Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Court of Tax Appeals

EIGHTH DIVISION [CA-G.R. SP No. 25331. September 16, 1991.] (C.T.A. Case No. 3985) COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE , petitioner , vs . HON. COURT OF TAX APPEALS, and MAKATI SUPERMARKET CORP. , respondent . R E S O L U T I O N LOMBOS-DE LA FUENTE ,, J p : Before Us is a petition for review/appeal from the decision dated January 24, 1991, of the Court of Tax Appeals in CTA Case No. 3985 entitled "Makati Supermarket Corporation versus commissioner of Internal Revenue." Examining the petition, We note that while a certified true copy of the appealed decision is attached to the petition, the copies of the material portions of the record referred to in the petition are mere xerox copies and are neither duplicates originals nor certified true copies thereof. This constitutes non-compliance with the requirements of paragraph 6 of Circular No. 1-91 dated February 27, 1991, of the Supreme Court (which prescribes the rules governing appeals to the Court of Appeals from final orders or decisions of the Court of Tax Appeals and quasi-judicial agencies). On this score, the present petition is insufficient in form and substance. Furthermore, the record discloses that this Court, in its Resolution of August 20, 1991, acting on the motion filed by counsel for petitioner on August 2, 1991, praying for an additional period of thirty days from August 3, 1991, or up to September 3, 1991, within which to file the appeal or petition for review, resolved to grant the motion but only for 15 days or "until August 15, 1991, per Lacsamana case (143 SCRA 643). no meritorious reason having been given" for the thirty days" extension prayed for by counsel for petitioner. The present petition for review/appeal was filed only on August 31, 1991, or 15 days beyond the last day of the extension period granted by this Court (i.e., up to August 15, 1991). Considering that under the abovecited Circular No. 1-91 of the Supreme Court, appeals from final orders of the Court of tax Appeals shall be taken within 15 days from notice thereof (par. 4, ibid), and considering that as abovestated, the present petition for review was filed after the expiration of the extension period given to the petitioner, We must rule that the petition was in fact filed beyond the reglementary period for filing the same. Consequently, when the petition was filed, the decision of the Court of Tax Appeals which is sought to be reviewed had already become final and executory. (Del Pozo, et al., vs. Hon. Alfonso Penaoc, City Judge, Br. 1, Ozamis City, (167 SCRA 577; Abbott vs. NLRC, 145 SCRA 206; Medina, Sr. vs. The Hon. C.A., et al., 181 SCRA 837) WHEREFORE, for being insufficient in form and substance and for having been filed out of time, the present petition should be, as it is hereby, denied due course, and is accordingly hereby dismissed. SO ORDERED. Marigomen and Rasul . , JJ . , concur.