LAPANDAY FOODS CORPORATION v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES COURT OF TAX APPEALS Quezon City ENBANC LAPANDAY FOODS CTA EB NO. 2032 CORPORATION, (CTA CASE NO. 9885) Petitioner, Present: -versus- DEL ROSARIO, P.J. , CASTANEDA, JR., UY, RINGPIS-LIBAN, MANAHAN, BACORRO-VILLENA, and MODESTO-SAN PEDRO, JJ. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE , Respondent. X- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - RESOLUTION For the Court's resolution is respondent Commissioner of Internal Revenue's (respondent's) "Motion for Reconsideration Re: Resolution dated 12 January 2021" (MR), filed on 02 February 2021 , with petitioner Lapanday Foods Corporation's (petitioner's) "Comment/Opposition (On the Motion for Reconsideration dated 02 February 2021 )", filed on 08 March 2021 . In the assailed Resolution dated 12 January 2021 , the Court denied respondent's Motion to Admit Attached Opposition, and submitted petitioner's "Motion for Reconsideration (of the Decision dated 22 July 2020)" for resolution. Respondent, in his motion, avers that the normal operation of the Bureau of Internal Revenue (BIR) has been hampered by the pandemic. In addition, the BIR has adopted a centralized receiving scheme, wherein all documents are received by one office. Thereafter, the correspondences are collated and forwarded to the

RESOLUTION CTA EB No. 2032 (CTA Case No. 9885) Lapanday Foods Corporation v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue Page 2 of3 x-----------------------------------------------------x concerned division. The Chief of the division, in turn, will go through all the pleadings, resolutions and other correspondences for monitoring, assignment and input of notes. Only after the recording in the logbook will the same be forwarded to the handling lawyer. As a result, it takes a number of days before the handling lawyer receives the pleadings, Court resolutions and other correspondences. Due to the unavoidable circumstances, the handling lawyer was constrained to file the opposition outside the period granted. With the above, respondent thus prays that the Resolution dated 12 January 2021 be reversed and his Opposition be admitted. Petitioner, for its part, submits that respondent's explanation falls short of the requirement of jurisprudence that any departure from the rules can only be justified with the most meritorious reasons. Nonetheless, petitioner states that, despite the delay the matter has caused, it submits the resolution of respondent's pleas to the Court's discretion. According to it, it only desires for the Court to have all facts and arguments so it could swiftly resolve its MR. We resolve. The Court finds no merit in respondent's arguments. Respondent is charged with the knowledge of the rules of procedure and the reglementary period for filing of the pleadings. It is therefore incumbent upon him to employ a system that would ensure the prompt receipt of the Court's resolutions and orders by the handling lawyers to allow for the timely filing of the necessary pleadings. Indeed, procedural rules are not to be disdained as mere technicalities that may be ignored at will to suit the convenience of a party. Adjective law is important in insuring the effective enforcement of substantive rights through the orderly and speedy administration of justice. These rules are not intended to hamper litigants or complicate litigation but, indeed, to provide for a system under which suitors may be heard in the correct form and manner and at the prescribed time in a peaceful confrontation before a judge whose authority they acknowledge. 1 Dr. Joseph L. Malixi, eta/. v. Dr. Glory V. Baltazar; G.R. No. 208224,22 November 2017.

RESOLUTION CTA EB No. 2032 (CTA Case No. 9885) Lapanday Foods Corporation v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue Page 3 of3 x-----------------------------------------------------x WHEREFORE, respondent's Motion for Reconsideration Re: Resolution dated 12 January 2021 is DENIED for lack of merit. Accordingly, petitioner's Motion for Reconsideration (of the Decision dated 22 July 2020) is now SUBMITIED for resolution. SO ORDERED. ON LEAVE ROMAN G. DEL ROSARIO Presiding Justice a.. ~c;:- c. G..d-~~1 :~-,. ER~P.UY JUANITO C. CASTANEDA, JR. Associate Justice Associate Justice ~. ~ --4'-- ~7-~ MA. BELEN M. RINGPIS-LIBAN CATHERINE T. MANAHAN Associate Justice Associate Justice ...... MAI<I~.(COR"Ro-VILLENA MARIA ROW(;N