Liboro v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue

[CA-G.R. SP No. 25152. June 20, 1991.] (C.T.A. Case No. 4270) RENATO L. LIBORO , petitioner , vs . COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE and COURT OF TAX APPEALS , respondents . D E C I S I O N PURISIMA , J p : Before the Court is petitioner's "MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE PETITION FOR REVIEW"; praying for an extension of thirty (30) days from June 13, 1991, within which to file with this Court, a petition for review of the decision of the Court of Tax Appeals in C.T.A. Case No. 4270, entitled "Renato L. Liboro vs. Commissioner of Internal Revenue. Under Circular No. 1-91 of the Supreme Court, governing appeals to the Court of Appeals from a final order or decision of the Court of Tax Appeals and quasi-judicial agencies, it is clearly prescribed that the appeal be taken within fifteen (15) days from notice of the questioned ruling, award, or judgment, by filing with this Court, a verified petition for review in six (6) legible copies, serving copy thereof on the adverse party and the court or agency of origin. There is nothing in the said Supreme Court Circular in point which authorizes an extension of the period for the filing of a petition for review before this Court. The ruling in Rosario Lacsamana, et al. vs. The Honorable Second Special Cases Division of the Intermediate Appellate Court, et al. Nos. L-73146-53, August 26, 1986, 143 SCRA 643, applies only to petitions for review of decisions of Regional Trial Courts in appealed cases from Municipal or Metropolitan Trial Courts. What is controlling under the premises is the prevailing doctrine laid down in Habaluyas Enterprises, Inc., et al. vs. Judge Maximo M. Japson, et al., No. L-70895, May 30, 1986, to the effect that the time for appealing or filing a motion for reconsideration is non-extendible. WHEREFORE, the petition for extension of time to file petition for review is hereby DENIED; and it appearing that petitioner has not filed with this Court the contemplated petition for review on or before June 13, 1991, the last day of the reglementary period therefor, the present proceeding is CLOSED: and case considered TERMINATED. SO ORDERED. Mendoza * and Montoya, JJ ., concur. Footnotes * In lieu of Justice Eduardo R. Bengzon who is on leave.