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. 136 PHILIPPINES, (CTA Crim. Case No. 0-991) Petitioner, Present: -versus- DEL ROSARIO, P.J.) RINGPIS-LIBAN, QNX SOLUTIONS, MANAHAN, INCORPORATED and its BACORRO-VILLENA, responsible corporate officers MODESTO-SAN PEDRO, ANGELO R. BALILI, REYES-FAJARDO, (President), SANTIAGO T. CUI-DAVID, PULIDO (Treasure) and FERRER-FLORES, and GETRUDEDESS.T~YO ANGELES, JJ. (Corporate Secretary), Respondents. PNrOomv uolg'tat2e0d2: .I., }(- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -}( RESOLUTION To recall, on December 29, 2023, petitioner filed through registered mail the Petition for Review, seeking the reversal of the Resolution dated August 11,2023, which dismissed CTA Crim Case No. 0-991 on the ground of prescription, and Resolution dated December 1, 2023, which denied petitioner's motion for reconsideration thereto on the ground that the said motion was filed out of time. In a Resolution dated April 3, 2024, the Court noted that the aforementioned Petition did not include, among others, proof of service of the said Petition to respondents, as required under Section 5, Rule 43 of the Rules of Court, as amended (ROC). The Court thus directed petitioner to submit the same within ten (1o) days from notice. On April29, 2024, petitioner filed through accredited courier its Compliance, submitting to the Court a copy of the Petition, allegedly duly served to respondents through accredited courier at the BIR registered address of QNX Solutions, Inc.

RESOLUTION CTA EB CRIM. NO. 136 Page 2 of6 In a Minute Resolution dated May 24, 2024, the Court merely noted petitioner's submission and directed respondents to file its comment to the Petition. On July 11, 2024, the Court received the Records Verification Report stating that the said Minute Resolution sent to respondents through registered mail, was returned to the Court with the notation "Moved-Out." Section 9, Rule 9 of the Revised Rules of the Court of Tax Appeals (RRCTA) provides the manner in which an appeal in criminal cases decided by Court in Division may be taken to the Court en bane, to wit: SECTION 9. Appeal; Period to Appeal. - x x x (b) An appeal to the Court en bane in criminal cases decided by the Court in Division shall be taken by filing a petition for review as provided in Rule 43 of the Rules of Court ''~thin fifteen days from receipt of a copy of the decision or resolution appealed from. The Court may, for good cause, extend the time for filing of the petition for re~ew for an additional period not exceeding fifteen days. (Emphasis supplied) Relative thereto, Sections 5 and 7, Rule 43 of the ROC requires, under the penalty of dismissal, the submission of proof of service of the petition to the adverse party, as follows: Section 5� How appeal taken. -Appeal shall be taken by filing a verified petition for review in seven (7) legible copies \~th 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 of the 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 \vhich should accompany the petition shall be sufficient ground for the dismissal thereof. (Emphasis supplied) Further, under Section 5, Rule 13 of the ROC, in relation to Section 17 of the same rule, service of pleadings may be made through registered mail, in which case service shall be proved by (1) an affidavit of the person mailing stating the facts showing compliance with Section 7 of the said rule, and (2) the registry receipt issued by the mailing office. A perusal of the Petition filed on December 29, 2023 reveals that no proof of service to respondents was attached thereto. However, instead of dismissing the case in accordance with above-cited rules, the

RESOLUTION CTA EB CRIM. NO. 136 Page 3 of6 Court gave petitioner a chance to comply with the same through the Resolution dated April 3, 2024. In its Compliance, petitioner submitted a copy of the Petition with several attachments, including two (2) Affidavits of Service. The first Affidavit of Service (First Affidavit), executed by one Ms. Donna M. Errua, states in part: That on 29 April 2024 I served a copy of the follo\'>~ng pleading/s: Nature of Pleading: PETITION FOR REVIEW In relation to the case of ""PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. QNX SOLUTIONS et al., CTA EB CRIM No. 136 (CTA Case No. 0-991)" By depositing a copy of the foregoing pleading at Makati Central Post Office, Makati City as e\~denced by the corresponding registry receipt number/s attached to the original pleading filed v-~th the court and indicated after the respective names of the addressees "~th instruction to the post master to return the mail to the sender after ten (10) days if undelivered. XXX The second Affidavit of Service (Second Affidavit), likewise executed by Ms. Errua, provides: That on 29 April 2024 I served a copy of the follo\\~ng pleading/ s: Nature of Pleading: COMPLIANCE In relation to the case of ""PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. QNX SOLUTIONS et al., CTA EB CRIM No. 136 (CTA Case No. 0-991)" By sending a copy of the foregoing pleading through licensed professional courier (LBC), as e\~denced by the corresponding official receipt attached to the original pleading filed with the court and indicated after the respective name of the addressees. XXX

RESOLUTION CTA EB CRIM. NO. 136 Page 4 of6 The Court notes that in the Resolution dated April 3, 2024, petitioner was directed to submit proof of service of the Petition for Review to respondents, as required under Section 5, Rule 43 of the ROC (i.e., as first filed with the Court on December 29, 2023). However, in the First Affidavit, the following defects are found: 1. The Petition for Review subject thereof was only served to respondents on April 29, 2024; 2. The Registry Receipt with no. RM 907 705 110 zz indicated therein, is actually attached to the Petition filed together with petitioner's Compliance on April 29, 2024, and not to the original Petition filed with the Court on December 29, 2023; and 3. The Petition was served to respondents through registered mail, and not through accredited courier as stated by petitioner in its Compliance. Meanwhile, the subject of the Second Affidavit is petitioner's Compliance, and not the Petition for Review. Considering the clear requirement of Section 5, Rule 43 of the ROC that an appeal shall be taken by filing a verified petition for review with the Court, with proof of service of a copy thereof on the adverse party, the Resolution dated April 3, 2024 is deemed not sufficiently complied with. In Spouses Marano v. Pryce Gases, Inc.', the Supreme Court reiterated that failure to append the proof of service to a petition is a fatal defect. The Supreme Court held, viz.: In Mojar, et al. v. Agm Commercial Security Service Agency, Inc., et al., the Court clarified that failure to append the proof of service to a petition is a fatal defect. The Court discussed in this \vise: There is no question that petitioner herein was remiss in complying with the foregoing Rule. In Cruz v. Court ofAppeals, we ruled that with respect to motions, proof of service is a mandatory requirement. We find no cogent reason why this dictum should not apply and with more reason to a petition for certiorari, in view of Section 3, Rule 46 which requires that the petition shall be filed "together with proof of service thereof." We agree 'A;}th the Court of Appeals that the lack of proof of semce is a fatal defect. The utter disregard of the Rule cannot be justified by harking to substantial justice and the policy of liberal construction of the Rules. Technical rules of procedure are not meant to frustrate the ends of justice. Rather, they serve to ' G.R. No. 244233, June 3, 2019.

RESOLUTION CTA EB CRIM. NO. 136 Page 5 of6 effect the proper and orderly disposition of cases and thus effectively prevent the clogging of our court dockets. An affidavit of service does not work merely as proof that service has been made on the other party. Rather, its purpose is to ensure that the requirement of due process is upheld and the administration of justice is orderly maintained. Applying the foregoing jurisprudential precept to the case at bar, together with Section 7, Rule 43 of the ROC, the Court is constrained to dismiss the instant Petition for failure of petitioner to comply with the aforementioned rules. The Court is mindful that rules of procedure, in the most compelling cases, must be relaxed. However, in this case, petitioner failed to comply not only with the applicable rules, but also with the directive of the Court giving it an opportunity to comply with the same. Hence, the Court finds no cogent reason to relax the rules for petitioner. Furthermore, an appeal is not a matter of right. It is merely a statutory privilege, and may be exercised only in the manner and in accordance with the provisions of the law. The party who seeks to avail of the remedy of appeal must comply with the requirements of the rules; otherwise, the appeal is losU WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Petition for Review is DISMISSED. SO ORDERED. Presiding Justice MA. BELENM. RINGPIS-LIBAN Associate Justice ~ 7� ~ .......t..._.. ___ CATHERINE T. MANAHAN Associate Justice 'Deepak Kumar v. People of the Philippines, G.R., No. 247661, June 15,2020.

RESOLUTION CTA EB CRIM. NO. 136 Page 6 of6 MARIARO ~~f.~ -Fa,~ n6l MARIAN F. REhs-FAij"ARDo Associate Justice ~/h1~ LANEE S. CUI-DAVID Associate Justice HENRY j/~GELES Associate Justice