PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. QNX SOLUTIONS, INCORPORATED and its responsible corporate officers ANGELO R. BALILI, (President), SANTIAGO T. PULIDO (Treasure) AND GETRUDEDES S. TAMAYO (Corporate Secretary)

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES COURT OF TAX APPEALS QUEZON CITY ENBANC PEOPLE OF THE CTA EB CRIM NO. 135 PHILIPPINES, (CTA Crim. Case No. 0-990) Petitioner, Present: -versus- RINGPIS-LIBAN, P.J., MANAHAN, QNX SOLUTIONS, BACORRO-VILLENA, INCORPORATED and its MODESTO-SAN PEDRO, responsible corporate officers REYES-FAJARDO, ANGELO R. BALILI, CUI-DAVID, (President), SANTIAGO T. FERRER-FLORES, and PULIDO (Treasurer) and ANGELES, JJ. GETRUDEDESS.TAMAYO (Corporate Secretary), Promulgated: JAN 3 2~ �.. 0 X- ------------- - Respondents. ~ - - - - - - :: -- -�~.._ � ---- ---- - ------ RESOLUTION Before the Court is the Motion for Reconsideration (Re: Resolution dated 10 October 2024) filed by petitioner via registered mail on October 28, 2024. In the said Motion, petitioner prays for the reconsideration of the Resolution dated October 10, 2024 on the grounds of substantial justice and equity. Petitioner points out that as early as May 14, 2023, the Warrants of Arrest issued against respondents were returned stating that the accused could not be served with the said Warrants since they could not be found at their given address despite diligent efforts. This was likewise confirmed by the Records Verification Report dated July 11, 2024 stating that the Minute Resolution dated May 24, 2024 was returned unserved with the notation "moved-out." Petitioner further points out that the Resolutions dated August 14, 2023 and December 1, 2023 show that respondents were no longer furnished a copy thereof considering that respondents could not be found at their registered address. Petitioner thus claims that the records of the case show that the services of notices to respondents remain frustrated, and that to strictly

RESOLUTION CTA EB CRIM. NO. 135 apply Sections 5 and 7, Rule 43 of the Rules of Court (ROC)1 to the instant case would be contrary to the principles of substantial justice and equity since to require otherwise would result in an exercise in futility. The instant Motion must be denied. It is well-established that the relaxation of procedural rules cannot be made without any valid reasons. To merit liberality, petitioner must show reasonable cause justifying its non-compliance with the rules and must convince the Court that the outright dismissal of the petition would defeat the administration of substantive justice.2 This is because procedural rules are designed to facilitate the adjudication of cases. While it is true that litigation is not a game of technicalities, it is equally true that every case must be prosecuted in accordance with the prescribed procedure to ensure an orderly and speedy administration of justice.3 Thus, resort to a liberal application, or suspension of the application of procedural rules, must remain as the exception to the well-settled principle that rules must be complied with for the orderly administration of justice.4 With respect to the requirement of submission of proof of service of the petition to the adverse party, suffice it to say that basic considerations of fairness and due process impel this rule. Jurisprudence has long provided that proof of service of the petition is mandatory, and utter disregard of this rule cannot be justified by harking on substantial justice and the policy of liberal construction of the ROC.s Applying the foregoing to the present case, petitioner's reasons for not serving on respondents the Petition for Review filed via registered mail on December 29, 2023, are insufficient to justify the ' Section 5� How appeal taken. - Appeal shall be taken by filing a verified petition for review in seven (7) legible copies with the Court of Appeals, with proof of service of a copy thereof on the adverse party and on the court or agency a quo. XXX Section 7. Effect offailure to comply with requirements. -The failure of the petitioner to comply with any ofthe foregoing requirements regarding the payment of the docket and other lawful fees, the deposit for costs, proof of service of the petition, and the contents of and the documents which should accompany the petition shall be sufficient ground for the dismissal thereof. 2 Daikoku Electronics Phils., Inc. v. Raza, G.R. No. 181688, June 5, 2009. 3 Rural Bank of the Seven Lakes (S.P.C.), Inc. v. Dan, G.R. No. 174109, December 24, 2008. 4 Building Care Corp. v. Macaraeg, G.R. No. 198357, December 10, 2012. s Ferrer v. Villanueva, G.R. No. 155025, August 24, 2007.

RESOLliTION CTA EB CRIM. NO. 135 relaxation of Sections 5 and 7, Rule 43 of the ROC. To be sure, the fact that respondents could not be located at their registered or recorded address does not in any way discharge petitioner of its obligation to notify them of the case being filed against them. There is neither logical nor legal basis to support a contrary finding. Neither can this Court accept the belated service of the aforementioned Petition for Review on April 29, 2024 as substantial compliance with the foregoing rules, considering the jurisprudential precept that the right to appeal is a mere statutory privilege; hence, anyone who seeks to invoke such privilege must comply with the applicable rules; otherwise, the right to appeal is forfeited. 6 WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Motion for Reconsideration (Re: Resolution dated 10 October 2024) is DENIED for lack of merit. SO ORDERED. ~. ~.,. '-- MA. BELEN M. RINGPIS-LIBAN Presiding Justice curring Opinion) . BACORRO-VILLENA ustice ~ ~ r. ~ -fa/414 MARIAN IVY"� REYE~-FAJXlmo Associate Justice uJ~/~L~AtJAVAI'th~1t;,�,) AVID Associate Justice 6 Agravante v. Commission on Elections, G.R. No. 264029, August 8, 2023

RESOLUTION CTA EB CRIM. NO. 135 HENRYi/JANGELES Associate Justice

�: REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES COURT OF TAX APPEALS QUEZON CITY ENBANC PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, CTA EB Crim. No. 135 Petitioner, (CTA Crim. Case No. 0-990) Present: -versus- DEL ROSARIO, �L, RINGPIS-LIBAN, MANAHAN, BACORRO-VILLENA, QNX SOLUTIONS, MODESTO-SAN PEDRO, INCORPORATED and its REYES-FAJARDO, responsible corporate officers CUI-DAVID, ANGELO R. BALILI (President), FERRER-FLORES, and SANTIAGO T. PULIDO ANGELES,]].. (Treasurer) and GERTRUDES S. TAMAYO (Corporate Secretary), Promulgated: x ____ _______ ____ ~~~p-o~~~~~s: ___ ~~~ ~-~_~?~ ~~~/:~ CONCURRING OPINION BACORRO-VILLENA, L.: I concur in the denial of petitiOner People of the Philippines' (petitioner's) Motion for Reconsideration1 (MR) on the Court En Bane's Resolution dated 10 October 20242 (Assailed Resolution) for lack of merit. In addition to the Court En Bane's finding that petitioner failed to comply with the proofofservice requirement under Section 53, Rule 434 ofthe U Rules of Court (ROC), as amended - which alone constitutes sufficient~ ground for dismissal under Section 7s, Rule 43 of the ROC, as amended- it Rollo, pp. 83-89. Id., p. 8 I (six [6]-page Resolution but only the first page is paginated). Section 5. How appeal taken.- Appeal shall be taken by fil ing a verified petition for review in seven (7) legible copies with the Court of Appeals, with proof ofservice of a copv thereof on the adverse party and on the court or agency a quo. The original copy of the petition intended for the Court of Appeals shall be indicated as such by the petitioner. (Emphasis and underscoring supplied) APPEALS FROM THE COURT OF TAX APPEALS AND QUASI-JUDICIA L AGENCIES TO THE COURT OF APPEALS. Section 7. Effict offailure to comply with requirements. - The failure of the petitioner to comply with any of the foregoing requirements regarding the payment ofthe docket and other lawful fees, the deposit for costs, proof

CONCURRING OPINION CTA EB Crim. No. U.S. (CTA Crim. Case No. 0-990) People of the Philippines v. QNX Solutions, Incorporated and its responsible corporate officers Angelo R. Balili (President), Santiago T. Pulido (Treasurer) and Gertrudes S. Tamayo (Corporate Secretary) Page Z of 2 X-------------------------------------------------------------------- X must also be emphasized that petitioner's earlier MR6 assailing the First Division's Resolution dated 09 August 20237 (Dismissal Resolution), which dismissed the case on the ground of prescription, was filed out oftime. As noted in the First Division's Resolution dated 01 December 20238, the records show that petitioner received the Dismissal Resolution on 16 August 2023. Petitioner therefore had until 31 August 2023 to file its MR. However, petitioner filed its MR only on 25 September 2023, well beyond the fifteen (15)-day reglementary period. Consequently, the Dismissal Resolution became final and executory and could no longer be subject to appeal. By the time petitiOner filed the present Petition for Review9 on 29 December 2023, the First Division's Dismissal Resolution had already attained finality. Thus, even if the Court En Bane were to disregard the lack of proof of service, it would still lack jurisdiction to review the matter and would have no recourse but to dismiss the present Petition for Review outright. Given the finality of the Dismissal Resolution and the defects in petitioner's two (2) Affidavits of Service'0 , the present petition clearly lacks sufficient merit to justifY relaxation of the rules of procedure. Petitioner cannot be relieved from the consequences of its non-compliance, as it has not demonstrated that such failure would result in grave injustice disproportionate to the procedural lapse. Accordingly, the Court En Bane cannot disregard the procedural defects surrounding this appeal under the guise of substantial justice. - All told, I vote DENY petitioner's Motion for Reconsideration on the Court En Bane's Resolution dated 10 October 2024 for lack of merit. of service of the oetition, and the contents of and the documents which should accompany the petition shall be sufficient ground for the dismissal thereof. (Emphasis and underscoring supplied) Division Docket, pp. 125-131. Annex "B" to the Petition for Review, rolla, pp. 16-21. Annex ''D" to the Petition for Review, id., pp. 24-26. Id., pp. 1-30, \Vith annexes. In the Assailed Resolution, the Court En Bane noted the follo\ving defects in the First Affidavit of Service: (1) the Petition for Review was served to respondents only on 29 April2024; (2) the Registry Receipt is attached to the Petition for Reviell' filed together with petitioner's Compliance dated 29 April2024 and not to the Petition for Review filed with the Court En Bane on 29 December 2023; and (3) the Petition/or Review was served to respondents through registered mail, and not through accredited courier as stated in Petitioner's Compliance. On the other hand, the subject of the Second Affidavit of Service is petitioner's Compliance dated 29 April 2024, and not the Petition for Review filed on 29 December 2023.