SECOND DIVISION
[G.R. No. 218606. September 7, 2015.]
METROPOLITAN CEBU WATER DISTRICT, petitioner, vs. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, respondent.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Second Division, issued a Resolution dated 07 September 2015 which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 218606: METROPOLITAN CEBU WATER DISTRICT v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE
This case started when the Metropolitan Cebu Water District filed a Request for Reconsideration dated December 16, 2007 of the Commissioner of Internal Revenue's Formal Letter of Demand over deficiency tax. 1 The Commissioner of Internal Revenue did not grant Metropolitan Cebu Water District's Request for Reconsideration, which prompted the Metropolitan Cebu Water District to file a Petition for Review before the Court of Tax Appeals. 2 The case was raffled to the court's First Division. 3
In the Decision 4 dated March 25, 2014, the Court of Tax Appeals First Division dismissed Metropolitan Cebu Water District's Petition for Review. The Court of Tax Appeals First Division upheld this Decision in its Resolution 5 dated July 11, 2014. The Metropolitan Cebu Water District elevated the matter to the Court of Tax Appeals En Banc through a Petition for Review 6 dated August 4, 2014.
In its Resolution 7 dated October 28, 2014, the Court of Tax Appeals En Banc 8 dismissed the Petition for Review for (1) failure to submit the Board Resolution granting Metropolitan Cebu Water District's representative authority to sign the verification and certification against forum shopping; (2) failure to submit certified true copies of the assailed Decision and Resolution; and (3) failure to pay the appropriate docket fees. 9 Metropolitan Cebu Water District filed a Motion for Reconsideration with Manifestation dated November 19, 2014, 10 but the Court of Tax Appeals En Banc denied the Motion in its Resolution dated May 28, 2015. 11
Before this court is petitioner Metropolitan Cebu Water District's Petition for Review on Certiorari. 12 Petitioner argued that the Court of Tax Appeals erred in dismissing the case on purely technical grounds. 13
In this Petition for Review on Certiorari, petitioner attached the following documents: (1) Resolution dated October 28, 2014 of the Court of Tax Appeals En Banc; 14 (2) Resolution dated May 28, 2015 of the Court of Tax Appeals En Banc; 15 (3) Board Resolution dated June 26, 2014 granting authority to petitioner's representative to sign verifications and certifications of non-forum shopping on behalf of petitioner; 16 and (4) a copy of the Motion for Extension of Time to File Petition for Review on Certiorari filed before this court. 17
The attachments to the Petition do not sufficiently support the arguments of petitioner. Hence, we deny the Petition.
Under Rule 45, Section 4 (d) of the Rules of Court, a petition for review on certiorari must "be accompanied by a clearly legible duplicate original, or a certified true copy of the judgment or final order or resolution certified by the clerk of the court a quo and the requisite number of plain copies thereof, and such material portions of the record as would support the petition." 18 Failure to comply with the requirement to submit documents that should accompany the petition shall be sufficient ground for the dismissal of the petition. 19
Considering that petitioner argued that the Court of Tax Appeals En Banc should have exercised leniency in its technical rules in order for the Court of Tax Appeals En Banc to evaluate the substance and merit of its arguments, petitioner should have submitted to this court certified true copies of the following salient documents: (1) Formal Letter of Demand from the Bureau of Internal Revenue dated November 16, 2007; (2) petitioner's Request for Reconsideration dated December 16, 2007; (3) Decision of the Commissioner of Internal Revenue dated June 2, 2010; (4) Decision of the Court of Tax Appeals First Division dated March 25, 2014; and (5) Resolution of the Court of Tax Appeals First Division dated July 11, 2014. CAIHTE
These documents were referred to in the Petition and supported the argument of petitioner. 20 However, they were not attached as annexes to the Petition. Petitioner cannot argue that the Court of Tax Appeals should have disregarded its procedural rules in order to rule on the merits, without petitioner showing documents to support the substantial merits of its case. The case could have been remanded if there was a prima facie showing that the merits of the case deserve consideration despite the procedural lapses.
In addition, petitioner failed to provide evidence of identity of the affiant, Ernie T. Delco, in its verification and certification of non-forum shopping. 21 Petitioner also did not submit a CD or email, and a verified declaration that the pleadings and annexes were submitted electronically. These are required under this court's Guidelines on Submission and Processing of Soft Copies of Supreme Court-Bound Papers. 22
Despite the ruling of the Court of Tax Appeals En Banc refusing to rule on the merits of petitioner's Petition due to non-compliance with procedural rules, petitioner continued to disregard important procedural rules even at the level of this court.
Petitioner's continuous inadvertence cannot be excused. This case is attended to by both the Office of the Government Corporate Counsel based in Quezon City and petitioner's Legal Department. These lawyers are presumed to have the sufficient competence and experience for them to be aware of the procedural rules in the various courts. These requirements are elementary rules of procedure. Habitual non-compliance of these procedural rules is unacceptable. Many litigants and lawyers, including those from government, comply with the procedural rules of this court and other courts despite the policy on liberality. 23 We cannot allow a petition from counsels who consistently disregard rules of procedure, under the claim that the courts should exercise liberality in constructing their procedural rules in order to promote the ends of justice. As this court has previously ruled, "utter disregard of the rules cannot justly be rationalized by harking on the policy of liberal construction." 24 In the recent case of Macapagal v. People, 25 this court reminded that:
[t]he requirements of the rules on appeal cannot be considered as merely harmless and trivial technicalities that can be discarded at whim. In these times when court dockets are clogged with numerous litigations, parties have to abide by these rules with greater fidelity in order to facilitate the orderly and expeditious disposition of cases. 26
WHEREFORE, the Petition assailing the Resolutions dated October 28, 2014 and May 28, 2015 in C.T.A. EB Case No. 1211 is DENIED.
SO ORDERED."
Very truly yours,
(SGD.) MA. LOURDES C. PERFECTODivision Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1. Rollo, p. 15, as alleged in the Petition for Review on Certiorari.
2. Id. at 16, as alleged in the Petition for Review on Certiorari.
3. This case was docketed as CTA Case No. 8158.
4. Rollo, p. 51, Court of Appeals Resolution dated October 28, 2014.
5. Id.
6. This case was docketed as C.T.A. EB Case No. 1211. Rollo, p. 16.
7. Rollo, pp. 51-55.
8. The Resolution was concurred in by Associate Justices Juanito C. Castañeda, Jr., Lovell R. Bautista, Erlinda P. Uy, Caesar A. Casanova, Esperanza R. Fabon-Victorino, Cielito N. Mindaro-Grulla, Amelia R. Cotangco-Manalastas, and Ma. Belen M. Ringpis-Liban. Presiding Justice Roman G. Del Rosario was on leave.
9. Rollo, pp. 51-55, Court of Appeals Resolution dated October 28, 2014; Id. at 61-62, Court of Appeals Resolution dated May 28, 2015.
10. As alleged in the Petition for Review on Certiorari filed with this court, rollo, pp. 15-16.
11. The Resolution was penned by Associate Justice Esperanza R. Fabon-Victorino and concurred in by Presiding Justice Roman G. Del Rosario, Associate Justices Juanito C. Castañeda, Jr., Lovell R. Bautista, Caesar A. Casanova, Cielito N. Mindaro-Grulla, and Ma. Belen M. Ringpis-Liban.
12. Rollo, pp. 11-50.
13. Id. at 18-25, Petition for Review on Certiorari.
14. Id. at 51-55.
15. Id. at 56-63.
16. Id. at 64-65.
17. Id. at 66-73.
18. RULES OF COURT, Rule 45, sec. 4 (d), emphasis supplied.
19. RULES OF COURT, Rule 45, sec. 5.
20. Rollo, pp. 14-16, Petition for Review on Certiorari.
21. Id. at 49.
22. A.M. No. 10-3-7-SC (2013).
23. RULES OF COURT, Rule 1, sec. 6: These Rules shall be liberally construed in order to promote their objective of securing a just, speedy and inexpensive disposition of every action and proceeding.
24. Spouses Ortiz v. Court of Appeals, 360 Phil. 95 (1998) [Per J. Quisumbing, First Division]; Clavecilla v. Quitain, 518 Phil. 53 (2006) [Per J. Austria-Martinez, First Division]; Spouses Dela Cruz v. Spouses Austria, 550 Phil. 679 (2007) [Per J. Quisumbing, Second Division].
25. G.R. No. 193217, February 26, 2014, 717 SCRA 425 [Per J. Peralta, Third Division].
26. Id. at 434.