San Ramon v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue

[CA-G.R. SP No. 34335. July 4, 1994.] FERNANDO D. SAN RAMON , petitioner , vs . THE COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE , respondent . R E S O L U T I O N ABAD SANTOS , JR ., J p : This is a petition for review on certiorari of the decision of the Court of Tax Appeals dated October 26, 1993, filed with the Supreme Court but was referred to this Court for proper determination disposition pursuant to Section 9, Paragraph 3 of B.P. Blg. 129. In the "Verification, Statement of Material Dates, Certification as to Non-Forum Shopping and Affidavit of Service", petitioner states: "3. That I received the decision of the Honorable Court of Tax Appeals of December 9, 1993 ; 4. That I filed a motion for reconsideration with the Honorable Court of Tax of Appeals on December 23, 1993 ; 5. That on March 11, 1994 petitioner appellant received resolution denying motion for reconsideration; 6. That I am filing this petition on March 24, 1994 or within the reglementary period;" Paragraph 4 of Supreme Court Circular No. 1-91 dated February 27, 1991 was adopted in Section 6 (4), Rule 6 of the Revised Internal Rules of the Court of Appeals, as amended, provides: "4. Period of appeal . The appeal shall be taken within fifteen (15) days from notice of the ruling, award, order, decision or judgment or from the date of its last publication if publication is required by law for its effectivity. One (1) motion for reconsideration of said ruling, award, order, decision, or judgment may be allowed, if the motion id denied, the movant may appeal during the remaining period for appeal reckoned from notice of the resolution of denial"; Based on the foregoing, the petition is clearly filed out of time. Petitioner received the Court of Tax Appeals Decision sought to be reviewed on December 9, 193. Fourteen (14) days thereafter or on December 23, 1993, he filed a motion for reconsideration. Therefore, petitioner had only two (2) days remaining period for him to appeal. He received the Resolution denying his Motion for Reconsideration on March 11, 1994, but only filed this petition on March 24, 1994 or eleven (11) days after the expiration of the period to appeal. Consequently, the same could no longer be entertained as it is already time-barred. Apparently, to avoid the above-discussed procedural flaw, petitioner filed this petition directly to the Supreme Court. Even this does not help petitioner. For under Section 9, paragraph 3 of B.P. Blg. 129, this Court has "(3) Exclusive appellate jurisdiction over all final judgments, decisions, resolutions, orders or awards of Regional Trial Courts and quasi-judicial agencies, instrumentalities, boards, or commissions, except those falling within the appellate jurisdiction f the Supreme Court in accordance with the Constitution the provisions of this Act and of subparagraph (1) of the third paragraph and subparagraph (4) of the fourth paragraph of Section 17 of the Judiciary Act of 1948." This was reiterated in paragraph 3 of Circular No. 1-91 dated 'February 27, 1991, which was also adopted in Section 6 (3), BIRCA, as amended, thus: "3. When may appeal and where to appeal. The appeal of a party affected by a final order, decision, or judgment of the Court of Appeals or of a quasi-judicial agency shall be taken to the Court of Appeals within the period and in this manner herein provided, whether the appeal involves questions of fact or of law or mixed questions of fact and law. From final judgments or decisions of the Court of Appeals, the aggrieved party may appeal by certiorari to the Supreme Court as provided in Rule 40 of the Rules of Court." WHEREFORE, the petition is hereby DENIED DUE COURSE and is ordered DISMISSED. SO ORDERED. Martinez and Jacinto, JJ ., concur.