Bureau of Internal Revenue v. De Lima

EN BANC [C.T.A. EB CASE NO. 1694. May 4, 2018.] (C.T.A Case No. 9171) BUREAU OF INTERNAL REVENUE represented by COMMISSIONER KIM S. JACINTO-HENARES , petitioner , vs . HON. LEILA M. DE LIMA in her capacity as SECRETARY OF JUSTICE, GEORGE ERWIN M. GARCIA , respondents . RESOLUTION CASTAEDA, JR. , J p : For resolution is petitioner's Motion for Reconsideration (of the Resolution dated September 22, 2017) with respondent Atty. Garcia's Opposition (To the Motion for Reconsideration dated 25 October 2017). On March 1, 2018, petitioner's motion was submitted for resolution. Petitioner prays that this Court take cognizance of the instant case and to give due course to the Petition for Review filed on August 18, 2017. Petitioner asks this Court to resolve the petition on its merits, in the highest interest of justice. Petitioner alleges, among others, that there was no intention to delay the legal procedures of the court, much less to file the Petition for Review out of time ; and that the confusion on the reckoning period , of filing the motion for extension of time to file Petition for Review, was brought only by the issuance of the two (2) resolutions promulgated by the CTA Third Division on June 30, 2017 and July 14, 2017, respectively. Respondent opposes the motion and alleges that the relaxation of procedural rules cannot be made without any valid reason; and that petitioner has offered no valid explanation, other than the alleged "confusion" as to the reckoning date from which to begin to count the 15-day period, for failure to abide by the Rules for the invocation of the interest of substantial justice. After a careful consideration of the arguments of both parties, this Court finds no valid or cogent reason to deviate from our findings and conclusions reached in the September 22, 2017 Resolution, thus, the motion is denied. This Court reiterates that, "perfection of an appeal in the manner and within the period laid down by law is not only mandatory but also jurisdictional. The failure to perfect an appeal as required by the rules has the effect of defeating the right to appeal of a party and precluding the appellate court from acquiring jurisdiction over the case . At the risk of being repetitious, We declare that the right to appeal is not a natural right nor a part of due process. It is merely a statutory privilege, and may be exercised only in the manner and in accordance with the provisions of the law." 1 (Emphasis Supplied) WHEREFORE , premises considered, petitioner's Motion for Reconsideration (of the Resolution dated September 22, 2017) is DENIED for lack of merit. 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, Cielito N. Mindaro-Grulla, Ma. Belen M. Ringpis-Liban and Catherine T. Manahan, JJ. , concur. Footnotes 1. Commissioner of Internal Revenue vs. Fort Bonifacio Development Corporation , G.R. No. 167606, August 11, 2010, 628 SCRA 96.