TOP RATE CONSTRUCTION & GENERAL SERVICES v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES Court of Tax Appeals QUEZON CITY FIRST DIVISION TOP RATE CONSTRUCTION CTA CASE NO. 9368 AND GENERAL SERVICES, Members: Petitioner, DEL ROSARIO, P.J. , Chairperson, -versus- UY, and MINDARO-GRULLA, JJ. COMMISSIONER OF Promulgated: INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent. n-. ){ - - ---- --- --- --- ------------------ RESOLUTION For this Court's resolution is petitioner's "Motion to Withdraw Petition for Review (with URGENT MOTION TO SUSPEND COLLECTION OF TAXES)" filed on June 22 , 2017, with respondent's "COMMENT/MAN/FESTA TJON" filed on July 12, 2017 , praying that: a) the Petition for Review (with Urgent Motion to Suspend Collection of Taxes) be withdrawn ; b) the scheduled hearing for the presentation of petitioner's witnesses on 8 August 2017 be cancelled ; and c) that this case be declared as closed and terminated . In support of its motion , petitioner avers that on June 5, 2017 , it filed , with the BIR Regional Director of Revenue Region 8 and the Chief of the Collection Division of the same revenue region , an application for the Compromise Settlement of its VAT assessment covering taxable year 2005 on the ground of financial incapacity. Petitioner further alleges that on the same date, it paid the amount of Php271 ,802.31 as compromise payment representing 10% of the VAT assessment covering taxable year 2005. Hence, petitioner decided to withdraw the instant Petition for Review in order to give

CTA CASE NO. 9368 Page 2 of4 way to the compromise settlement of the deficiency VAT assessment for the taxable year 2005. On July 12, 2017, respondent filed his "Comment/Manifestation" stating no objection to petitioner's "Motion to Withdraw the Petition For Review" and requesting for the permanent withdrawal of the BIR Records of the case. THE COURT'S RULING In the recent case of Commissioner of Internal Revenue vs. Nippon Express (Phils.) Corporation1, the Supreme Court elucidated on the procedure for the withdrawal of pending appeals before the Court of Tax Appeals. The High Court held: "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 theCA 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 xxxx 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 may be allowed in the discretion of the court." 1 G.R. No. 212920, September 16,2015.

CTA CASE NO. 9368 Page 3 of4 Relative thereto, it is noteworthy to mention the consequence of the withdrawal of an appeal. The Supreme Court has held that when an appeal is withdrawn, the assailed decision becomes final and executory. 2 Based on the foregoing, the granting of a Motion to Withdraw Appeal 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 does not interpose any objection to the motion to withdraw petition for review, the Court resolves to grant petitioner's Motion to Withdraw (with Urgent Motion To Suspend Collection Of Taxes). Furthermore, this is to remind petitioner the effect of its withdrawal of appeal. By withdrawing the instant Petition for Review, the Final Decision of the Commissioner of Internal Revenue dated April 14, 2016 affirming the Final Decision on Disputed Assessment (FDDA) now becomes final, executory and demandable. WHEREFORE, in light of the foregoing considerations, petitioner's Motion to Withdraw (with Urgent Motion to Suspend Collection of Taxes) filed on June 22, 2017, is hereby GRANTED. Accordingly, the instant Petition for Review filed on May 27, 2016 is hereby DISMISSED, and the case is considered CLOSED and TERMINATED. The Final Decision of the Commissioner of Internal Revenue dated April 14, 2016, affirming the Final Decision on Disputed Assessment, is accordingly DECLARED final and executory. No further pleadings or motions shall be entertained herein. Further, respondent's request for the permanent withdrawal of the BIR Records of the case in his Comment/Manifestation filed on July 12, 2017 is also GRANTED. The BIR Records of this case may be permanently withdrawn from the Judicial Records Division of this Court. SO ORDERED. ROMAN G. DEL'ROSARIO Presiding Justice 2 Central Luzon Drug Corporation vs. Commissioner ofInternal Revenue, G.R. No. 181371, March 2, 2011.

CTA CASE NO. 9368 Page 4 of4 AEs~~~~.~sUt' iYce (ON LEAVE) CIELITO N. MINDARO-GRULLA Associate Justice