CHINA BANKING CORPORATION v. CITY TREASURER OF MANILA

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES Court of Tax Appeals QUEZON CITY ENBANC CHINA BANKING C.T.A. E.B. NO. 81 CORPORATION, Petitioner, (Civil Case No. 03-106346 ) Present: -versus- ACOSTA, Presiding Justice CASTANEDA, JR., BAUTISTA, UY, CASANOVA, and PALANCA-ENRIQUEZ, JJ. CITY TREASURER OF MANILA, Promulgated: Respondent. 2 5_2005 ~~~~ X ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ X RESOLUTION PALANCA-ENRIQUEZ, J.: This is a Petition for Review filed on March 28, 2005 by China Banking Corporation (hereafter "petitioner") against the City Treasurer of Manila (hereafter "respondent"), which seeks to set aside the decision rendered on September 3, 2004 by the Regional Trial Court of Manila, Branch 14, in the exercise of its appellate jurisdiction, in Civil Case No. 03-106346 entitled "China Banking Corporation vs. City Treasurer of Manila", and the Resolution dated February 22, 2005 denying its Motion For Reconsideration.

C.T.A. E.B . NO. 81 2 (Civil Case No. 03-106346) RESOLUTION After examining the petition, We found that the same suffers from the following procedural infirmities, to wit: The petition was not accompanied by certified true copies of the following pleadings and other pertinent documents and papers as are referred to in the petition to enable this Court to pass upon the sufficiency of the allegations of the petition: 1) pleadings filed with the Metropolitan Trial Court of Manila, to wit: a) Complaint; b) Motion to Dismiss; c) Opposition to Motion to Dismiss; d) Order dated January 23, 2004 granting the Motion to Dismiss; 2) pleadings filed with the Regional Trial Court of Manila: a) Petitioner's Memorandum Failure on the part of the petitioner to attach certified true copies of all pleadings and other material portions of the records as would support its allegations, a requirement under Section 6, Rule 43 of the 1997 Rules

C.T.A. E.B. NO. 81 3 (Civil Case No. 03-106346) RESOLUTION of Civil Procedure, as amended, shall be a sufficient ground for the dismissal of the petition under Section 7 ofthe same Rule. Furthermore, a further perusal of the petition shows that while the attached certified true copy of the assailed RTC decision (Annex "A ") pertains to Civil Case No. 03-106346, the attached Order dated February 22, 2005 (Annex "B ") and the attached copy of the Motion For Reconsideration (Annex "C ") both pertain to a different case, Civil Case No. 04-109541. The foregoing procedural flaws spell outright dismissal of the petition. WHEREFORE, for not being sufficient in form and substance, the petition for review is hereby DENIED DUE COURSE and accordingly DISMISSED. SO ORDERED. O~ LG~ PAL~ ANCA-E~~I3QUEZ Associate Justice

C.T.A. E.B . NO. 81 4 (Civi l Case No. 03-l 06346 ) RESOLUTION WE CONCUR: (on leave) ERNESTO D. ACOSTA Presiding Justice (on leave) Associate Justice JUANITO C. CASTANEDA, JR. ~ Associate Justice CAESAR A. CASANOVA EARs~ s~~-y Associate Justice