ROLANDO C. RANTE v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES COURT OF TAX APPEALS QUEZON CITY FIRST DIVISION ROLANDO C. RANTE, CTA CASE NO. 9237 Petitioner, Members: -versus- DEL ROSARIO, P.J., Chairperson UY, and MINDARO-GRULLA, JJ. COMMISSIONER OF Promulgated: . INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent. x------------------------------------------- RESOLUTION MINDARO-GRULLA, J.: In a Resolution dated October 30, 2017, respondent Commissioner of Internal Revenue (CIR) was directed to show cause why he should not be held in contempt for failure to file his comment to petitioner's Motion with Leave of Court to Withdraw Petition. In compliance with the Court's resolution, respondent CIR filed his comment on November 17, 2017. The comment explained that the respondent's lawyer has been indisposed for the past three months due to a serious ailment. Relative thereto, respondent also interposed no objection to petitioner's intention to withdraw the petition. Hence, we resolve. Petitioner prays that this Court approve the Motion with Leave of Court to Withdraw Petition on the ground that a compromise agreement has been entered into between him and respondent CIR. To support the Motion, he attached thereto photocopies of the following: c..

Rolando C. Rante vs. CIR Page 2 of 4 CTA Case No. 9237 RESOLUTION 1. Application for Compromise Settlement for petitioner's Income Tax and Value Added Tax; 2. The corresponding BIR Payment forms showing approval of respondent; 3. Official Receipts; and 4. Letter of request for acceptance of Offer to Compromise Payment. The Court resolves to GRANT petitioner's Motion with Leave of Court to Withdraw Petition. In the recent case of Commissioner of Internal Revenue vs. Nippon Express (Phils.) Corporation 1, the Supreme Court elucidated on the procedure for the withdrawal of pending appeals before the Court of Tax Appeals. The Supreme Court ruled in this wise: "A perusal of the Revised Rules of the Court of Tax Appeals (RRCTA) reveals the lack of provisions governing the procedure for the withdrawal of pending appeals before the CTA. Hence, pursuant to Section 3, Rule 1 of the RRCTA, the Rules of Court shall suppletorily apply: SEC. 3. Applicability of the Rules of Court. - The Rules of Court in the Philippines shall apply suppletorily to these Rules. Rule 50 of the Rules of Court (now the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure) - an adjunct rule to the appellate procedure in the CA under Rules 42, 43, 44, and 46 of the Rules of Court which are equally adopted in the RRCTA states that when the case is deemed submitted for resolution, withdrawal of appeals made after the filing of the appellee's brief may still be allowed in the discretion of the court: RULE 50 DISMISSAL OF APPEAL 1 Commissioner of Internal Revenue vs. Nippon Express (Phils.) Corporation, G.R. No. 212920, September 16, 2015. (.

Rolando C. Rante vs. CIR Page 3 of 4 CTA Case No. 9237 RESOLUTION XXX XXX XXX Section 3. Withdrawal of appeal. -An appeal may be withdrawn as of right at any time before the filing of the appellee's brief. Thereafter, the withdrawal mav be allowed in the discretion of the court." Notably, in the case of Central Luzon Drug Corporation vs. Commissioner of Internal Revenue2 , the Supreme Court explained the consequence of the withdrawal of an appeal. It held that when an appeal is withdrawn, the assailed decision becomes final and executory. Under the premises, petitioner's Motion at this stage is addressed to the sound discretion of the Court. Considering that the Petition for Review has not yet been submitted for decision and that respondent CIR does not interpose any objection to the Motion, the Court resolves to grant petitioner's Motion. Petitioner is reminded of the effect of the withdrawal of his appeal that by withdrawing the instant Petition for Review, the decision of respondent CIR on the disputed assessment under Assessment Notice/Final Letter of Demand No. 41-8004-10 dated March 16, 2015 now becomes final and executory. WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Comment filed on November 17, 2017 by respondent CIR is hereby NOTED. Petitioner's "Motion with Leave of Court to Withdraw Petition" filed on July 25, 2017 is hereby GRANTED. Accordingly, the Petition for Review filed on January 13, 2016 docketed as CTA Case No. 9237 is deemed WITHDRAWN, and the case is hereby declared CLOSED and TERMINATED. Assessment Notice/Final Letter of Demand No. 41-8004-10 dated March 16, 2015 is DECLARED final and executory. No further pleadings or motions shall be entertained hereafter. 2 Central Luzon Drug Corporation vs. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, G.R. No. 181371, March 2, 2011. L

Rolando C. Rante vs. CIR Page 4 of 4 CTA Case No. 9237 RESOLUTION SO ORDERED. Or.e;'tU::t'-To N. M~~-~~ N. MINDARO-G){ULLA Associate Justice WE CONCUR: ER~P.' UY ROMAN G. DEL ROSARIO Associate Justice Presiding Justice