You are on page 1of 1

RCBC v CIR In exceptional cases, when the mistake of counsel is

so palpable that it amounts to gross negligence, this Court

G.R 168498 affords a party a second opportunity to vindicate his right. But
this opportunity is unavailing in the case at bar, especially
April 24, 2007
since petitioner had squandered the various opportunities
available to it at the different stages of this case.

Regarding the 30-day period, the petitioner can no

longer file an appeal. Assessment may be protested
Facts: Petitioner Rizal Commercial Banking Corporation administratively by filing a request for reconsideration or
received a Formal Letter of Demand dated May 25, 2001 from reinvestigation within thirty (30) days from receipt of the
the respondent Commissioner of Internal Revenue for its tax assessment in such form and manner as may be prescribed by
liabilities particularly for Gross Onshore Tax in the amount of implementing rules and regulations. Within sixty (60) days from
P53,998,428.29 and Documentary Stamp Tax. filing of the protest, all relevant supporting documents shall
have been submitted; otherwise, the assessment shall become
The petitioner filed a protest but the respondent failed
final. In this case, the failure to comply with the 30-day
to act upon the same. So, the petitioner filed a Petition for
statutory period bars the appeal and deprives the Court of Tax
Review with the CTA for the cancellation of the above-
Appeals of its jurisdiction to entertain and determine the
mentioned assessments.
correctness of the assessment.
The respondent filed a motion to resolve first the
issue of CTAs jurisdiction, which was granted by the CTA. The
petition for review was dismissed because it was filed beyond
the 30-day period following the lapse of 180 days from
petitioners submission of documents in support of its protest,
as pursuant to Section 228 of the NIRC and R.A. No. 1125.
The same became final and executory due to the negligence of
the petitioners counsel.

Hence, this petition

Issue: Whether or not the petitioner was denied the

opportunity to be heard?

Whether or not the petitioner can still file the appeal despite
the lapse of the 30-day period?

Held: No, the Court held that he "essence of due process is

a hearing before conviction and before an impartial and
disinterested tribunal" but due process as a constitutional
precept does not, always and in all situations, require a trial-
type proceeding. The essence of due process is to be found in
the reasonable opportunity to be heard and submit any
evidence one may have in support of ones defense. In this
case, the petitioners counsel was present on the scheduled
hearing and in fact orally argued its petition and that is
sufficiently complies with the right to be heard.