Guidelines and Procedures Governing Remittances and Disbursements of the Universal Charge

EN BANC [C.T.A. EB CASE NO. 480 . January 4, 2010.] (C.T.A. AC No. 35) METRO MANILA SHOPPING MECCA CORP., SHOEMART, INC., SM PRIME HOLDINGS, INC., STAR APPLIANCES CENTER, INC., SUPERVALUE, INC., ACE HARDWARE PHILIPPINES, INC., HEALTH AND BEAUTY, INC., JOLLIMART PHILIPPINES CORP., AND SURPLUS MARKETING CORP. , petitioners , vs . Ms. LIBERTY TOLEDO, in her capacity as the City Treasurer of Manila and the CITY OF MANILA , respondents . RESOLUTION BAUTISTA , J p : This resolves petitioners' Motion for Reconsideration (Re: Decision dated September 8, 2009) filed on October 1, 2009 of the Decision of the Court En Banc promulgated on September 8, 2009 dismissing the Petition for Review filed by petitioners. The said Decision affirmed the rulings of the Second Division of the Court ("Court in Division") in its Decision 1 dated October 31, 2008 and its Resolution 2 dated March 16, 2009 in C.T.A. AC No. 35 which reversed and set aside the Decision dated December 7, 2006 and the Order dated April 17, 2007 rendered by the Regional Trial Court ("RTC") of Manila, Branch 47, in Civil Case No. 03-108175, which granted petitioners' claim for refund for illegal exactions under Section 21 of the Revenue Code of Manila ("RMC"), in the total amount of P5,104,281.26. The dispositive portion of the aforementioned Decision reads as follows: WHEREFORE , the instant Petition for Review is hereby DISMISSED . Accordingly, the Decision of the Second Division dated October 31, 2008 and its Resolution dated March 16, 2009 are hereby AFFIRMED . SO ORDERED . In their Motion, petitioners maintain that the Court En Banc failed to consider that respondents filed only one copy of the Petition for Review sans attachment of the required documents, rendering their judicial appeal dismissible outright. Petitioners also posit that respondents' Petition for Review filed with the Court in Division did not follow the filing requisites as provided in Section 2, Rule 42 of the Revised Rules of Court, in relation to Section 4, Rule 5 and Sections 2 to 3, Rule 6 of the Revised Rules of the Court of Tax Appeals, and as enunciated in the case of The City of Manila, et al. v. Coca-Cola Bottlers Philippines, Inc . 3 CaASIc Petitioners likewise asseverate that assuming the thirty-day period to file respondents' Petition for Review with the Court in Division was extendible, respondents were deemed to have filed their Petition for Review only on June 28, 2007, which is still beyond the extended period granted, or only until June 26, 2007. The Petition for Review with the original duplicate copy of the RTC decision and resolution, attached to the June 28, 2007 Manifestation was noted and admitted by the Court in Division in a Resolution dated July 6, 2007, while the Petition for Review posted by registered mail on June 26, 2007 was merely noted, but not admitted. Considering that the Petition for Review filed on June 28, 2007 had complied with the filing requisites, such was still filed out of time, and the filing of the June 28, 2007 Petition for Review could not have in any manner cured the flaws of the June 26, 2007 Petition for Review. Petitioners further assert that the Court En Banc failed to rule upon and consider the legal ramifications of respondents' failure to deny in writing petitioners' request for admission and written interrogatories regarding the fact of filing a written claim for refund with the respondents. Albeit the RTC did not highlight in its decision the fact of filing by petitioners of a written claim for refund with the respondents, such does not mean that a contrary fact may be deemed read into the decision and supplant the trial court's own factual determination of the merits of the case; especially so if they were undisputed by the opposing party, and after the parties have agreed to limit the issues. Moreover, the fact of petitioners' filing of a written claim for refund is deemed an admitted fact, not denied by respondents upon petitioners' request for admission of these facts. Finally, petitioners contend that the Court En Banc failed to apply in this case the established legal doctrines and jurisprudence confirming that petitioners are entitled to the claim for refund, as had been determined by the trial court. Considering that the paramount consideration remains the ascertainment of truth, the Court En Banc must review the records to determine which findings conform to the evidentiary facts; and after studying the issues and the submissions of petitioners, the Court En Banc finds the Motion unmeritorious. A scrutiny of the records of the case shows that indeed respondents filed through registered mail its Petition for Review on June 26, 2007, on the face of which appears a notation of "1 COPY ONLY". Apparently, the registered mail contains only a single copy of respondents' Petition for Review. However, aside therefrom, no other evidence was presented by petitioners to prove that respondents failed to comply with the required number of copies to be filed in this Court. In fact, in a Manifestation filed by respondents on June 28, 2007, with attached Petition for Review and annexes, the same was duly noted and admitted by the Court in Division in a Resolution dated July 6, 2007. To stress, mere allegation is not evidence 4 and is not equivalent to proof. 5 In the same vein, Section 3 of Rule 13 of the Revised Rules of Court provides as follows: IEHScT SEC. 3. Manner of filing. The filing of pleadings, appearances, motions, notices, orders, judgments and all other papers shall be made by presenting the original copies thereof, plainly indicated as such, personally to the clerk of court or by sending them by registered mail . In the first case, the clerk of court shall endorse on the pleading the date and hour of filing. In the second case, the date of the mailing of motions, pleadings, or any other papers or payments or deposits, as shown by the post office stamp on the envelope or the registry receipt, shall be considered as the date of their filing, payment, or deposit in court . The envelope shall be attached to the record of the case. (Boldfacing supplied) Settled in the rule that the date of mailing as shown by the post office stamp on the envelope or the registry receipt shall be considered as the date of the filing thereof. Hence, the Petition for Review filed on June 26, 2007 is within the period granted by the Court in Division in its July 6, 2007 Resolution. As for petitioners' claim that its request for admission from respondents regarding their claim for refund was unanswered, and thus, the facts requested were deemed admitted pursuant to Section 2 of Rule 26 of the Revised Rules of Court, the Court En Banc hereby quotes the case of Laada v. Court of Appeals , 6 to wit: Moreover, as correctly observed by the lower court, the subject matters of the request for admission are the same as the ultimate facts alleged in the complaint for which private respondents have filed their respective answers. Private respondents thus desired the petitioners to admit once again the very matters they had dealt with in their respective answers. In Po v. Court of Appeals , this Court said: A party should not be compelled to admit matters of fact already admitted by his pleading and concerning which there is no issue ( Sherr vs. East , 71 A2d, 752, Terry 260, cited in 27 C.J.S. 91), nor should he be required to make a second denial of those already denied in his answer to the complaint. A request for admission is not intended to merely reproduce or reiterate the allegations of the requesting party's pleading but should set forth relevant evidentiary matters of fact, or documents described in and exhibited with the request, whose purpose is to establish said party's cause of action or defense. Unless it serves that purpose, it is, as correctly observed by the Court of Appeals, "pointless, useless," and "a mere redundancy." TCDHIc The Court reiterated that ruling in Briboneria v. Court of Appeals and in Concrete Aggregates Corporation v. Court of Appeals . In the latter case, the Court emphasized that the rule on admission as a mode of discovery is intended "to expedite trial and to relieve parties of the costs of proving facts which will not be disputed on trial and the truth of which can be ascertained by reasonable inquiry." Thus, if the request for admission only serves to delay the proceedings by abetting redundancy in the pleadings, the intended purpose for the rule will certainly be defeated. Moreover, as the Court has observed in Briboneria, Sec. 1 of Rule 26 requires that the request for admission must be served directly upon the party requested. Otherwise, that party cannot be deemed to have admitted the genuineness of any relevant matters of fact set forth therein on account of failure to answer the request for admission. It is thus unfair and unreasonable for private respondents to expect the petitioners to answer the requests for admission that they in fact did not personally receive. Private respondents' failure to serve copies of the request for admission directly upon the petitioners themselves suffices to warrant denial of the motion to strike out petitioners' responses to said request. The application of the rules on modes of discovery rests upon the sound discretion of the court. In the same vein, the determination of the sanction to be imposed upon a party who fails to comply with the modes of discovery rests on the same sound judicial discretion. It is the duty of the courts to examine thoroughly the circumstances of each case and to determine the applicability of the modes of discovery, bearing always in mind the aim to attain an expeditious administration of justice. It need not be emphasized that upon the court's shoulders likewise rests the burden of determining whether the response of the requested party is a specific denial of the matters requested for admission. The records include a Request for Admission which respondents failed to answer. However, to rule that respondents were deemed to have admitted the fact that petitioners requested for refund of taxes under Section 21 of the Revenue Code of Manila would only achieve nothing but render the proceedings immaterial for it is petitioners' duty to present their own evidence to support their allegations. In this regard, the record is bereft of any credible documents to substantiate their claim. If indeed petitioners filed their request for refund or tax credit with the Office of the City Treasurer, they could have easily presented the said request letter to this Court. However, nothing in the records would show that petitioners filed a similar one. Furthermore, Section 34 of Rule 132 of the Revised Rules of Court explicitly provides that "the court shall consider no evidence which has not been formally offered." In fine, the Court En Banc finds no reversible error in rendering the assailed Decision. WHEREFORE , petitioners' Motion for Reconsideration is hereby DENIED for lack of merit. SO ORDERED . (SGD.) LOVELL R. BAUTISTA Associate Justice Ernesto D. Acosta, P.J., Juanito C. Castaeda, Jr., Erlinda P. Uy, Caesar A. Casanova and Olga Palanca-Enriquez, JJ., concur. Footnotes 1. Rollo , pp. 84-100. 2. Rollo , pp. 102-108. 3. G.R. No. 181845, August 4, 2009. 4. Martinez v. National Labor Relations Commission , G.R. No. 117495, May 29, 1997, 272 SCRA 793. 5. Philippine National Bank v. Court of Appeals , G.R. No. 116181, January 6, 1997, 266 SCRA 136. 6. G.R. No. 102390, and G.R. No. 102404, February 1, 2002, 375 SCRA 543.