Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Spouses Go

ELEVENTH DIVISION [CA-G.R. SP No. 57148. May 10, 2000.] COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE , petitioner , vs . SPOUSES FRANCIS GO and EDNA SAN GABRIEL GO , respondents . R E S O L U T I O N CRUZ , J p : This is a petition for review of the Court of Tax Appeals' decision dated December 1, 1999 ordering petitioner to refund to respondents the amounts of P1,075,056.75 and P268,770.00 representing capital gains tax and documentary stamp tax paid on the foreclosure sale of their properties. It appears that petitioner received copy of the decision on December 3, 1999; that on December 17, 1999, he filed a motion for reconsideration of said decision; and that on February 1, 2000, the Court of Tax Appeals issued a Resolution denying said motion, copy of which was received by petitioner on February 2, 2000. On February 9, 2000, petitioner filed a motion before this Court for an extension of fifteen days from February 17, 2000 within which to file a petition for review. In a Resolution dated February 14, 2000, this Court granted the motion and gave petitioner an inextendible period of fifteen days from February 17, 2000, or until March 3, 2000, within which to file the intended petition for review. However, on March 3, 2000, petitioner filed a motion for extension of fifteen days, expiring on March 18, 2000, within which to file the petition for review. Sec. 4, Rule 43 of the 1997 Rules on Civil Procedure provides that after the 15-day extension, "(n)o further extension shall be granted except for the most compelling reason and in no case to exceed fifteen (15) days." The reason averred by petitioner in his motion for second extension, i.e., the petition was ready for his signature but he could not do so due to heavy workload, is contradicted in the jurat of the petition which states that it was "subscribed and sworn to" by petitioner on March 3, 2000. There was, therefore, no compelling reason for granting a second extension. Besides, the February 14, 2000 resolution contains a warning that the 15-day extension, which expired on March 3, 2000, is inextendible. Consequently, the motion for second extension must be, as it is hereby denied. Conformably with this disposition, the petition, which was filed on March 30, 2000, was presented twenty-seven days beyond the reglementary period. ECTIHa But even if he had been granted a second extension, petitioner had only until March 18, 2000 within which to file the petition for review. Consequently, the petition was still filed twelve days beyond the second extension sought. Furthermore, contrary to Sec. 11, Rule 13, the petition contains no written explanation why the service was not done personally. Finally, the petition is not accompanied by certified true copies of the decision dated December 1, 1999, resolution dated February 1, 2000 denying the motion for reconsideration and other supporting papers, i.e., Certificate of Sale, Real Estate Mortgage, etc. (Sec. 6[c], Rule 43, 1997 Rules on Civil Procedure). WHEREFORE, the petition is DISMISSED (i) for being insufficient in form and substance; and (ii) for having been filed out of time. SO ORDERED. Barcelona and Buzon, JJ . , concur.