Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Symmetry Philippines, Inc.

EN BANC [C.T.A. EB CASE NO. 1276. December 28, 2016.] (C.T.A. Case No. 8324) COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE , petitioner , vs. SYMMETRY PHILIPPINES, INC. , respondent . DECISION CASTAEDA, JR. , J p : Before the CTA En Banc is the petition for review of petitioner Commissioner of Internal Revenue ("CIR," respondent in the division case) filed on February 24, 2015 assailing the Amended Decision 1 and the Resolution 2 promulgated on October 15, 2014 and on January 21, 2015, respectively, by the CTA Third Division (CTA 3rd Division) in the case entitled "Symmetry Philippines, Inc. v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue," docketed as CTA Case No. 8324. CIR prays that the petition be given due course and that the assailed Amended Decision and assailed Resolution of the CTA 3rd Division be reconsidered and judgment be rendered reverting to the Original Decision dated June 10, 2014 of the CTA 3rd Division ordering herein Symmetry Philippines, Inc. ("SPI," for brevity) to pay its 2004 deficiency income tax, value added tax, expanded withholding tax and final withholding VAT assessments in the total amount of P25,981,782.71 plus accrued deficiency and deficiency interest pursuant to Section 249 (B) and (C) of the NIRC of 1997. Other reliefs just and equitable under the premises are likewise prayed for. The dispositive portion of the assailed Amended Decision states: " WHEREFORE , the Motion for Reconsideration dated July 1, 2014 filed by petitioner is hereby PARTIALLY GRANTED. The assessment issued by respondent against petitioner covering taxable year 2004 for deficiency income tax is hereby CANCELLED and SET ASIDE. On the other hand, respondent's assessments for deficiency VAT, FWVAT and EWT for the same taxable year are UPHELD with modification. Accordingly, petitioner is ordered to pay the amount of P1,656,289.69, inclusive of the twenty-five percent (25%) surcharge imposed under Section 248 (A) (3) of the NIRC of 1997, computed as follows: CAIHTE Tax Type Basic 25% TOTAL Surcharge Value-Added Tax P631,396.67 P157,849.17 P789,245.84 Final Withholding 637,216.60 159,304.15 796,520.75 VAT Withholding Tax- 56,418.48 14,104.62 70,523.10 Expanded Total P1,325,031.75 P331,257.94 P1,656,289.69 =========== =========== =========== In addition, petitioner is ordered to pay: (a) Deficiency interest at the rate of twenty percent (20%) per annum on the basic deficiency VAT, final withholding VAT and expanded withholding tax computed from the dates indicated below until full payment thereof pursuant to Section 249(B) of the NIRC of 1997, as amended; Tax Type Deficiency Interest Computed From VAT January 25, 2005 Final Withholding VAT January 10, 2005 EWT January 13, 2005 (b) Delinquency interest at the rate of 20% per annum on the total amount of P1,656,289.69 and on the 20% deficiency interest which have accrued as afore-stated in (a), computed from July 31, 2011 until full payment thereof pursuant to Section 249(C) of the NIRC of 1997, as amended. SO ORDERED. " The dispositive portion of the assailed Resolution reads: " WHEREFORE , the Motion for Partial Reconsideration dated November 5, 2014 filed by respondent, is hereby DENIED , for lack of merit. SO ORDERED. " THE FACTS The facts of the case as found by the CTA 3rd Division, as stated in the June 10, 2014 Decision: 3 "Petitioner Symmetry Philippines, Inc., is a Philippine corporation with office address at Ground Floor, SEDDCO I Building, cor. Rada and Legaspi Streets, Legaspi Village, Makati City. xxx xxx xxx In June of 2006, petitioner received a Letter of Authority (LOA) No. 00096189 dated June 5, 2006, in relation to its internal revenue taxes for taxable year 2004. Sometime in 2008, petitioner received from respondent Items for Reconciliation for taxable year 2004 to which it submitted Replies on May 30, 2008. On September 4, 2008, petitioner received the results of the investigation conducted on its internal revenue taxes for taxable year 2004 via a letter dated July 18, 2008. On September 24, 2008 and October 3, 2008, petitioner submitted to respondent documents explaining the discrepancies indicated in the letter of July 18, 2008. In 2009, petitioner received Assessment Notices dated April 21, 2009, with a Formal Letter of Demand (FLD) for deficiency IT, VAT, EWT, FWT, and compromise penalty in the total amount of P47,021,249.69. On June 26, 2009, petitioner sent to respondent a protest letter dated June 25, 2009. More than two (2) years thereafter, or on July 25, 2011, petitioner received the assailed FDDA dated June 22, 2011. On August 24, 2011, petitioner filed the instant Petition for Review with the Court. In her Answer filed on November 14, 2011, respondent raised the following special and affirmative defenses: 7. The assessments in question were made and issued in accordance with law, rules and regulations; 8. Royalty payments per BIR Form 1601F (Other payments to NRFCs) total P6,372,165.79. Note 12 of the FS states: 'In consideration thereof, Symmetry Philippines, Inc. shall pay five (5%) of the monthly Philippine net sales of the product.' The above amount was grossed up and resulted in the amount of P127,443,316.00, which represents net sales, the basis of royalty payments. The difference between the derived amount was compared against Symmetry's Income Tax Return, resulting in undeclared sales of P49,167,727.00. The fact that only 3.9M was claimed as Royalty Expense in the ITR is of no consequence since payments per 1601F reflect P6.3M. The inclusion of the tax base of the 6.3M remittance as part of Royalty Payments finds basis also in the agreement where it is stated that 5% of net sales is the basis of royalty payments. There is no mention of additional compensation for Symmetry USA in the form of commissions anywhere in the documents submitted to refute the assessment. DETACa 9. Respondent disallowed petitioner's part of commission expense, professional fees, purchases of goods and services in the total amount of P3,711,336.56 for failure of the petitioner to withhold the corresponding withholding tax thereon and remit the same to the BIR. 10. Importations in the BOC importation data from the Audit Information Tax Exemption and Incentives Division were not included in the petitioner's schedule of importation, thus, resulting to under declaration of sales amounting to P1,650,134.00. 11. Petitioner failed to submit a breakdown or schedule of its various expenses in the amount of P3,364,471.73, hence, were disallowed. 12. Input tax claimed per return includes purchases of capital goods amounting to P580,237.40. However, the cash flow statement as well as Note 7 of petitioner's Notes to Financial Statements show an acquisition of only P136,778.00 or a difference of P443,459.40. The input tax for this unsupported capital expenditure is P44,345.94. (sic) Which was disallowed for failure to substantiate. 13. Input tax claimed amounting to P429,779.16 was disallowed inasmuch as the same were (sic) came from non-VAT suppliers. 14. All presumptions are in favor of the correctness of the tax assessment ( Interprovincial Autobus vs. Collector of Internal Revenue , 98 Phil. 290). Trial ensued after the Pre-Trial Order was issued on May 21, 2012. Petitioner first presented its current General Manager Elizabeth Aana. She testified that petitioner entered into a License Agreement with Symmetry Corporation in the U.S. under which the latter agreed to provide its marketing and distribution plan in return for a royalty fee equivalent to 5% net of petitioner's sales. Aana explained that under the multi-level marketing plan, petitioner sells its products only to distributors and not directly to the consumers or end users. The distributors either sell to the end-users, or recruit other individuals as distributors under them, the latter termed as downlines. A distributor recruited by another distributor is part of the recruiter distributor's network. In this marketing scheme, a distributor earns income, not only from his sales to the consumers, but also from the sales of the distributors he recruited up to the 7th level. Since all Philippine distributors have been recruited by distributors from Symmetry Corporation in the U.S., these distributors from the U.S. earn commissions from their distributors in the Philippines. Thus, Symmetry Corporation in the U.S. bills petitioner which in turn remits the commissions to the U.S. distributors. Further, Aana differentiated royalty fees from commissions based on tax rates. According to her, petitioner withheld ten percent (10%) from the royalty fees it paid to Symmetry Corporation in the U.S. and thirty-two percent (32%) from the commissions it remitted to the distributors in the U.S. through Symmetry Corporation. On this regard, petitioner's Chief Accountant for the past 15 years Elito Uy Chan explained further that the royalties to Symmetry Corporation and commissions paid to the distributors in the U.S. were separately recognized by petitioner for reporting and recording purposes. Contrary to the FDDA, petitioner already subjected the royalty payments to Symmetry Corporation to withholding VAT. The FDDA also erroneously indicated as royalties the commissions paid to the distributors in the U.S. which were not subjected by petitioner to withholding VAT but to final tax of 32%. Symmetry Corporation bills petitioner and pays the commissions of the U.S. distributors. On the other hand, petitioner directly pays the commissions of the Philippine distributors. Finally, Independent Certified Public Accountant (ICPA) Michael L. Aguirre, who audited petitioner's supporting documents, submitted to the Court an ICPA Report with the following results: 1. Petitioner had no undeclared sales, in the amount of P49,167,727.00 arising from grossed-up amount on alleged "royalty payments" because such amount were commissions and should not be used as basis for computing petitioner's revenue. Petitioner thus cannot be held liable for deficiency income tax and VAT relative to such grossed-up amount. 2. Petitioner had no undeclared sales from "Assumed Undeclared Importation" in the amount of P1,650,134.00 based on the audit conducted. Further, the BIR failed to provide petitioner the factual and legal bases of such assessment which is then deemed void pursuant to Section 228 of the NIRC. 3. The disallowed commission expense in the amount of P410,336.00 claimed by the BIR to be a discrepancy was due to an error in identifying the expense. Instead of recording some of the discrepancies as Commission Expense, it was mistakenly recorded as Sales Discount. The remaining difference was attributable to timing difference as petitioner is following the "Accrual Accounting" method in preparing its Financial Statements. 4. As to the disallowed P60,000.00 Professional Fees, the same should be allowed as appropriate withholding was done by petitioner. Those not subjected to withholding tax were for payments to General Professional Partnerships. aDSIHc 5. Other income payments were erroneously disallowed by the BIR. 6. The disallowance of Unsupported Various Expenses in the amount of P3,364,471.73 is without legal and factual basis. 7. Petitioner is not liable for Deficiency Income tax for disallowed NOLCO. 8. However, petitioner is liable for Deficiency VAT in the amount of P95,730.15, exclusive of penalties and interest, as well as for unpaid withholding VAT for Commission payments in the amount of P637,216.58, exclusive of penalties and interest. After petitioner rested, respondent, though counsel, manifested that she would not present any evidence." This case was submitted for decision on September 20, 2013 with SPI's "Memorandum" posted on August 16, 2013 sans memorandum by CIR. On June 10, 2014, the CTA 3rd Division partially granted the Petition for Review. The dispositive portion of the June 10, 2014 Decision states: " WHEREFORE , the instant Petition for Review is PARTIALLY GRANTED . The assessments issued by respondent [CIR] against petitioner [SPI] for deficiency income tax, VAT, EWT and final withholding VAT for taxable year 2004 are hereby AFFIRMED with modifications. Accordingly, petitioner is ORDERED TO PAY respondent the amount of P25,981,782.71 representing deficiency income tax, value added tax, expanded withholding tax and final withholding VAT for taxable year 2004, inclusive of the twenty-five percent (25%) surcharge imposed under Section 248 (A) (3) of the NIRC of 1997, computed as follows: 25% TAX TYPE BASIC TAX SURCHARGE TOTAL Income Tax P14,255,877.13 P3,563,969.28 P17,819,846.41 VAT 5,391,677.87 1,347,919.47 6,739,597.34 EWT 101,452.09 25,363.02 126,815.11 Final Withholding VAT 1,036,419.08 259,104.77 1,295,523.85 P20,785,426.17 P5,196,356.54 P25,981,782.71 ============ ============ ============ Petitioner is likewise ORDERED TO PAY: (a) Deficiency interest at the rate of twenty percent (20%) per annum on the basic deficiency income tax, value added tax, expanded withholding tax and final withholding value added tax computed from the dates indicated below until full payment thereof pursuant to Section 249(B) of the NIRC of 1997, as amended: TAX TYPE DEFICIENCY INTEREST COMPUTED FROM Income Tax April 15, 2005 VAT January 25, 2005 EWT January 15, 2005 Final Withholding VAT January 10, 2005 (b) Delinquency interest at the rate of 20% per annum on the total amount of P25,981,782.71 and on the 20% deficiency interest which have accrued as afore-stated in (a), computed from July 31, 2011 until full payment thereof pursuant to Section 249(C) of the NIRC of 1997, as amended. SO ORDERED. " On July 2, 2014, SPI filed a "Motion for Reconsideration" and re-submitted, as part of its Motion, copies of documents examined by the Independent Certified Public Accountant (ICPA) as well as a disc containing scanned copies of the said documents. CIR failed to file her Comment on SPI's "Motion for Reconsideration." On October 15, 2014, SPI's Motion was partially granted, thus, the CTA 3rd Division issued an Amended Decision. The assessment issued by CIR against SPI covering taxable year 2004 for deficiency income tax was cancelled and set aside. On the other hand, the assessments for deficiency VAT, FWVAT and EWT for the same taxable year were upheld with modification. On November 5, 2014, CIR moved for the partial reconsideration of the Amended Decision. On December 15, 2014, SPI filed its "Opposition to Motion for Reconsideration." On January 21, 2015, the CTA 3rd Division denied CIR's Motion for Partial Reconsideration for lack of merit. A copy of the said resolution was received by the CIR and the Office of the Solicitor General on January 23, 2015. On February 9, 2015, the CIR filed via registered mail a Motion for Extension of Time to File Petition for Review in the CTA En Banc . The Court received it on March 6, 2015. On February 24, 2015, the CIR filed via registered mail the Petition for Review in the CTA En Banc. On March 11, 2015, the CTA 3rd Division ordered the issuance of the Entry of Judgment. Per Records Verification Report of the Judicial Records Division dated February 23, 2015, there was no appeal filed to the CTA En Banc or Supreme Court in the above-entitled case. ETHIDa On March 20, 2015, the Entry of Judgment was issued certifying that the October 15, 2014 Amended Decision became final and executory on February 13, 2015, CIR's Motion for Partial Reconsideration thereof having been denied in a Resolution promulgated on January 21, 2015 without any appeal being taken thereon. 4 On April 8, 2015, CIR filed, through a registered mail, a "Motion to Lift (Entry of Judgment)" with the CTA 3rd Division. 5 Attached therewith are as follows: (1) Annex "A" 6 "Motion for Extension of Time to File Petition for Review" filed with the CTA En Banc on February 9, 2015; (2) Annex "B" 7 Petition for Review filed on February 24, 2015 via registered mail (tracking no. AC022416963ZZ); and (3) Annex "C" 8 delivery event details of registered mail with tracking no. AC022416963ZZ delivered on March 19, 2015. On April 22, 2015, the CTA 3rd Division granted SPI a period of fifteen days within which to file comment/opposition to the "Motion to Lift (Entry of Judgment)." On May 14, 2015, SPI filed an "Opposition to Motion to Lift (Entry of Judgment)." On June 11, 2015, the CTA 3rd Division denied for lack of merit the "Motion to Lift (Entry of Judgment)" dated April 8, 2015. On July 3, 2015, the CTA En Banc issued a Resolution denying CIR's Motion for Extension of Time and dismissing CIR's Petition for Review for being filed out of time. The dispositive portion states: WHEREFORE , premises considered, the Motion for Extension of Time is DENIED , for being filed out of time, and the Petition for Review is hereby DISMISSED , likewise for being filed out of time and for petitioner's failure to comply with the proof of service requirement under Section 5, Rule 43 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure in relation to Section 4(b), Rule 8 of the RRCTA. SO ORDERED. On August 5, 2015, CIR moved for the reconsideration of the July 3, 2015 Resolution. On November 2, 2015, the CTA En Banc set aside the Resolution and reinstated the Petition for Review dated February 24, 2015. On March 4, 2016, SPI filed its Comment to Petition for Review. On March 28, 2016, the instant Petition for Review was submitted for decision. Hence, this decision. ISSUES In this case, CIR raised the reasons for the allowance of the Petition for Review: 9 (1) THE CTA THIRD DIVISION COMMITTED REVERSIBLE ERROR IN NOT HOLDING THAT EVIDENCE NOT FORMALLY OFFERED (EVEN THOUGH THEY WERE ATTACHED TO THE MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION) SHALL NOT BE CONSIDERED AS PROVIDED FOR UNDER SECTION 34, RULE 132 OF THE REVISED RULES OF COURT. (2) THE CTA THIRD DIVISION COMMITTED REVERSIBLE ERROR IN CANCELLING THE DEFICIENCY INCOME TAX AND REDUCING OTHER DEFICIENCY TAXES DESPITE LACK OF DOCUMENTARY PROOF TO SHOW THAT THERE WERE INDEED COMMISSIONS PAID TO THE DISTRIBUTORS IN THE U.S. In its Comment to the Petition for Review, SPI argues that the CTA En Banc has acquired no jurisdiction over the instant Petition for Review due to CIR's failure to perfect her appeal in accordance with law; and that the CTA 3rd Division did not err in upholding its Amended Decision dated 15 October 2014, hence, the same should be affirmed. THIS COURT'S RULING After a careful perusal of the records, We resolve to dismiss the Petition for Review. The CTA En Banc has no jurisdiction in this case; Petition for Review is already moot because of the Entry of Judgment in the CTA Division. "A case is said to be moot or academic when it ceases to present a justiciable controversy by virtue of supervening events, so that a ruling would be of no practical use or value. Courts generally decline jurisdiction over moot cases because there is no substantial relief to which petitioner would be entitled and which would anyway be negated by the dismissal of the petition. " 10 The records of this case reveal that there are supervening events which rendered moot the petition for review in the CTA En Banc . During the pendency of the CIR's Motion for Extension of Time and the Petition for Review filed in the CTA En Banc , the CTA 3rd Division has already issued an Entry of Judgment with respect to the assailed Amended Decision dated October 15, 2014, notice of which was issued on March 20, 2015. On June 11, 2015, the CTA 3rd Division denied CIR's Motion to Lift (Entry of Judgment). The Resolution dated June 11, 2015 of the CTA 3rd Division, which denied CIR's "Motion to Lift (Entry of Judgment)," extensively discussed that the appeal on February 24, 2015 was filed out of time. Pertinent portions of the said Resolution 11 provide: cSEDTC As provided in Section 4, Rule 43, [CIR] had fifteen (15) days or until February 7, 2015 to seek review of the assailed Resolution before the Court En Banc . However, February 7, 2015 was a Saturday, thus, [CIR] had until the next working day, or until February 9, 2015 to file appropriate pleading. Applying the foregoing principle, [CIR]'s Motion for Extension of Time to File Petition for Review was timely filed with the Court En Banc on February 9, 2015. However, the same is not true with the subsequent filing of [CIR]'s Petition for Review with the Court En Banc on February 24, 2015. As provided under Section 4, Rule 43, only one extension of fifteen (15) days may be granted. Further, when the motion for extension to appeal is granted, any extension of time to file the required pleading should be counted from the expiration of the original period to appeal regardless of whether the said due date falls on a Saturday, Sunday or legal holiday. In this case, counting from February 7, 2015 the last day for filing her appeal [CIR] could have one extension of fifteen days, or until February 22, 2015 to file her Petition for Review with the Court En Banc . Since, the said date fell on a Sunday, [CIR] had until the next working date or until February 23, 2015, to file her Petition for Review. But for reason only known to her, [CIR] filed its appeal out of time on February 24, 2015. Arguably, there are exceptions to the rules on the reglementary periods for filing of appeals, none however is attendant in this case. Well-entrenched is the doctrine that the right to appeal is a statutory right, and one who seeks to avail of the said right must comply with the applicable statute or rules thereon. xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx The perfection of an appeal in the manner and within the period permitted by law is not only mandatory, but jurisdictional, and the failure to perfect that appeal renders the judgment of the court final and executory. With respect to the timeliness of the filing of the petition, We find the Supreme Court (SC) case, Reinier Pacific International Shipping, Inc., et al. v. Captain Francisco B. Guevarra, substituted by his heirs , 12 ("Reinier Shipping" case) applicable in this case. In the Reinier Shipping case, the SC discussed the clarification stated in A.M. 00-2-14-SC, regarding the application of Section 1, Rule 22 13 of the Rules of Court when the last day on which a pleading is due falls on a Saturday, Sunday, or legal holiday and the original period is extended. The Supreme Court resolved that Section 1, Rule 22 speaks only of "the last day of the period so that when a party seeks an extension and the same is granted, the due date ceases to be the last day and hence, the provision no longer applies. Any extension of time to file the required pleading should therefore be counted from the expiration of the period regardless of the fact that said due date is a Saturday, Sunday or legal holiday." 14 Pertinent portions of the Reinier Shipping case provide: Reinier Shipping's last day for filing its petition fell on July 26, a Friday. It asked for a 15-day extension before the period lapsed and this was granted. As it happened, 15 days from July 26 fell on August 10, a Saturday. xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx Since its new due date fell on a Saturday when courts are close, however, the clear language of Section 1, Rule 2[2], applies. This gives Reinier Shipping up to Monday (August 12), the next working day, within which to file its petition. The clarification provided in A.M. 00-2-14-SC actually covers a situation where the due date falls on a Saturday, Sunday, or holiday. Precisely, what such clarification wanted to address is the erroneous claim that "the period of extension" in such a case "is to be reckoned from the next working day and not from the original expiration of the period." The correct rule, according to the clarification, is that "[a]ny extension of time to file the required pleading should x x x be counted from the expiration of the period regardless of the fact that said due date is a Saturday, Sunday, or legal holiday. " For example, if a pleading is due on July 10 and this happens to be a Saturday, the time for filing it shall not run, applying Section 1 of Rule 2[2], on July 10 (Saturday) nor on July 11 (Sunday) but will resume to run on the next working day, which is July 12 (Monday). The pleading will then be due on the latter date. If the period is extended by 10 days, such 10 days will be counted, not from July 12 (Monday) but from the original due date, July 10 (Saturday) regardless of the fact that said due date is a Saturday." Consequently, the new due date will be 10 days from July 10 or precisely on July 20. xxx xxx xxx. Applying the Reinier Shipping case in the instant case, We find that CIR's Petition for Review was filed beyond the period to appeal. It is undisputed that CIR received the assailed January 21, 2015 Resolution on January 23, 2015. 15 Based on Section 3 (b), Rule 8 of the Revised Rules of the Court of Tax Appeals (RRCTA), the party adversely affected by the Decision or Resolution of the CTA Division has 15 days from receipt of a copy of the questioned decision or resolution within which to file an appeal. Counting 15 days from January 23, 2015 is February 7, 2015, which fell on a Saturday. The next working day is Monday, February 9, 2015. CIR's "Motion for Extension of Time to File Petition for Review" was timely filed on February 9, 2015 based on Section 1, Rule 22 of the Rules of Court. Applying the clarification in A.M. 00-2-14-SC, any extension of time should be counted from the expiration of the period. In this case, if the period is extended by 15 days, such period of extension will be reckoned from the original due date, February 7, 2015 regardless of the fact that it is a Saturday. The "Petition for Review" should have been filed on February 22, 2015, which is the 15th day after the original due date (February 7, 2015). Since the new due date (February 22, 2015) fell on a Sunday, the Petition for Review shall be filed on February 23, 2015 (Monday), the next working day. However, the Petition for Review was only filed on February 24, 2015 or 1 day late. In effect, the challenged Amended Decision before the CTA En Banc becomes final and executory. SDAaTC "A final judgment, once rendered, leaves nothing more to be done by the court. Consequently, a final judgment also becomes executory by operation of law; it becomes a fact upon the lapse of the reglementary period to appeal if no appeal or motion for new trial or reconsideration is filed or perfected. It becomes incumbent for the clerk of court to enter in the book of entries the judgment and the date of finality of the judgment shall also be deemed to be the date of the entry of judgment." 16 In the case of Reyes v. Insular Life Assurance Co., Ltd. , 17 the Supreme Court rendered moot and academic the petition with the entry of judgment. The reason is that the issue ceases to be justiciable when a controversy becomes moot and academic; otherwise, the court would engage in rendering an advisory opinion on what the law would be upon a hypothetical state of facts. 18 This Court also notes that SPI filed a "Manifestation" on March 18, 2016 and copy furnished the CIR, through counsel. The "Manifestation" states, among others, that "[o]n March 11, 2016, the Large Taxpayers Division (LTD)-Makati of the Bureau of Internal Revenue (BIR) issued a Certification confirming collection in full of the amount of Seven Million Nine Hundred Twenty Six Thousand Nine Hundred Ten and 49/100 Pesos (P7,926,910.49), which included the basic tax plus 25% surcharge, 20% interest and 20% delinquency interest from 31 July 2011, in accordance with the Amended Decision, dated 15 October 2014." SPI also states that the full payment of the judgment award should finally put an end to this litigation. The Certification 19 from the LTD-Makati of the BIR, signed by the Chief of the LTD-Makati was attached as Annex "1" to the "Manifestation." Based on the foregoing discussions, this Court deem it proper to no longer discuss the other issues in this case because of the mootness of the petition and for this Court's lack of jurisdiction. The instant petition must be dismissed. WHEREFORE , premises considered, the Petition for Review is DISMISSED for being moot and for this Court's lack of jurisdiction. SO ORDERED. (SGD.) JUANITO C. CASTAEDA, JR. Associate Justice Roman G. del Rosario, P.J., Lovell R. Bautista, Erlinda P. Uy, Caesar A. Casanova, Esperanza R. Fabon-Victorino and Cielito N. Mindaro-Grulla, JJ. , concur. Ma. Belen M. Ringpis-Liban and Catherine T. Manahan, JJ. , are on leave. Footnotes 1. Rollo , pp. 15-34; Penned by Associate Justice Esperanza R. Fabon-Victorino, concurred in by Associate Justice Lovell R. Bautista and Associate Justice Ma. Belen M. Ringpis-Liban. 2. Rollo , pp. 35-38; Penned by Associate Justice Esperanza R. Fabon-Victorino, concurred in by Associate Justice Lovell R. Bautista. Associate Justice Ma. Belen M. Ringpis-Liban was on official business. 3. Division Docket, Vol. 2, pp. 547-553; Petitioner refers to Symmetry Philippines, Inc. (respondent in the CTA En Banc case); Respondent refers to Commissioner of Internal Revenue (petitioner in the CTA En Banc case). 4. Division Docket, Vol. 2, pp. 654-656. 5. Id. , pp. 657-659. 6. Id. , pp. 660-661. 7. Id. , pp. 662-671. 8. Id. , pp. 672-673. 9. Rollo , p. 5. 10. Tanog v. Balindong, et al. , G.R. No. 187464, November 25, 2015 citing Ilusorio v. Baguio City Country Club Corporation , G.R. No. 179571, July 2, 2014, 728 SCRA 592, 598; Emphasis Supplied. 11. Division Docket, Vol. II, pp. 686-687. 12. G.R. No. 157020, June 19, 2013, 699 SCRA 6-7. 13. Rule 22 COMPUTATION OF TIME SECTION 1. How to compute time. In computing any period of time prescribed or allowed by these Rules, or by order of the court, or by any applicable statute, the day of the act or event from which the designated period of time begins to run is to be excluded and the date of performance included. If the last day of the period, as thus computed, falls on a Saturday, a Sunday, or a legal holiday in the place where the court sits, the time shall not run until the next working day. (Emphasis Supplied) 14. A.M. 00-2-14-SC. 15. Division Docket, Volume 2, p. 644. 16. Reyes v. Insular Life Assurance Co., Ltd. , G.R. No. 180098, April 2, 2014, 720 SCRA 407. 17. G.R. No. 180098, April 2, 2014, 720 SCRA 407. 18. Id. 19. Rollo , p. 96.