Equitable Banking Corp. v. Court of Tax Appeals

FIRST DIVISION [CA-G.R. SP No. 53436. June 2, 2000.] EQUITABLE BANKING CORPORATION , petitioner , vs . THE HONORABLE COURT OF TAX APPEALS and COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE , respondents . D E C I S I O N VILLARAMA. JR. , J p : Petitioner Equitable Banking Corporation ("Equitable," for brevity) comes to Us by way of a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 1 and alleges that respondent Court of Tax Appeals ("CTA") has acted with grave abuse of discretion amounting to excess or lack of jurisdiction by issuing the two (2) challenged resolutions dated January 8, 1999 and April 30, 1999 in Court of Tax Appeals Case No . 5559, entitled " Equitable Banking Corporation v . Commissioner of Internal Revenue ." The instant petition, which prays for injunctive reliefs, also crests on the allegation that there is no appeal or any plain, speedy and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law 2 available to the petitioner. A recapitulation of facts shows that CTA Case No . 5559 was filed by petitioner before respondent CTA to review the decision of another respondent, the Commissioner of Internal Revenue ("CIR"), who denied the claim of Equitable for refund of excess payment of gross receipts tax paid on the twenty percent (20%) final tax withheld on a certain passive income for the quarter ending September 30, 1995, 3 with the total amount of claim pegged at P2,092,248.52. 4 Pending since 1997, CTA Case No . 5559 would have been submitted for decision had it not for an omnibus motion filed by the petitioner on October 7, 1998, praying that the filing of its memorandum be held in abeyance; that CTA Case No . 5559 be reopened; and that petitioner be allowed to present additional and further evidence to substantiate its claim for tax refund. Two (2) cases involving the same parties 5 which were decided and promulgated by the respondent CTA, namely, CTA Case No. 5411 6 and CTA Case No. 5146 7 were cited by the petitioner as regards the requirement of proof in the determination of the claim for tax refund. Respondent CTA issued the assailed Resolution dated January 8, 1999, 8 denying the said omnibus motion. prcd On April 30, 1999, respondent CTA issued the other assailed resolution denying petitioner's motion for reconsideration thereof. The denial of said motion negated petitioner's hope to reopen CTA Case No . 5559 to present additional evidence/proof in support of its claim. Hence, the present recourse, which We find to be lacking in factual and legal bases and, therefore, must be dismissed on account of the following reasons. To begin with, petitioner's allegation that there is no appeal or any plain, speedy and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law is of no moment. Petitioner should have filed an appeal under Section 1 of Rule 43, 9 where appeals from respondent Court of Tax Appeals, as well as the other specific quasi-judicial agencies, must be taken to this Court. The available remedy of appeal under said rule shall be taken within the reglementary period of fifteen (15) 10 days from notice of the resolution. However, We find that the available remedy under Rule 43 had already lapsed to finality. Petitioner should have filed an appeal not later than the fifteenth (15th) day which fell on May 27, 1999, counted from the date of the receipt of the said resolution on May 12, 1999. 11 The instant petition, unavailing and improper as it is, was only filed on June 28, 1999. 12 Thus, having lost its appeal, petitioner must now swallow the bitter pill of a futile attempt in saving its case by filing the instant petition. The reason is simple: the special civil action of certiorari may not be invoked as a substitute for the remedy of appeal. 13 More pertinently, certiorari cannot be a substitute for the lost or lapsed remedy of appeal. 14 At the risk of being repetitious, the special civil action of certiorari is not and cannot be made a substitute for an appeal, where the latter remedy is available , as it was in this case. 15 Petitioner's attempt in reopening CTA Case No . 5559 finds no plausible basis either in law or in fact. Additional evidence is allowed when it is newly discovered, or where it has been omitted through inadvertence or mistake, or where the purpose of the evidence is to correct evidence previously offered. 16 Tested against the foregoing jurisprudence, We corroborate with the observation of the CIR in CTA Case No. 5521 , among other pertinent cases decided by it, purposefully cited by CTA that "Petitioner failed to specifically state the facts surrounding the alleged inadvertence or mistake or excusable negligence in the presentation of that alleged additional document except for the fact that it was raised in our previous decisions involving the same parties and subject matter. The Court cannot allow the presentation of piece-meal evidence, otherwise, there will be no end to litigation." 17 and, further finding no compelling reason to reverse respondent CTA's holding that petitioner's omnibus motion to reopen CTA Case No . 5559 would be tantamount to causing a delay in the administration of justice, 18 We reiterate the jurisprudence that a motion to reopen a case for the reception of additional evidence after a case has been submitted for decision (but before judgment is rendered) rests entirely in the sound judicial discretion of the trial court, 19 and this discretion will not be reviewed except where it has clearly been abused. 20 Hence, petitioner having failed to establish that respondent CTA acted with grave abuse of discretion, the instant petition must perforce fail. LibLex Finally, We believe and so hold the opinion that the issuance of the assailed resolutions in CTA Case No . 5559 may at most be considered an error of judgment which can be remedied by appeal, not the extraordinary writ of certiorari. Well settled is the rule that a petition for certiorari is intended to correct defects of jurisdiction solely and not to correct errors of procedure or matters in the court a quo' s findings or conclusions. 21 In view of the foregoing, We believe and so hold the opinion that respondent CTA did not act with grave abuse of discretion in issuing the assailed resolutions and, thus, deny the writ of certiorari with injunctive reliefs prayed for. WHEREFORE, premises considered, the petition is hereby DENIED DUE COURSE and accordingly DISMISSED, for lack of factual and legal bases. Costs against the petitioner. SO ORDERED. Montoya and Callejo, Sr . , JJ ., concur. Footnotes 1. 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, as amended 2. Rollo, p. 9. 3. Rollo, p. 44. 4. Rollo , p 47. 5. Entitled '' Equitable Banking Corporation v . Commissioner of Internal Revenue ." 6. Promulgated on June 15. 1998. 7. Promulgated on August 6, 1998 8. Annex "A," Rollo, pp. 30-36. 9. 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, as amended. 10. Section 4, Rule 43, 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, as amended. 11. Rollo, p. 2. 12. Ibid . 13. BF Corporation v. Court of Appeals, 288 SCRA 267. 14. Fajardo v. Bautista, 232 SCRA 291; De la Paz v. Panis, 245 SCRA 242. 15. Del Rosario v. Balagot, 161 SCRA 226. 16. Alegre v. Reyes, 161 SCRA 226. 17. Rollo, p. 34 18. Rollo, p. 41. 19. Agulto v. Court of Appeals, 181 SCRA 80. 20. Alegre v. Reyes, supra, citing 64 C. J. 160. 21. Government Service Insurance System v. Court of Appeals, 169 SCRA 244, citing Ilacad v. Court of Appeals , 78 SCRA 310.