Paseo Realty & Development Corp. v. Court of Tax Appeals

FORMER SIXTEENTH DIVISION [CA-G.R. SP No. 32890. January 14, 1997.] PASEO REALTY AND DEVELOPMENT CORP. , petitioner , vs . HON. COURT OF TAX APPEALS and COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE , respondents . R E S O L U T I O N GONZAGA-REYES , J p : Before us are the a) motion filed by the petitioner to amend the dispositive portion of the decision rendered by this Court on April 25, 1994 or in the alternative to direct the Court of Tax Appeals to amend its decision in CTA Case No. 4528 dated April 30, 1993 to conform to the decision of this Court dated April 25, 1994 and b) the resolution issued by the respondent Court of Tax Appeals dated March 24, 1995 referring this case to us for appropriate action in view of the impossibility of consolidating this case with the other cases filed by the petitioner for tax refund. LLphil On January 7, 1994 a petitioner for review was filed by herein petitioner from the decision of the respondent Court of Tax Appeals in CTA Case No. 4528 denying the petitioner's claim for refund of overpaid creditable withholding tax for the year ending December 31, 1988 in the amount of P59,510.00. The Commissioner of Internal Revenue filed Comment opposing the petition. On April 25, 1994 this Court rendered judgment which insofar as pertinent to the instant motion states as follows: "It would appear from the petitioner's submission as follows: '. . . Since it has already applied to its prior year's excess credit of P81,403.00 (which petitioner wanted refunded when it filed its 1988 Income Tax Return on April 14, 1989) the income tax liability for 1988 of P28,127.00 and the income tax liability for 1989 of P27,653.00 leaving a balance refundable of 25,623.00 subject of C.T.A. Case No. 4439, the P92,750.00 (P64,623.00 plus P28,127.00, since this second amount was already applied to the amount refundable of P81,403.00) should be the refundable amount. But since the tax payer again used part of it to satisfy its income tax liability of P33,240.00 for 1990, the amount refundable was P59,510.00, which is the amount prayed for in the claim for refund and also in the petitioner (sic) for review.' that the present claim for refund already consolidates its claims for refund for 1988, 1989 and 1990, when it filed a claim for refund of P59,510.00 in this case (CTA Case no. 4528). Hence the present claim should be resolved together with the previous claims. We do not agree with the respondent court's conclusion limiting the refund to the overpaid creditable withholding tax for 1988. The argument that on the basis of Section 69 of the Tax Code, the refundable amount shall be credited against the estimated quarterly income tax liabilities for the taxable quarters of the "succeeding year", and that the said provision eschews application of tax credits beyond the succeeding year fails to take into account the rule that the prescriptive period for claiming refund is two years counted from the date of filing of the adjusted final tax return (ACCRA Investment Corporation vs. Court of Appeals, 204 SCRA 957). Accordingly, it is the opinion of this Court that the three cases involving successive claims for refund which were jointly tried, and which apparently gave rise to the instant claim for refund of P59,510.00 should be resolved in a consolidated decision, taking into account the observations made by the court above. WHEREFORE, the case is remanded to the court a quo for further proceedings." On May 25, 1994 the respondent Commissioner of Internal Revenue filed a motion for reconsideration stating that the remanding of the case for further proceedings is no longer possible because the other cases e.g., CTA Case Nos. 4254, 4439 and 4693 have been decided by the Court of Tax Appeals. The Commissioner of Internal Revenue prayed that the directive of this Court remanding the case for a consolidated decision be set aside and for this Court to render judgment on the merits. On August 29, 1994 this Court issued a resolution stating that the said motion can no longer be entertained for having been filed out of time. The decision of this Court having attained finality, an entry of judgment was issued by this Court on November 10, 1994. On March 24, 1995 the Court of Tax Appeals issued a resolution returning the case to this Court for "whatever appropriate action it may take "in view of the Manifestation of the Commissioner of Internal Revenue that the other cases have been decided by the Court of Tax Appeals and that consolidation is no longer possible. The decision in this case having attained finality the CTA resolution was no longer reported to us for consideration. The instant motion to amend the dispositive portion of the decision rendered by this Court dated April 25, 1994 was filed praying for this court to render judgment allowing the petitioner's claim for refund for the year 1988 in the amount of P59,510.00, in view of the apparent impossibility of consolidating this case with the other cases involving claims for refund for other years, or in the alternative, petitioner prays for an order from this court directing the respondent Court of Tax Appeals to vacate its decision dated April 30, 1993 and direct the CIR to refund the petitioner the amount of P59,510.00 for overpaid taxes withheld for the year 1988. The petitioner admits that the other cases filed before the respondent CTA namely, CTA Case Nos. 4254 and 4439 have attained finality but argues that the finality of the other cases is not a legal obstacle to the remand of the case from this court to the CTA and for the CTA to determine the amount refundable to the petitioner for the year 1988 pursuant to the pronouncements of this court in its decision dated April 25, 1994. It is settled that a judgment that has attained finality may no longer be modified, altered or reversed. Equally settled however, is that this general rule admits of certain exceptions such as when supervening events or circumstances transpire after finality of judgment materially altering the effects of the judgment on the parties or substantially altering the situation between the parties as to render execution of judgment unjust, inequitable or impossible, the interested party may seek relief from the court which rendered judgment to modify or amend the judgment, notwithstanding its finality, as the new facts and circumstance may warrant (Rubio vs. MTCC Cagayan de Oro 252 SCRA 172; City of Butuan vs. Ortiz 3 SCRA 659; Albar vs. Carandang 6 SCRA 211; Baclayon vs. Court of Appeals 182 SCRA 762; Mata vs. Lichauco 36 Phil vs. 809; Abellana vs. Dosdos 13 SCRA 244). LLjur It is not disputed that the subsequent impossibility of consolidating this case with the other cases filed by the petitioner before the respondent court transpired after finality of our decision. There is no question also that both parties submit that the judgment rendered by this court on April 24, 1994 should be harmonized with the supervening developments. The resolution issued by the respondent court dated March 24, 1995 is noted. The petitioner's motion to amend the dispositive portion of the decision has merit and is hereby GRANTED. The dispositive portion of the decision rendered by this Court dated April 25, 1994 is hereby amended as follows: WHEREFORE, in view of the supervening impossibility of consolidating this case with the other cases involving the petitioner's claim for refund for other taxable years, the dispositive portion of our decision dated April 25, 1994 remanding this case to the respondent Court of Tax Appeals for consolidation is SET ASIDE . The respondent Court of Tax Appeals is hereby required to determine the amount refundable to the petitioner for the year 1988 pursuant to the pronouncement of this court in its decision dated April 25, 1994 and to refund or credit the same in favor of the petitioner. SO ORDERED. Montenegro and Vasquez, Jr . , JJ . , concur.