

June 16, 2006
FIRST DIVISIN
F!CTS !S T "#TITIN#R
On July 5, 2001, RCBC received a Formal Letter of Demand dated May 25, 2001 from the
re!ondent C"R for it ta# lia$ilitie !articularly for %ro Onhore &a# and Documentary
'tam! &a# for it '!ecial 'avin( )lacement for the ta#a$le year 1**+,
-
On July 20, 2001,
!etitioner filed a !rotet letter.re/uet for reconideration.reinveti(ation !uruant to 'ection
220 of the 1ational "nternal Revenue Code of 1**+ 21"RC3,
5
F!CTS !S T R#S"ND#NT
4 the !rotet 5a not acted u!on $y the re!ondent, !etitioner filed on 4!ril 60, 2002 a
!etition for revie5 5ith the C&4 for the cancellation of the aement, &he !etition for
revie5 5a dimied $ecaue it 5a filed $eyond the 607day !eriod follo5in( the la!e of
100 day from !etitioner8 u$miion of document in u!!ort of it !rotet, )etitioner did
not file a motion for reconideration or an a!!eal to the C&4 En Banc Cone/uently
Reolution $ecame final and e#ecutor &hereafter, re!ondent ent a Demand Letter to
!etitioner for the !ayment of the deficiency ta# aement,
On Fe$ruary 20, 200-, !etitioner filed a Petition for Relief from Judgment
10
on the (round of
e#cua$le ne(li(ence of it counel8 ecretary 5ho alle(edly mifiled and lot the
'e!tem$er 10, 2006 Reolution, On May 6, 200-, the C&4 'econd Diviion rendered a
Reolution
15
denyin( !etitioner8 )etition for Relief from Jud(ment,lawph!l.net
ISS$# R!IS#D B% "#TITIN#R
)etitioner ar(ue that it !etition hould have $een ta9en co(ni:ance $y the C&4 for havin(
$een filed 5ithin the !recri!tive !eriod,
ISS$# R!IS#D B% R#S"ND#NT
Re!ondent ar(ue that !etitioner !etition hould $e dimied for havin( $een filed
$eyond the !recri!tive !eriod,
R$&ING F T'# S$"R#(# C$RT
&he 'C rule in favor of the re!ondent, findin( that !etitioner filed it !etition $eyond the
!recri!tive !eriod,
Follo5in( the !eriod !rovided for in the aforementioned la5, from July 20, 2001, that i,
the date of !etitioner8 filin( of !rotet, it had until 'e!tem$er 10, 2001 to u$mit relevant
document and from 'e!tem$er 10, 2001, the Commiioner had until March 1+, 2002 to
iue hi deciion, 4 admitted $y !etitioner, the !rotet remained unacted $y the
Commiioner of "nternal Revenue, &herefore, it had until 4!ril 1;, 2002 5ithin 5hich to
elevate the cae to thi court, &hu, 5hen !etitioner filed it )etition for Revie5 on 4!ril 60,
2002, the ame i outide the thirty 2603 !eriod,
2+
4 !rovided in 'ection 220, the failure of a ta#!ayer to a!!eal from an aement on time
rendered the aement final, e#ecutory and demanda$le, Cone/uently, !etitioner i
!recluded from di!utin( the correctne of the aement,
"#RSN!& #ND NT#S
<hile the ri(ht to a!!eal a deciion of the C&4 i merely a tatutory remedy, neverthele
the re/uirement that it mut $e $rou(ht 5ithin 60 day i =uridictional, "f a tatutory remedy
!rovide a a condition !recedent that the action to enforce it mut $e commenced 5ithin a
!recri$ed time, uch re/uirement i =uridictional and failure to com!ly there5ith may $e
raied in a motion to dimi,
"n fine, the failure to com!ly 5ith the 607day tatutory !eriod 5ould $ar the a!!eal and
de!rive the Court of &a# 4!!eal of it =uridiction to entertain and determine the correctne
of the aement,
2*