Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Asiasec Equities, Inc.

EN BANC [C.T.A. EB CASE NO. 1112. August 18, 2014.] (C.T.A. Case No. 8242) COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE , petitioner , vs . ASIASEC EQUITIES, INC. , respondent . RESOLUTION FABON-VICTORINO , J p : For resolution is the Motion for Reconsideration dated May 23, 2014, filed by petitioner Commissioner of Internal Revenue (CIR) assailing the Decision of the Court En Banc dated April 21, 2014, denying her Petition for Review for lack of merit thereby affirming the Decision dated November 4, 2013 promulgated by the Court in Division in favor of respondent ASIASEC EQUITIES, INC. The motion is based on the following grounds: I THE HONORABLE COURT OF TAX APPEALS (EN BANC), WITH ALL DUE RESPECT, ERRED WHEN IT DENIED THE PETITION FOR REVIEW ON THE GROUND THAT THE SAME WAS FILED A FEW DAYS LATE. II THE HONORABLE COURT OF TAX APPEALS (EN BANC), WITH ALL DUE RESPECT, ERRED WHEN IT AFFIRMED THE DECISION DATED NOVEMBER 4, 2013 AND THE RESOLUTION DATED DECEMBER 19, 2013, WHICH ORDERED THE REFUND AND ISSUANCE OF A TAX CREDIT CERTIFICATE TO ASIASEC EQUITIES, INC. IN THE AMOUNT OF ONE MILLION ONE HUNDRED THIRTY NINE THOUSAND SIX HUNDRED EIGHT AND 50/100 PESOS (P1,139,608.50), REPRESENTING ALLEGED ERRONEOUSLY PAID DOCUMENTARY STAMP TAX (DST) ON SECONDARY TRADING OF LISTED SHARES IN THE PHILIPPINE STOCK EXCHANGE FOR THE PERIOD MARCH 25, 2009 TO MAY 6, 2009. DaHcAS On July 15, 2014, respondent filed its Opposition/Comment to the motion. Respondent argues that the assailed Decision dated November 4, 2013 and December 19, 2013 Resolution were already final and executory when petitioner filed the instant Petition for Review, rendering the Court En Banc without any jurisdiction to entertain the same. Pursuant to Section 4 (b), Rule 8 of the CTA Rules and Section 4, Rule 43 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, the 15-day period to appeal the impugned decision is not only mandatory but also jurisdictional, says respondent. Respondent also describes petitioner's Motion for Reconsideration pro-forma claiming that it merely reiterates the arguments in her Answer and in the instant Petition for Review. It is incomprehensible that despite express admission that her Petition for Review was filed with the Court En Banc five (5) days beyond the already extended period granted by the Court, petitioner still insists that her appeal should be deemed as timely filed. This breach was magnified when petitioner filed her Motion to Admit the Petition for Review fourteen (14) days after she learned that the 15-day period she requested actually expired on January 25, 2014 and that her Petition for Review was belatedly filed on January 30, 2014. The Court cannot also ignore the fact that petitioner filed its Motion to Admit six (6) days after respondent filed a Manifestation inviting the attention of the Court to the belated filing of the appeal. Jurisdiction of the courts is dictated by law. It cannot be subject of stipulation or agreement of the parties. The lack or absence of such authority cannot be cured by silence, acquiescence or even consent of the parties. 1 Thus, whenever it appears that the Court has no jurisdiction over the case, it shall dismiss the action. Courts are bound to take notice of the limits of their authority and even if the issue is not raised in the pleadings or not suggested by counsel, it must recognize the want of jurisdiction and act accordingly. Note that in the instant case, respondent, at the onset, already called the attention of the Court respecting its lack of legal power to determine the case due to petitioner's filing of the petition beyond the reglementary period to appeal. When no timely appeal is taken, the judgment becomes final and the court loses jurisdiction over the case as in the case at bar and it has no alternative but to order the execution of the final judgment. 2 Anent the second ground raised in the Motion for Reconsideration, as correctly stated by respondent, it was just a restatement of the issue raised by petitioner in her previous pleadings which had been squarely rejected by the Court in the assailed Decision of April 21, 2014 and Resolution of December 19, 2013. WHEREFORE , petitioner's Motion for Reconsideration dated May 23, 2014, is hereby DENIED , for lack of merit. SO ORDERED . IaCHTS (SGD.) ESPERANZA R. FABON-VICTORINO Associate Justice Roman G. del Rosario, P.J., Juanito C. Castaeda, Jr., Erlinda P. Uy, Caesar A. Casanova, Cielito N. Mindaro-Grulla, Amelia R. Cotangco-Manalastas and Ma. Belen M. Ringpis-Liban, JJ., concur. Lovell R. Bautista, J., is on leave. Footnotes 1. Laresma v. Abellana , G.R. No. 140973, November 11, 2004. 2. Heirs of Teofilo Gaudiano v. Benemerito , G.R. No. 174247, February 21, 2007.