DANTE R. GUTIERREZ v. THE COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES COURT OF TAX APPEALS QUEZON CITY ENBANC DANTE R. GUTIERREZ, CTA EB NO. 3058 Petitioner, (CTA Case No. 10477) Present: -versus- RINGPIS-LIBAN, P.J., BACORRO-VILLENA, MODESTO-SAN PEDRO, REYES-FAJARDO, CUI-DAVID, FERRER-FLORES, and ANGELES, ]]. THE COMMISSIONER OF Promulgated: INTERNAL REVENUE, MAR 102026 Respondent. X------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---------------------X RESOLUTION For resolution is the taxpayer's Motion for Reconsideration flied on July 4, 2025,1 with respondent's Opposition filed on September 23, 2025.2 T he taxpayer moves for the reconsideration of the June 9, 2025 Resolution,3 which dismissed his Petitionfor Review for having been flied out of time. He raises factual details which he hopes can prove that the petition was timely flied. Sp ecifically, o n the last day o f filing, December 27, 2024, counsels allegedly sent the petition and its annexes via email time-stamped 10:59 A.M.4 In addition, they claim to have attempted to personally file paper copies of the petition and its attachments on even date at around 12:30 PM, but were unable to do so due to a court-declared half-day work schedule.5 Respondent opposed the motion stating that the taxpayer failed to file his petition on time using the manner of filing sanctioned by Rule 13, Section 3 o f the Rules of Court such as personal, registered, accredited courier, or electronic mail as mqy be authorized by the Court. Also, respondent cites CTA E n Bane Resolution No. 8- 1 Rollo, pp. 69-74. 2 Id., pp. 87-92. 3 Id., pp. 66-68. 4 Annex A of the Motion for Reconsideration, Rollo, p. 75. 5 Annex C of the Motion for Reconsideration, Affidavit of Counsel Joeriz G. Balatbat, Rollo, p. 79; Annex D of the Motion for Reconsideration, Affidavit of Counsel Orlando 5. David, Rollo, p. 81.

RESOLUTION CTA EB NO. 3058 (CTA Case No. 10477) 2024, which allows only three modes filing for an initiatory pleading: personal, registered, or accredited courier. Respondent, thus, prays for the denial of the motion. The Court is unmoved. First, to recall the background facts of this motion, on ,\lay 10, 2024, the Special 1" Division promulgated a Decision, which denied the taxpayer's petition for lack of merit. The taxpayer received a copy of the decision on i\Iay 17, 2024.6 Accordingly, the taxpayer had fifteen (15) days to file a lviotion for Reconsideration, or until June 3, 2024, under Rule 15, Section 1 of the Revised Rules of the Court of Tax Appeals (RRCT-\). On May 29, 2024, the taxpayer ftled a Motion for Reconsideration, with the Commissioner of Internal Revenue's (CIR's) Opposition (Re: Petitioner's Aiotion for Reconsideration dated 29 J'vlay 2024) flied on July 1, 2024. Respondent did not file a i\1otion for Recomideration. On December 6, 2024, the Special 1" Division issued a Resol11tion, which denied the taxpayer's i\1otion for Recomideration. The taxpayer received a copy of the Resolution on December 12, 20247 Accordingly, the taxpayer had fifteen (15) days to file a Petition for Review with the Court En Bane, or until December 27, 2024, under Rule 43, Section 4 of the Rules of Court in relation to Rule 8, Section 4(b) of the RRTC\. There is no issue that December 27, 2024 was the last day for the filing of the petition with the Court. The issue lies \v"ith whether the taxpayer successfully filed a petition on that last day. The taxpayer's counsels claim that they emailed the petition and attempted to flie the same in person on the last day. However, based on the records of the case, they flied a paper copy of the Petition for Review only on January 2, 2025, or six (6) calendar days later than the reglementary deadline on December 27, 2024. Second, a careful review of the Court's records disclosed that while the taxpayer indeed sent an email containing the petition and its annexes on December 27, 2024, it was missent to jrd. cta@!itdiciary.gov.ph. Counsels for petitioner should have emailed them to jrd enbanc.cta@judiciary.gov.ph.8 Third, based on the Daily Time Report (DTR) of the Court's Judicial Records Division GRD) personnel, there was in fact a court employee from the JRD \vho stayed unti11 :51 PM on the last day of filing on December 27, 2024. If the counsels of the taxpayer attempted to file in person on said date, there was a qualified Court employee to receive the petition and its annexes. But no paper copy of the pleading was ever received by the Court. 6 Notice of Decision, Rollo, p. 38. 7 Notice of Resolution, !d., p. 58. s Records Verification dated January 28, 2026.

RESOLUTION CTA EB NO. 3058 (CTA Case No. 10477) the taxpayer. Instead, the counsels opted to make a second attempt to personally file but this time six (6) days later, on January 2, 2025. By then, the appeal with the Court was already time~barred. Final!;, the taxpayer has had his day in the court a quo, which heard and decided his petition on its full merits. While conceding that the taxpayer may have lost his appeal on a technicality, the Court cannot set aside lightly the rules on timeliness taking into account that the counsels were given the fttll fifteen (15) days to elevate the case but decided to file the petition, rather precarious!;, on the last day. True, a litigation is not a game of technicalities and that the rules of procedure should not be strictly enforced at the cost of substantial justice. However, it does not mean that the Rules of Court may be ignored at will and at random to the prejudice of the orderly presentation and assessment of the issues and their just resolution. It must be emphasized that procedural rules should not be belittled or dismissed simply because their non~observance may have resulted in prejudice to a party's substantial rights. Like all rules, they are required to be followed except only for the most persuasive of rcasons. 10 ACCORDINGLY, the motion is DENIED for lack of merit. SO ORDERED. ~.~~- MA. BELEN M. RINGPIS-LIBAN Presiding Justice JEAN MAR~I:~ia~tReOJu-stiVceILLENA MARIA 10 Atianzar v. Heirs of Bangoy, G.R. No. 247815 (Notice), March 2, 2020.

RESOLUTION CTA EB NO. 3058 (CTA Case No. 10477) -f;AA ~ ~l.UV' f.~ MARIAN 1~. ruiTI�s:PAJARDO Associate Justice ~ LANEE S. CUI-DAVID Associate Justice HENRY ~~GELES Associate Justice