You are on page 1of 6

Cases for CTA Jurisdiction same assignment of error.

CTA reduced the deficiency income tax
assessment to P237K.

Ursal vs. CA The Court ruled that no explanation was offered by petitionerwhy
the unpaid account of several of its debtor was written of as bad
Ursal as City Assessor of Cebu assess for taxation certain real debt. The worthlessness of the debts involved are sought to be
properties of Noel and Samson, and upon protest the Cebu Board established by the mere self-serving testimony of its financial
of Assessment Appeals reduced the assessments. Ursal took the consultant. The contentions of PRC that nobody is in a better
matter to CTA insisting on his valuation but was dismissed saying position to determine when an obligation becomes a bad debt
that it was late and that the assessor had no personality to bring than the creditor itself, and that its judgment should not be
the matter before it. substituted by that of respondent court as it is PRC which has the
facilities in ascertaining the collectibility or uncollectibility of these
CTA properly denied the appeal of Ursal. First, Ursal as assessor debts, are presumptuous and uncalled for. The Court of Tax
had no personality to resort to the CTA. The rulings of the Board of Appeals is a highly specialized body specifically created for the
Assessment Appeals did not "adversely affect" him or his office. purpose of reviewing tax cases. Through its expertise, it is
The CTA was not created to decide mere conflicts of opinion undeniably competent to determine the issue of whether or not
between administrative officers or agencies. Second, Republic Act the debt is deductible through the evidence presented before it.
No. 1125 creating the CTA did not grant it blanket authority to Because of this recognized expertise, the findings of the CTA will
decide any and all tax disputes. The Act necessarily limited its not ordinarily be reviewed absent a showing of gross error or
authority to those matters enumerated therein. Republic Act No. abuse on its part. The findings of fact of the CTA are binding on
1125 is a complete law by itself and expressly enumerates the this Court in the absence of strong reasons for this Court to delve
matters which the CTA may consider which is presumably to act into facts.
only on protests of private persons adversely affected by the tax,
custom, or assessment.

CIR vs. Villa PLDT vs. City of Davao

Villa and his wife filed joint income tax returns. The BIR
determined assessments for deficiency income tax and residence PLDT paid a franchise tax, which was paid “in lieu of all taxes on
tax. Without contesting the said assessments in the BIR, he filed a this franchise or earnings thereof” pursuant to RA 7082. The
petition for review in the CTA. Initially, CTA took cognizance of the exemption from “all taxes on this franchise or earnings thereof”
appeal and tried the case in its merits. In this case, parties submit was subsequently withdrawn by RA 7160 (LGC), which gave local
voluntarily to the jurisdiction of CTA. At no stage of the government units the power to tax businesses enjoying a
proceedings have they raised the issue of jurisdiction. franchise on the basis of income received or earned by them
within their territorial jurisdiction.
The law conferring jurisdiction on CTA is Sec. 7 of RA 1125 which
states that CTA has exclusive appellate jurisdiction Decisions of The City of Davao enacted Ordinance No. 519 which provides that
the CIR in cases involving disputed assessments, refunds of notwithstanding any exemption granted by law or other special
internal revenue taxes, fees or other charges, penalties imposed laws, there is hereby imposed a tax on businesses enjoying a
in relation thereto, or other matters arising under NIRC. The word franchise, a rate of seventy-five percent (75%) of one percent (1%)
"decisions" has been interpreted to mean the decisions of the CIR of the gross annual receipts for the preceding calendar year based
on the protest of the taxpayer against the assessments. on the income receipts realized within the territorial jurisdiction of
Definitely, said word does not signify the assessment itself. Davao City. Subsequently, RA 7925 was enacted. Sec. 23 of which
Where a taxpayer questions an assessment and asks the Collector provides that any advantage, favor, privilege, exemption, or
to reconsider or cancel the same because the taxpayer believes he immunity granted under existing franchises, or may hereafter be
is not liable, the assessment becomes a "disputed assessment" granted, shall ipso facto become part of previously granted
that the Collector must decide, and the taxpayer can appeal to the telecommunications franchises and shall be accorded
Court of Tax Appeals only upon receipt of the decision of the immediately and unconditionally to the grantees of such
Collector on the disputed assessment. Since in the instant case franchises. PLDT claimed exemption from payment of franchise
the taxpayer appealed the assessment of the CIR without tax on the basis of opinion of the Bureau of Local Government
previously contesting the same, the appeal was premature and Finance (BLGF)that petitioner is exempt from payment of
the CTA had no jurisdiction to entertain said appeal.. As such, it franchise and business taxes imposable by local government units
can take cognizance only of such matters as are clearly within its upon the effectivity of Republic Act No. 7925
The ruling of the BLGF has been considered in this case. But unlike
the Court of Tax Appeals, which is a special court created for the
Philippine Refining Co. vs. CA
purpose of reviewing tax cases, the BLGF was created merely to
provide consultative services and technical assistance to local
Petitioner was assessed by CIR to pay deficiency tax for 1985
governments and the general public on local taxation and other
amounting to P1.8M. Petitioner protested the assessment on
related matters. Thus, the rule that the "Court will not set aside
ground that it was based on erroneous allowances of bad debts
conclusions rendered by the CTA, which is, by the very nature of
and interest expense although both are allowable deductions. CIR
its function, dedicated exclusively to the study and consideration
denied the protest by it subsequent issuance of a warrant of
of tax problems and has necessarily developed an expertise on the
garnishment. Petitioner filed a petition for review with CTA on the

subject, unless there has been an abuse or improvident exercise of Philippine Journalists vs. CIR
authority" cannot apply in the case of BLGF.
Petitioner filed an annual income tax return for the year 1994 and
Allied Banking vs. CIR paid 10M in taxes. In 1995, BIR examined PJ’s books and found
deficiency taxes. In 1997, RDO invited petitioner’s representative
for an informal conference in order for petitioner to object to the
Allied Bank received from the CIR a PAN of deficiency DST in the
proposed assessment. Petitioner executed a Waiver of Statute of
amount of around P12M. Allied protested and thereafter received
Limitation under the NIRC. On December 1998, BIR issued the
a Formal Letter of Demand with Assessment Notices. Allied filed
final assessment on petitioner amounting to 111M. Petitioner
within 30 days from the receipt of the Formal Letter of Demand a
contests the assessment mainly because it was made beyond the
petition for review in the CTA. It was dismissed because the CTA
3 year period since the taxes became due in the end of the 1994
ratiocinated that it is neither the assessment nor the formal
calendar year. On the other hand, the BIR argues that petitioner
demand letter itself that is appealable to the CTA. It is the decision
executed a waiver of the statute of limitations, giving the BIR more
of the CIR on the disputed assessment that can be appealed to the
time to assess.
CTA. CTA says administrative is necessary first.

The case is an exception to the exhaustion of administrative The first assigned error relates to the jurisdiction of the CTA over
remedies, by way of estoppel from the part of BIR. It appears from the issues in this case. CA ruled that only decisions of the BIR
the foregoing demand letter that the CIR has already made a final denying a request for reconsideration or reinvestigation may be
decision on the matter and that the remedy of petitioner is to appealed to the CTA. Since the petitioner did not file a request for
appeal the final decision within 30 days. Allied cannot be faulted reinvestigation or reconsideration within thirty (30) days, the
for relying on the Formal Letter of Demand since the language assessment notices became final and unappealable. The
used and the tenor of the demand letter indicate that it is the final petitioner now argue that the case was brought to the CTA
decision of the respondent on the matter.The Formal Letter of because the warrant of distraint or levy was illegally issued and
Demand which was not administratively protested by the that no assessment was issued because it was based on an invalid
petitioner can be considered a final decision of the CIR appealable waiver of the statutes of limitations.
to the CTA because the words used, specifically the words "final
decision" and "appeal", taken together led petitioner to believe We agree with petitioner. Section 7 of Republic Act No. 1125,
that the Formal Letter of Demand with Assessment Notices was in provides that the CTA has jurisdiction over X X X other matters
fact the final decision of the CIR on the letter-protest it filed and arising under the National Internal Revenue Code or other laws or
that the available remedy was to appeal the same to the CTA. part of law administered by the Bureau of Internal Revenue. The
appellate jurisdiction of the CTA is not limited to cases CIR on
CIR vs. Leal matters relating to assessments or refunds. The second part of
the provision covers other cases that arise out of the NIRC or
CIR issued RMO 15-91 imposing 5% lending investor’s tax on related laws administered by the Bureau of Internal Revenue.
pawnshops based on their gross income and requiring all The wording of the provision is clear and simple. It gives the CTA
investigating units of BIR to assess the lending investor’s tax due the jurisdiction to determine if the warrant of distraint and levy
them., pursuant to Sec 116 of the NIRC. Subsequently, CIR issued issued by the BIR is valid and to rule if the Waiver of Statute of
RMC 43-91 subjecting the pawn ticket to DST. Affected, Limitations was validly effected. Thus, the CTA may act on a
respondents, owner of Josefina’s pawnshops, asked for a petition to invalidate and annul the distraint orders of the CIR or
reconsideration of the RMO and RMC but was denied with finality declaring several waivers executed by the taxpayer as null and
by CIR. Thus, respondent filed with RTC a petition for prohibition void, thus invalidating the assessments issued by the BIR.
against CIR from implementing the revenue orders. CIR filed a
motion to dismiss but was denied by the RTC.
While the CA correctly took cognizance of the petition for BIR requested PNOC to settle its liability for taxes on the interest
certiorari, however, the jurisdiction to review the rulings of the earned by its money placements with PNB and which PNB did not
CIR pertains to the CTA, not to the RTC.The questioned RMO No. withhold. PNOC wrote BIR and made an offer to compromise its
15-91 and RMC No. 43-91 are actually rulings or opinions of the tax liability, estimated at P304M against NAPOCOR’s pending claim
Commissioner implementing the Tax Code on the taxability of for tax refund. CIR accepted the compromise.
pawnshops. Such revenue orders were issued pursuant to CIR’s
powers the Tax Code. As such, it comes within the purview of
Republic Act No. 1125, Section 7 of which provides that the Court Private respondent Savellanowas paid the informer's reward in the
of Tax Appeals ‘shall exercise exclusive appellate jurisdiction to total amount of P14M, representing 15% of tax collected by the
review by appeal x x x decisions of the Collector of Internal BIR from PNOC and PNB. But private respondent Savellano,
Revenue in x x x matters arising under the National Internal demanded from BIR the payment of the balance of his informer's
Revenue Code or other law or part of the law administered by the reward and sought reconsideration of CIR’s decision to
Bureau of Internal Revenue. compromise the tax liability of PNOC. While the aforesaid Motion
for Reconsideration was still pending with the BIR, private
respondent Savellano filed a Petition for Review with the CTA,
alleging that CIR acted with grave abuse of discretion in entering
into a compromise agreement that resulted in "a gross and
unconscionable diminution" of his reward. Private respondent
Savellano prayed for the enforcement and collection of the total
tax assessment against taxpayer PNOC and/or withholding agent
PNB; and the payment to him by CIR of the 15% informer's

reward on the total tax collected.The CTA ruled that the CIR vs. Hambrecht & Quist
compromise agreement between BIR and PNB and PNOC is
without force, and ruled that Private respondent be paid the
Respondent informed BIR of its change of business address.
balance of the informer’s reward.
Respondent received a letter from BIR demanding payment of
alleged deficiency income and expanded withholding taxes for
PNB assailed the decision of CTA on ground that the BIR demand year 1989 which resulted from disallowance of certain items of
letter should be considered as a new assessment against PNB. As expense. Respondent protested against the alleged deficiency tax
a new assessment, it gave rise to a new dispute and controversy assessment. 8 years later, respondent was informed that its
solely between the BIR and PNB that should be administratively protest was denied on ground that that was filed beyond the 30
settled or adjudicated day reglamentary period. Respondent filed a petition for review
with CTA which held that the assessment was already final and
unappelable but CIR failed to collect within the prescriptive
Does CTA have jurisdiction over the case?
period. Petition assails the jurisdiction of CTA on ground that after
the lapse of the 30 day period to protest, respondent may no
The demand letter did not constitute a new assessment against longer dispute the correctness of the assessment and its appeal to
PNB.The issuance by the BIR of the demand letter was merely a the CTA should be dismissed.
development in the continuing effort of the BIR to collect the tax
assessed against PNOC and PNB way back in 1986. Thedemand
The appellate jurisdiction of the CTA is not limited to cases which
letter actually referred to the withholding tax assessment first
involve decisions of the CIR on matters relating to assessments or
issued in 1986 and its eventual settlement through a compromise
refunds. The second part of the provision covers other cases that
agreement. In addition, the computation of the deficiency
arise out of the National Internal Revenue Code (NIRC) or related
withholding tax was based on the figures from the 1986
laws administered by the Bureau of Internal Revenue (BIR).In the
assessments against PNOC and PNB.
case at bar, the issue at hand is whether or not the BIR’s right to
collect taxes had already prescribed and that is a subject matter
The CTA correctly retained jurisdiction over the case by virtue of falling under Section 223(c) of the 1986 NIRC. Thus, from the
Republic Act No. 1125.Having established that the BIR demand foregoing, the issue of prescription of the BIR’s right to collect
letter did not constitute a new assessment, then, there could be taxes may be considered as covered by the term "other matters"
no basis for PNB's claim that any dispute arising from the new over which the CTA has appellate jurisdiction. This runs counter
assessment should only be between BIR and PNB. The CTA, to petitioner’s theory that the latter is qualified by the status of
however, correctly sustained its jurisdiction and continued the the former, i.e., an "other matter" must not be a final and
proceedings; and, in effect, rejected DOJ's claim of jurisdiction to unappealable tax assessment or, alternatively, must be a disputed
administratively settle or adjudicate BIR's assessment against PNB. assessment.The validity of the assessment itself is a separate and
distinct issue from the issue of whether the right of the CIR to
In his Petition before the CTA, private respondent Savellano collect the validly assessed tax has prescribed. This issue of
requested a review of the decisions of CIR to enter into a prescription, being a matter provided for by the NIRC, is well
compromise agreement with PNOC and to reject his claim for within the jurisdiction of the CTA to decide.
additional informer's reward. Thus, he submitted questions of
law involving interpretation of EO 44 which authorized the BIR RCBS vs. CIR
Commissioner to compromise delinquent accounts and Sec 316
of NIRC which granted to the informer a reward equivalent to
Petitioner filed a petition for review with CTA for failure of the CIR
15% of the actual amount recovered or collected by the
to act on its disputed tax assessment. CTA denied the petition
BIR. These should undoubtedly be considered as matters arising
because it was not filed within the reglamentary period. RCBC
from the NIRC and other laws being administered by the BIR,
maintained that its former counsel’s failure to file petition for
thus, appealable to the CTA under Section 7(1) of Rep. Act No.
review with the CTA within the reglamentary period was

PNB, however, insists on the jurisdiction of the DOJ over its appeal
If the protest is denied in whole or in part, or is not acted upon
of the deficiency withholding tax assessment by virtue of P.D. No.
within one hundred eighty (180) days from submission of
242. However, it is an established rule of statutory construction
documents, the taxpayer adversely affected by the decision or
that between a general law and a special law, the special law
inaction may appeal to the Court of Tax Appeals within (30) days
prevails. P.D. No. 242 is a general law that deals with
from receipt of the said decision, or from the lapse of the one
administrative settlement or adjudication of disputes, claims and
hundred eighty (180)-day period; otherwise the decision shall
controversies between or among government offices, agencies
become final, executory and demandable. (If a statutory remedy
and instrumentalities, including government-owned or controlled
provides as a condition precedent that the action to enforce it
corporations. On the other hand, Rep. Act No. 1125 is a special
must be commenced within a prescribed time, such requirement
law dealing with a specific subject matter – the creation of the
is jurisdictional and failure to comply therewith may be raised in a
CTA, which shall exercise exclusive appellate jurisdiction over the
motion to dismiss. In fine, the failure to comply with the 30-day
tax disputes and controversies enumerated therein.
statutory period would bar the appeal and deprive the Court of
Tax Appeals of its jurisdiction to entertain and determine the
correctness of the assessment.

Philippine British Assurance vs. Republic of the Philippines the res ahead and to the exclusion of the RTC. The forfeiture
proceedings conducted by the BOC are in the nature of
proceedings in rem and jurisdiction was obtained from the
Petitioner issues customs bonds to its clients in favor of the BOC,
moment the vessel entered the SFLU port. The forfeiture
which secure the release of imported goods from BOC without
proceedings were instituted and the vessel was seized even before
prior payment of corresponding customs duties. Petitioner and its
the filing of the RTC.
client bind themselves to pay the BOC the value of the bonds.
Republic, represented by BOC, filed a complaint against petition
for collection of money with damages before RTC alleging that As regards the jurisdiction of the CTA, allegations of ownership
petition had outstanding unliquidated customs bonds with BOC neither divest the Collector of Customs of such jurisdiction nor
which was granted. CA dismissed the appeal filed by petitioner on confer upon the trial court jurisdiction over the case. Ownership
ground that it has no jurisdiction over the appeal and the same of goods or the legality of its acquisition can be raised as defenses
lies with CTA because the case is a tax collection case. in a seizure proceeding. The actions of the Collectors of Customs
are appealable to the Commissioner of Customs, whose decision,
in turn, is subject to the exclusive appellate jurisdiction of the
Although the original obligation of petitioner arose from non-
CTA. Clearly, issues of ownership over goods in the custody of
payment of taxes, the complaint against petitioner is predicated
custom officials are within the power of the CTA to determine.
upon the bond executed by them. Thus, respondent’s right
originally arising from law has become a right based upon a
written contract, the bond being a contract between Respondent
and Petitioner. CIR vs. Manila Mining Corp.

RA 9282 amended Section 7 of RA 1125 and provided that the Respondent is registered with BIR as a VAT registered enterprise.
CTA shall have Exclusive appellate jurisdiction to review by In 1991, its gold sales to BSP amounted to P200M. it filed its VAT
appeal decisions, orders or resolutions of the Regional Trial returns. However, relying on a letter from BIR Deputy
Courts in local tax cases originally decided or resolved by them in Commissioner that gold sold to BSP is considered an export sale
the exercise of their original or appellate jurisdiction. In the case and therefore zero-rated, it filed an application for tax refund. As
at bar, the original complaint filed with the trial court was in the CIR filed to act o the application within 60 days from filing, it filed
nature of a collection case. An action to collect on a bond used to a Petition for Review against the CIR before the CTA seeking the
secure the payment of taxes is not a tax collection case, but issuance of a tax credit certificate covering its input VAT payments
rather a simple case for enforcement of a contractual liability. for taxable year of 1991. CIR however assails the veracity of the
Verily, the instant case is not a tax collection case; hence, amounts in respondent’s VAT returns and application. CTA denied
appellate jurisdiction over the petition properly lies with the CA respondent’s claim for refund for failure to prove that it paid the
and not the Court of Tax Appeals. amounts as such as no sales invoice, receipts or other documents
were presented. It pronounced that a mere listing of VAT invoices
and receipts, without being offered and actually verified by the
Commissioner of Customs vs. CA
CTA cannot prove the truthfulness of the contents of the invoices.

The vessel M/V Star Ace coming from Singapore with cargo
For a judicial claim for refund to prosper, respondent must not
entered the Port of San Fernando, La Union for repairs, with an
only prove that it is a VAT registered entity and that it filed its
appraised value of P200M. The BOC became suspicious that the
claims within the prescriptive period, but also must
vessel’s purpose was really to smuggle its cargo into the country,
substantiate the input VAT paid by purchase invoices or official
seizure proceedings were instituted and subsequently, Warrants
receipts which respondent failed to do.
of Seizure and Detention were issued for the vessel and its cargo
Respondent Urbino claimed a preferred maritime lien under a
Salvage Agreement. Thus, to protect his claim, Urbino filed a Section 8 of Republic Act 1125 provides that the CTA shall be a
Motion to Dismiss and a Motion to Lift Warrant of Seizure and court of record and as such it is required to conduct a formal
Detention. In addition, he filed a case for Prohibition, Mandamus trial (trial de novo) where the parties must present their
and Damages before the RTC to restrain the District Collector of evidence accordingly if they desire the Court to take such
Customs from interfering with his salvage operation. The RTC evidence into consideration. As cases filed before it are
dismissed the case for lack of jurisdiction because of the pending litigated de novo, party litigants should prove every minute aspect
seizure and detention cases. Case was elevated to CA. Petitioner of their cases. No evidentiary value can be given the purchase
assails the jurisdiction of the CA. invoices or receipts submitted to the BIR as the rules on
documentary evidence require that these documents must be
formally offered before the CTA. Hence, it is necessary for the
Going back to the seizure and detention proceedings, the decision
Petitioner to show proof that it had indeed paid the said input
of the District Collector of Customs was to forfeit the vessel and
taxes during the year 1991. In the case at bar, Petitioner failed to
cargo in favor of the Government. This decision was affirmed by
discharge this duty. It did not adduce in evidence the sales
the Commissioner of Customs. Three appeals were then filed with
invoice, receipts or other documents showing the input value
the Court of Tax Appeals (CTA) by different parties, excluding
added tax on the purchase of goods and services. Thus, the
Urbino, who claimed an interest in the vessel and cargo.
argument of respondent that the certification of an independent
CPA attesting to the correctness of the contents thereof is
The Court rules in favor of the Commissioner of Customs. First, insufficient as what is required is CTA Circular No. 10-97, requires
decision of the RTC, in so far as it relates to the vessel M/V "Star that the photocopies of invoices, receipts and other documents
Ace," is void as jurisdiction was never acquired over the vessel covering said accounts or payments must be pre-marked by the
since it failed to acquire either actual or constructive possession party and submitted to this Court.
over it. On the other hand, the BOC acquired jurisdiction over

Commission of Customs vs. Gelmart Industries
While the CTA is not governed strictly by technical rules of
evidence, as rules of procedure are not ends in themselves but are
Respondent is engaged in the manufacturing of embroidery and
primarily intended as tools in the administration of justice, the
apparel products for export. Subsequently, it received
presentation of the purchase receipts and/or invoices is not mere
consignment of various imported textile materials from its
procedural technicality which may be disregarded considering that
supplier to be manufactured into finished products for subsequent
it is the only means by which the CTA may ascertain and verify the
exportation. Petitioner issued a Memorandum requiring the 100%
truth of respondent’s claims.
examination of all shipments consigned to respondent on its
release from the piers. Thereafter petitioner conducted an ocular
inspection of the warehouse Bonded Manufacturing Warehouse
of petitioner, during which it was discovered that it was operating
City of Manila vs. Coca-Cola Bottlers
the Bra and Lace Division as well as the Auxiliary Division and no
other lines of products.
Prior to Feb 25, 2000, Respondent Coke had been paying City of
Manila local business tax under Sec 14 of Tax Ordinance 7794 (Tax
on manufacturers and assemblers), being exempted from Subsequently, respondent received from one of its principals for
payment of tax under Sec 21 (Tax on Businesses subject to Excise, the imported articles from Hong Kong of its intention to cancel the
VAT or percentage Tax). It was later amended, making respondent order and instructed respondent to return the shipment of raw
liable to pay local business tax both under Sec 14 and Sec 21. City materials back to it. Respondent, thus requested petitioner for
of Manila assessed respondents of P18.6M tax deficiency which authority to effect the reshipment. However, BOC issued seizure
Coke protested contending double taxation. Petitioner did not orders for alleged violation of the Tariff and Customs Code on
respond to the protest. Thus, respondent filed with RTC an action ground that respondent misdeclared their shipments. Respondent
for cancellation of the assessment against respondent for business filed a Memorandum of Appeal with Commissioner of Customs
taxes. Petition was granted in compliance with an earlier decision which affirmed the forfeiture orders issued by the Collector of
declaring the amendments null and void. Customs. However, CTA reversed the decree of forfeiture issued by
petitioner and ordered the release of respondent’s importation.
Petitioner filed with CTA 2 Motions for Extension of Time to File
Petition for Review, praying for a 15-day extension and an Petitioner is denied for being procedurally infirm.
additional 10-day extension within which to file their petition.
Upon filing their Petition for Review, the same was dismissed by Petitioner’s failure to file a motion for reconsideration of the
CTA First Division for being filed out of time. CTA en banc affirmed. assailed decision of the CTA First Division, or at least a petition for
review with the CTA en banc, invoking the latter’s exclusive
The period to appeal the decision or ruling of the RTC to the appellate jurisdiction to review decisions of the CTA divisions,
CTA via a Petition for Review is specifically governed by Section 11 rendered the assailed decision final and executory. Necessarily, all
of Republic Act No. 9282 and Section 3(a), Rule 8 of the Revised the arguments professed by petitioner on the validity of the
Rules of the CTA. The afore-quoted provisions provide that to seizure, detention and ultimate forfeiture of the subject
appeal an adverse decision or ruling of the RTC to the CTA, the shipments have been foreclosed
taxpayer must file a Petition for Review with the CTA within 30
days from receipt of said adverse decision or ruling of the Petitioner had indeed committed procedural missteps on his way
RTC. However, Section 11 of Republic Act No. 9282 does state to this Court. First, it failed to file a Motion for Reconsideration or
that the Petition for Review shall be filed with the CTA following New Trial before the CTA Division within 15 days from receipt of
the procedure analogous to Rule 42 of the Revised Rules of Civil the decision before going to the CTA en banc. Second, Sec 11 of
Procedure. Section 1, Rule 42[16] of the Revised Rules of Civil RA 9282 provides that a party adversely affected by a resolution of
Procedure provides that the Petition for Review of an adverse a CTA Division may on a motion for reconsideration or new trial
judgment or final order of the RTC must be filed with the Court of file a petition for review with the CTA en banc.” In turn, “A party
Appeals within: (1) the original 15-day period from receipt of the adversely affected by a decision or ruling of the CTA en banc may
judgment or final order to be appealed; (2) an extended period of file with the SC a verified petition for review on certiorari pursuant
15 days from the lapse of the original period; and (3) only for the to Rule 45 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure” as ordained under
most compelling reasons, another extended period not to Sec. 12 of R.A. No. 9282. This petitioner failed to comply with.
exceed 15 days from the lapse of the first extended period. Third. Sec. 2, Rule 4 of the Revised Rules of the Court of Tax
Appeals reiterates the exclusive appellate jurisdiction of the
Following by analogy Section 1, Rule 42 of the Revised Rules of CTA en banc relative to the review of decisions or resolutions on
Civil Procedure, the 30-day original period for filing a Petition for motion for reconsideration or new trial of the court’s two (2)
Review with the CTA under Section 11 of Republic Act No. 9282, divisions in cases arising from administrative agencies such as the
as implemented by Section 3(a), Rule 8 of the Revised Rules of Bureau of Customs. [13] Hence, the Court is without jurisdiction to
the CTA, may be extended for a period of 15 days. No further review decisions rendered by a division of the CTA, exclusive
extension shall be allowed thereafter, except only for the most appellate jurisdiction over which is vested in the CTA en banc.
compelling reasons, in which case the extended period shall not
exceed 15 days.

In this case, the CTA First Division erred in finding that petitioners
failed to file their Petition for Review in CTA within the
reglementary period.
TFS Inc. vs. CIR

Petitioner received a PAN for deficiency VAT and expanded Respondent was appointed by Co-Ro Food of Denmark, maker of
withholding tax. Insisting that there was no basis for the issuance Sunquick Juice, to be its manufacturing arm in the Philippines. As
of PAN, petitioner requested the BIT to withdraw and seta side the such, respondent imports raw materials. In the past, BOC assessed
assessments. CIR however informed petitioner that a FAN was the said type of importation with a 1% import duty rate and paid
issued on 25 January 2002 and that petitioner had until 22 duties in accordance thereof. Subsequently, respondent’s
February 2002 to file a protest letter. On 20 Feb, petitioner importation arrived at Manila International Port and paid the
protested the FAN. There being no action taken by the CIR, duties. However, BOC examiners contested the tariff classification
petitioner filed a Petition for Review with CTA which upheld the if the said importation and recommended to the Collector of
assessment issued against petitioner amounting to P11M. Its MR Customs to reclassify respondent’s importation (covering
was also denied by CTA. Petitioner filed before CA a Motion for composite concentrates for simple dilution with water to make
Extension of Time to File Petition for Review which was also beverages) with a corresponding 7% import duty rate. To release
dismissed for lack of jurisdiction in view of RA 9282. Realizing its the importation, respondent paid the reclassified rate.
error, petitioner filed with CTA en banc a petitioner a Petition for
Review which was dismissed for being filed out of time. Respondent appealed before petitioner challenging the
reclassification. Not being granted, respondent filed a petition for
Petitioner admits that it failed to timely file its Petition for Review review before the CTA, CTA Second Division ruled in favor of
with the proper court (CTA). However, it attributes the procedural respondent. Petitioner disagreed and elevated the case to the CTA
lapse to the inadvertence or honest oversight of its counsel, who en banc via a petition for review which dismissed the case on
believed that at the time the petition, was filed, the CA still had ground that petition failed to file before the Second Division the
jurisdiction since the rules and regulations to implement the required MR before elevating the case to it.
newly enacted RA 9282 had not yet been issued and the
membership of the CTA En Banc was not complete.
The Court agrees with the CTA En Banc that the Commissioner
Jurisdiction to review decisions or resolutions issued by the failed to comply with the mandatory provisions of Rule 8, Section
Divisions of the CTA is no longer with the CA but with the CTA En 1 of the Revised Rules of the Court of Tax Appeals 31 requiring that
Banc. A party adversely affected by a resolution of a Division of "the petition for review of a decision or resolution of the Court in
the CTA on a motion for reconsideration or new trial, may file a Division must be preceded by the filing of a timely motion for
petition for review with the CTA en banc. However, as in all cases, reconsideration or new trial with the Division." The word "must"
there are exceptions to the strict application of the rules for clearly indicates the mandatory -- not merely directory -- nature of
perfecting an appeal such as when the late filing of the notices of a requirement. Before the CTA En Banc could take cognizance of
appeal were filed, the new rules applicable therein had just been the petition for review concerning a case falling under its
recently issued. In the instant case, RA 9282 took effect on April exclusive appellate jurisdiction, the litigant must sufficiently
23, 2004, while petitioner filed its Petition for Review on Certiorari show that it sought prior reconsideration or moved for a new
with the CA on August 24, 2004, or four months after the trial with the concerned CTA division. Procedural rules are not to
effectivity of the law. By then, petitioner’s counsel should have be trifled with or be excused simply because their non-
been aware of and familiar with the changes introduced by RA compliance may have resulted in prejudicing a party’s
9282. Thus, we find petitioner’s argument on the newness of RA substantive rights.33 Rules are meant to be followed. They may be
9282 a bit of a stretch. relaxed only for very exigent and persuasive reasons to relieve a
litigant of an injustice not commensurate to his careless non-
observance of the prescribed rules.
Petitioner likewise cannot validly claim that its erroneous filing of
the petition with the CA was justified by the absence of the CTA
rules and regulations and the incomplete membership of the CTA At any rate, even if the Court accords liberality, the position of the
En Banc as these did not defer the effectivity and implementation Commissioner has no merit. After examining the records of the
of RA 9282. In fact, under Section 2 of RA 9282, the presence of case, the Court is of the view that the import duty rate of 1%, as
four justices already constitutes a quorum for En Banc sessions determined by the CTA Second Division, is correct.
and the affirmative votes of four members of the CTA En Banc are
sufficient to render judgment. Thus, to us, the petitioner’s excuse
of "inadvertence or honest oversight of counsel" deserves scant
consideration. However, we will overlook this procedural lapse in
the interest of substantial justice. Although a client is bound by
the acts of his counsel, including the latter’s mistakes and
negligence, a departure from this rule is warranted where such
mistake or neglect would result in serious injustice to the
client.29 Procedural rules may thus be relaxed for persuasive
reasons to relieve a litigant of an injustice not commensurate with
his failure to comply with the prescribed procedure. Such is the
situation in this case.

Commissioner of Customs vs. Marina Sales