National Development Co. v. Court of Tax Appeals

FORMER ELEVENTH DIVISION [CA-G.R. SP No. 42106. January 14, 1997.] NATIONAL DEVELOPMENT COMPANY , petitioner , vs . COURT OF TAX APPEALS, COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE , respondents . R E S O L U T I O N GONZAGA-REYES , J p : This refers to the Motion for Reconsideration filed by petitioner National Development Company (NDC) from this Court's Decision dated November 15, 1996. liblex Petitioner raises the following grounds in its Motion: "I With due respect, the sole reliance of this Honorable Court in dismissing the instant case on rigid technicalities and strict enforcement of procedural rules defeat the ends of substantial justice and deprives the herein petitioner of due process. II The seasonal filing of a motion for extension of time to file motion for reconsideration below, effected during the period of perfecting an appeal, suspends the running of the fifteen-day reglementary period and should at the very least be considered as a substantial compliance with the Rules of Procedure. III Assuming for the sake of argument that petitioner's appeal was filed out of time, it is within the power of this Honorable Court to temper rigid rules in favor of substantial justice in order to protect substantive rights of the petitioner. IV It is about time for this Honorable Court to pass upon (a) substantive issues, i.e., whether or not exhaustion of administrative remedies under PD 242 is jurisdictional; whether or not the National Internal Revenue Code is the applicable law in cases involving tax refund; whether or not the administrative filing of tax refund at the Department of Justice suspend the running of the two-year statutory periods." Well-settled is the rule that the right to appeal is a statutory right and a party who seeks to avail of the right must faithfully and strictly comply with the rules (Sta. Rita vs. CA, 247 SCRA 484; Republic vs. Register of Deeds of Quezon, 244 SCRA 537; Tan vs. CA, 213 SCRA 316). As to petitioner's contention that the "seasonal" filing of a motion for extension of time to file the motion for reconsideration, effected during the period of perfecting an appeal, suspends the running of the fifteen-day reglementary period, the same is devoid of merit. A motion for extension of time to file a motion for reconsideration is barred as enunciated in the leading case of Habaluyas Enterprises, Inc. vs. Japson, 138 SCRA 46, and reiterated in the case of Ramirez vs. CA, 187 SCRA 153. In fact, in the Resolution dated September 4, 1996, the respondent CTA correctly cited Supreme Court Administrative Circular No. 1 (pp. 47-48, rollo), in line with the ruling in the Habaluyas case, that no motion for extension to file motion for reconsideration shall be allowed; and the granting of such prohibited motion for extension shall not preserve the judgment or order from becoming final and executory. Petitioner is presumed to know the pertinent rules of procedure. The alleged failure of respondents CIR and CTA to object to the filing of the motion for extension is of no moment. Even assuming a gratia argumenti that the filing of a motion for extension to file motion for reconsideration is allowed, petitioner should not presume that it would be granted (People vs. CA, 242 SCRA 180). Allowance or denial of motions for extension of time is within the sound discretion of the court (De Guzman vs. Cuevas, Sr., 114 SCRA 650). Finally, this Court cannot likewise pass upon the substantive issues mentioned by petitioner in its fourth ground. As stated in this Court's decision, the remedy of appeal by way of petition for review is no longer available to petitioner as the same was filed beyond the period prescribed by the rules. The assailed Resolutions of the public respondent court having attained finality, the same can no longer be reviewed by this Court. WHEREFORE, petitioner's Motion for Reconsideration is hereby DENIED for lack of merit. SO ORDERED. Mabutas, Jr . , and Valdez, Jr ., JJ . , concur.