COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE v. EMERSON ELECTRIC (ASIA) LIMITED-ROHQ,

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES COURT OF TAX APPEALS QUEZON CITY ENBANC COMMISSIONER OF CTA EB NO. 1658 (CTA Case No. 8657) INTERNAL REVENUE, Petitioner, Present: -versus- Del Rosario, P.J , Castaneda, Jr. , Bautista, Uy, Casanova, Fabon-Victorino, Mindaro-Grulla, Ringpis-Liban, and Manahan, JJ EMERSON ELECTRIC (ASIA) LIMITED- ROHQ, Respondent. Promulgated: JUL 0 5 2017 //:3/Q.,.,.. x-----------------------------------------------------------------------~------------x RESOLUTION For resolution is a Motion to Admit Petition for Review filed by petitioner Commissioner of Internal Revenue (CIR) on May 26, 2017. Records indicate that, on March 22, 2017,1 the CIR received a copy of the Resolution of Court of Tax Appeals (CTA) Third Division, which denied his Motion for Reconsideration of the December 21 , 2016 Decision. 1 Par. 3, Motion to Ad mi t Peti tion for Rev iew, Roll o, p. I; Notice of Reso lution, Annex B of the attached Petition for Rev iew, Roll o, p. 36.

RESOLUTION CTA EB No. 1658 (CTA Case No. 8657) Page 2 of3 Accordingly, under Section 4, Rule 8 of the Revised Rules of the CTA2 and Section 4, Rule 43 of the Rules ofCourt,3 the CIR had fifteen (15) days or until Apri/6, 2017 within which to file his Petition for Review. However, allegedly due to inadvertence occasioned by the transfer of petitioner's office, the Resolution was mislaid. Thus, petitioner was able to file his Motion to Admit Petition for Review only on May 26, 2017, upon discovery of the Resolution. It bears emphasis that the failure to timely perfect an appeal cannot simply be dismissed as a mere technicality, for it is jurisdictional. Thus, the Supreme Court, in Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Fort Bonifacio Development Corporation,4 upheld the dismissal of a late appeal under Rule 43 in this wise: "It has been ruled that perfection of an appeal in the manner and within the period laid down by law is not only mandatory but also jurisdictional. The failure to perfect an appeal as required by the rules has the effect of defeating the right to appeal of a party and precluding the appellate court from acquiring jurisdiction over the case. At the risk ofbeing repetitious, We declare that the right to appeal is not a natural right nor a part of due process. It is merely a statutory privilege, and may be exercised only in the manner and in accordance with the provisions of the law. Public policy and sound practice demand that judgments of courts should become final and irrevocable at some definite time fixed by law. Such rules are necessary incidents to the proper, efficient and orderly discharge of judicial functions. Just as a losing party has the privilege to file an appeal within the prescribed period, so does the winner also have the correlative right to enjoy the fruits of his victory. Failure to meet the requirements of an appeal deprives the appellate court of jurisdiction to entertain any appeal. Undeniably, there are exceptions to this rule. Petitioner, however, did not present any circumstances that would justify the relaxation of said rule. "RULES PROCEDURE IN CIVIL CASES XXX XXX XXX SEC. 4. Where to appeal; mode ofappeal. - xxx xxx xxx (b) An appeal from a decision or resolution of the Court in Division on a motion for reconsideration or new trial shall be taken to the Court by petition for review as provided in Rule 43 of the Rules of Court. The Court en bane shall act on the appeal. (n)" "RULE43 Appeals From the Court of Tax Appeals and Quasi-Judicial Agencies to the Court of Appeals XXX XXX XXX Section 4. Period ofappeal. -The appeal shall be taken within fifteen (15) days from notice of the award, judgment, final order or resolution, or from the date of its last publication, if publication is required by law for its effectivity, or of the denial of petitioner's motion for new trial or reconsideration duly filed in accordance with the governing law of the court or agency a quo. Only one (I) motion for reconsideration shall be allowed. Upon proper motion and the payment of the full amount of the docket fee before the expiration of the reglementary period, the Court of Appeals may grant an additional period of fifteen ( 15) days only within which to file the petition for review. No further extension shall be granted except for the most compelling reason and in no case to exceed fifteen (15) days. (n)" 4 Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Fort Bonifacio Development Corporation, G.R. No. 167606, April II, 2010.

RESOLUTION CTA EB No. 1658 (CTA Case No. 8657) Page 3 of3 It need not be overemphasized that it is the responsibility of the counsel to check and keep track of the period of time left to file an appeal. He cannot escape from the inflexible observance of this rule which is jurisdictional. The rules, particularly on the statutory requirement for perfecting an appeal within the reglementary period provided, must be strictly followed. If an appeal is not taken within the period prescribed therefor, the judgment becomes final and the court loses all jurisdiction over the case." (underscoring supplied; citations omitted) In view of the foregoing, the Court resolves to deny petitioner's motion for lack of merit and dismiss the Petition for Review for lack ofjurisdiction. SO ORDERED. Presiding Justice Jl. C. Q.~~ .9. . LOVEJ!R. BAUTISTA Associate Justice JUANffO C. CASTANfi>A, JR. Associate Justice ~ ... CAESAR A. CASANOVA Associate Justice ER~P.UY Associate Justice ~ ~:~0 ~~ ~. M~- ~ N. MINDARO-GRULLA Associate Justice ()1::;4. ~ .f '--" MA. BELEN RINGPIS-LIBAN Associate Justice c~~;:~ CATHERINE T. MANAHAN Associate Justice