COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE v. ALTIMAX BROADCASTING CO., INC.

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES COURT OF TAX APPEALS QUEZON CITY ENBANC COMMISSIONE R OF INTERNAL CT A E B NO. 3103 REVEN UE, (CT A CASE NO. 10687) Petitioner, P resent: -versus- Ringpis-LibanJ P.J., Ba c o r ro -Ville n a, Modesto-San Pedro, Reyes-Fajard o, Cui-David, Ferrer-Flores, and Angeles,JJ. ALTIMAX BROADCASTING CO. INC., P romulgated : Re sp o nd ent. J 2 2 2026 X----------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -----------X RESOLUTION For resolution is the petitioner's " fotion for Reconsideration (En Bane Resolution dated 08 August 2025)," praying that the Resolution dated August 8, 2025 be reconsidered and the Decision dated August 21 , 2024 o f the First Division of this Court be reversed and set aside. In the Iotion for Reconsideration, petitioner states that the primary manner of filing the petitio n was through electronic transmittal on l\IIarch 21, 2025 at 1:29 p.m.; that it should be considered as the time and date of filing; that the filing of the paper copies on March 25, 2025 was within the five(S)-day period prescribed by the Resolution; that procedural rules may be relaxed in order to prevent injustice to a litigant; that the strict applicatio n of rules may be suspended considering that the Petition for Review has meritorious ground to reverse the decision o f the First Division of the Court of Tax Appeals (CTA); that it has never been the intention of petitioner to file the petition out of time.; that it was just a mere excusable oversight of the CTA E n Bane Resolution No. 8-2024 which is considered to be relatively new to the litigants; and that the First Division of the CTA erred in ruling that the subj ect tax assessment are void, for violation of peti tioner's right to administrative due process.

RESOLUTION CTA EB NO. 3103 On October 7, 2025, respondent filed us "Comment (Re: l\Iotion for Reconsideration dated [\ugust 22, 2025)." In the said Comment, respondent avers that petitioner failed to ;~dducc any cogent or exceptional reason that would warrant the liberal application of the procedural rules; that petitioner failed to acknowledge that it is filing a Petition for Review before the Court En Bane, which is an initiatory pleading; that electronic filing is not included among the permitted modes of filing an initiatory pleading; that the alleged novelty of En Bane Resolution No. 8- 2024 does not excuse non-compliance since the parties are presumed to know the rules and to strictly abide by the procedural rec1uirements laid down by the Court; and that the Court in Division correctly ruled that petitioner violated respondent's right to due process. After consideration, the Court resolves to deny petitioner's l\Iotion for Reconsideration. The requirements for perfecting an appeal within the reglementary period specified in the law must be strictly followed. 1 The Court finds nothing exceptional and mentorious that excuses petitioner from complying with the requisites of En Bane Resolution No. 8- 2024. 1\s stated in the said En Bane Resolution, initiatory pleadings such as the present petition, should be ftled personally, by registered mail, or by pnvate courier. The filing by electronic mail or other means is not allowed. The Supreme Court recently rctninded: Suffice It to say that "concomitant to the liberal inte111retation of the rules of procedure should be an effort on the part of the party invoking liberality to adequately explain his failure to abide by the rules." Those who seck exemption from the application of the rule have the burden of proving the existence of exceptionally meritorious reasons warranting such departure." The Court finds the reasons given by the petitioner to be far from being "exceptionally meritorious." Having found the foregoing arguments of petitioner to be without merit, this Court must conclude that petitioner rniserably failed to discharge the burden 1 C'oqxmiii: lnl! Hold. d a/. l'.o)flllli'l'it F-l. Li:;y, G.R. ~0- 1"182"'79, :0.Iay T', 20(JI, citing _/lmold Ginelc ,,... I-lo11. Co!trl r!{ AppMk G.R. '\.:o. 12-596, September 2-l, 1998, 29G SCR. \ 38. Sec also ."--ct!ir)!iWtdo� Scarri()' cmd ~-'-1//icd Sn7'ix�.,-, lih'. 1'/ Com1 ~(-.:1pj)(;(f/,-_ dell., C.R. ~o. 1558-1--1-,July 1--~, 2008. 2 /1/on'\:o G~ha. d a!. ,,... So!f!/lem f_.;t:;:o/1 ]Juliltt!e, C.R. No. 17'-1-25, June lS, 201-l-, ciring 1-:.'nriqm:::_ t'.o Enriq11.-::.._�_, .~U:) Phil. 193, 2111 (2005).

RESOLUTION CTA EB NO. 3103 of proving the existence of exceptionally meritorious reasons that would justif1� a relaxation of procedural rules in its favor. It is hornbook doctrine that "the right to appeal i' not a natural right or a part of due process; it is merely a statutory privilege, and may be exercised only in the manner prescribed by and in accordance with the provisions of law. The party who seeks to avail himself of the same must comply with the requirements of the rules. Failing to do so, he loses the right to appeal."3 In Ferdina11d iVIarcoJ eta!. IJJ. Hon. B.a11l i'vfallglapm etaf.�', the Supreme Court emphasized that "in all motions for reconsideration, the burden is upon the movants, petitioner herein, to sho'>v that there are compelling reasons to reconsider the decision of the Court." However, in tllis case, petitioner did not satisfy this burden. Thus, the "rdotion for Reconsideration" deserves to be denied for failing to present any legitimate argument which could warrant reconsideration of the Court Ell Bane's Resolution dated August 8, 2025. In view of the foregoing, the Court En Bane will no longer belabor to repeat the discussions in the assailed Resolution since it would only result to mere superfluity. ACCORDINGLY, the "!\lotion for Reconsideration (En Bane Resolution dated 08 .o\ugust 2025)" is DENIED for lack of merit. SO ORDERED. 'L. ~.,--- MA. BELEN M. RINGPIS-LIBAN Presiding Justice ,.--- ~#;~~ . BACORRO-VILLENA UStlCe ' T-li!twio _\_ Ramir<'::;:_ ,,_.. Co11rl f!{....-'lfjvak d ttl., G.R. No. 182626, D'--�ccmbcr 4, 2009, citing Coli~)' Co,utr;:aioll (IIlii MtiiiC(~f!Jitlll CotJH.iralioll !'.' l\Tatio11al Labor Relatioll.' Commt~l.lion, G.R. No. 1-:-()()99, );"oyember 28, :?.()()""7, 539 SCR.-\ 159, 168. ~ G.R. ::\"o. 88211, October:?.....,, 1989.

RESOLUTION CTA EB NO. 3103 t ~ ~ v F~~ MARIAN REYES-FAJAR'bO [k.,. IvY~. i\ssociate Justice LA~~AVID /\.ssociate Justice HENRY~~GELES Associate Justice