STA. ELENA CONSTRUCTION & DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE

CTA Form No.8 (For DCC) 111111111111 1111 111111 1111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111 25-000823 -0015 REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES COURT OFTAX APPEALS QUEZON CITY SPECIAL FIRST DIVISION CTA CASE NO. SCA-0040 NOTICE OF RESOLUTION STA. ELENA CONSTRUCTION & DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, Petitioner, -versus- COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent. To: OFFICE OF THE SOLICITOR GENERAL I34 Amorsolo Street, Legazpi Vi ll age Makati City ATTY. AYESHA RANIA B. GUILING-MATANOG ATTY. FAUSTINO B. LUMABAO, JR. Bureau of Internal Revenue Litigation Division Room 703, BIR National Office Building Sen. Miriam P. Defensor-Santiago Avenue Diliman, Quezon City ATTY. RENATO JOHN B. VASQUEZ, JR. 3903 Paragon Plaza EDSA cor. Reliance St. Mandaluyong City GREETINGS: You are hereby notified by these presents that on April 17, 2026, a Resolution was rendered in the above-entitled case, copy of which is attached hereto. Quezon City, Philippines, April 20, 2026. Atty. Maria Joti~~~Chan-Te Executive Cle rt III

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES COURT OF TAX APPEALS QUEZON CITY SPECIAL FIRST DIVISION STA.ELENA CTA SCA CASE NO. 0040 CONSTRUCTION & DEVELOPMENT Members: CORPORATION, Petitioner, BACORRO-VILENA, Acting Chairperson, and CUI-DAVID, JJ. - versus- COMMISSIONER OF Promulgat ed : INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent. 'APR 1~ q~ ftl\'1 J{- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - : - - - - - - - - - - - - - -J{ RESOLUTION CUI-DAVID, J .: Before the Court is petitioner's Motion for Reconsideration (with Motion to Admit Amended Petition for Certiorari), filed on December 3, 2025, with resp ondent's Comment/ Opposition Ad Cautelam [Re: Petitioner's Motion for Reconsideration (With Motion to Admit Amended Petition fo r Certiorari) dated 2 December 2025], file d on January 26, 2026, assailing the Resolution dated November 3, 2025 (assailed Resolution), the dispositive portion of which reads: WHEREFORE, the instant Petition for Certiorari with Application for a Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) and/ or Preliminary Injunction is hereby DISMISSED. SO ORDERED.l In its Motion for Reconsideration, p etitioner argues that: 1. The Petition for Certiorari should not be dismissed on procedural technicalities; Docket, p. 195.

RESOLUTION CTA SCA Case No. 0040 Sta. Elena Construction & Development Corporation v. Commis sion er of Internal Revenue Pa ge 2 of 5 x------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------x 2. The instant motion was timely filed on December 2, 2025; 3. The certified true copies of the Notice of Levy, the certification of non-publication issued by the National Printing Office/Official Gazette, and the annotated Transfer Certificates of Title from the Registry of Deeds were already attached to the original Petition; 4. The submission of the BIR-issued documents under a duly executed Custodian's Undertaking is considered substantial compliance and that it was due to BIR's refusal to issue duplicates that it was not able to obtain certified true copies of such BIR records; 5. The defects in the Verification and Certification of Non- Forum Shopping had already been cured by the execution of a corrected Verification and Certification of Non-Forum Shopping, duly notarized with complete jurat; 6. The Petition for Certiorari was timely filed on September 29, 2025. On July 28, 2025, petitioner's counsel learned of the levy only upon chance while following another matter at the BIR-LTCED. The document cannot be released to petitioner's counsel, as petitioner has yet to issue a written authorization for counsel to receive it. On July 29, 2025, petitioner issued the required authority, and its counsel was able to receive the Notice of Levy. Thus, for purposes of the 60-day period under Rule 65, July 29, 2025, is the correct date of receipt; 7. The execution and attachment of a new, properly notarized Board Resolution and Secretary's Certificate cured the defective jurat lacking any competent evidence of identity for the affiant Corporate Secretary. In his Comment, respondent contends that the instant Motion for Reconsideration wa s filed out of time and, a s a consequence, the assailed Resolution has already attained finality and m ay no longer b e modified. Responden t further a sserts that p etitioner filed the Amended Petition for Certiorari only to confer jurisdiction upon this Court.

RESOLUTION CTA SCA Case No. 0040 Sta. Elena Constru ction & Development Corporation v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue x------------------------ ------------ -- --------------------------- ----- -- ------------ --- ---x After the Motion for Reconsideration was submitted for resolution on February 11 , 2026, petitioner filed a Reply (To Respondent's Comment/ Opposition ad Cautelam) on February 12, 2026, asserting that: 1. The Motion for Reconsideration was s easonably filed on December 3 , 2025, thus , the doctrine of immutability of judgments does not apply 2. Where a petition is dismissed purely on procedural grounds , a motion for reconsideration is not only proper but indispensable; 3. Respondent's claim that the Amended Petition for Certiorari was filed to confer jurisdiction is untenable and constitutes a mischaracterization. The jurisdiction in certiorari proceedings is determined by the nature of the action and the allegations of grave abuse of discretion, not by technical defects in annexes or curable deficiencies in form. Also, the amendments were undertaken in good faith; and, 4. The CTA has echoed the Supreme Court's policy of allowing the relaxation of procedural rules to prevent manifest injustice. Petitioner's Motion for Reconsideration must be dismissed. Section 1, Rule 15 of the Revised Rules of the Court of Tax Appeals provides: SECTION 1. Who m ay and when to file motion. - Any aggrieved party may seek a reconsideration or n ew tria l of any decision, resolution or order of the Court by filing a motion for reconsideration or new trial within fifteen days from the date of receipt of notice of the decision, resolution or order of the Court in question. (Emphasis supplied) In the present Motion, petitioner alleges that "[p]etitioner received on 18 November 2025 this Honorable Court's Resolution dismissing the Petition for Certiorari[.]" The records, however, indicate that the Resolution dated November 3 , 2025, was received by p etitioner's counsel on November 12, 2025. Counting 15 days from November 12,

RESOLUTION CTA SCA Case No. 0040 Sta. Elena Construction & Development Corporation v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue X------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------X 2025, petitioner h ad until November 27, 2025 to file a motion for reconsideration. However, petitioner filed its Motion for Reconsideration only on December 3, 2025, or six (6) days beyond the reglementary period. The belated filing of petitioner's Motion for Reconsideration is not an inconsequential procedural matter, as it rendered the assailed Resolution final and executory by operation of law.2 The finality of a decision is a jurisdictional event that cannot be made to depend on the convenience of a party."3 As explained in Abutin v. San Juan: 4 [A] judgment can no longer be disturbed, altered, or modified as soon as it becomes final and executory; "nothing is more settled in law." Once a case is decided with finality, t h e controversy is settled and the matter is laid to rest. Accordingly, [a final judgment] may no longer be modified in any respect, even if the modification is meant to correct what is perceived to be an erroneous conclusion of fact or law, and regardless of whether the modification is attempted to be made by the court rendering it or by the highest court of the la nd. Once a judgment becomes final, the court or tribunal loses jurisdiction, and any modified judgment t h at it issues, as well as a ll proceedings taken for this purpose are null a nd void. This elementary rule finds basis in "public policy and sound practice that at the risk of occasional error, the judgment of courts and t he award of quasi-judicial agencies must become final at some definite date fixed by law." Basic rationality dictates that there must be an end to litigation. Any contrary posturing renders justice inutile, reducing to futility the winning party's capacity to benefit from the resolution of a case.5 (Citations omitted) As a consequ ence of this untimely filing of the Motion for Reconsideration, the dismissal of the Petition for Certiorari with Application fo r a Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) and/ or Preliminary Injunction filed on September 29, 2 025 , has already become final and executory. Spouses Sumndad v. Friday 's Holdings, Inc., G.R. No. 235586, January 22, 2020 [Per C.J. Peralta, First Division). Abutin v. San Juan, G.R. No. 247345, July 6, 2020 [Per J. Leonen, Third Division], citi ng Land Bank of the Philippines v. Heirs ofFernando A/sua, G.R. No. l6736 1, April 2, 2007 [Per J. Tinga, Second Division]. Abutin v. San Juan, G.R. No. 247345, July 6, 2020 [Per J. Leonen, Third Di vision] Gatmay tan v. Dolor, G.R. No. l98120, February 20, 201 7 [Per J. Leonen, Second Division].

RESOLUTION CTA SCA Case No. 0040 Sta. Elena Construction & Development Corporation v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue X- ---- ---------------------------- -- -------------- ----- ------------ ------------------------X Moreover, considering petitioner's claim of a different receipt date of the assailed Resolution from what is indicated in the records, which show service of the assailed Resolution at petitioner's counsel's address of record, petitioner's counsel is reminded of the duty to devise a system to ensure that official communications would be promptly received, lest counsel will be chargeable with negligence.6 Balgami v. Court of Appeals7 reminds: The law office is mandated to adopt and arrange matters in order to ensure that official or judicial communications sent by mail would reach the lawyer assigned to the case . The Court h as time and again emphasized that the negligence of the clerks, which a dversely affect the cases handled by lawyers, is binding upon the latter. The doctrinal rule is that the negligence of counsel binds the client because, otherwise, there would never be an end to a suit so long as new counsel could be employed wh o could allege and show that prior counsel had not been sufficiently diligent, or experienced, or learned. (Citations omitted) WHEREFORE, premises considered, petitioner's Motion for Reconsideration (with Motion to Admit Amended Petition for Certiorari) is DISMISSED. Petitioner's Reply (To Respondent's Comment/ Opposition ad Cautelam) is NOTED. SO ORDERED. LANE~!VID !CONCUR: Associate Justice r JEAN MARIE A 6 Me ndoza v. The Honorable Court ofAppeals (Eight Division) , G.R. No. 182814, July 15, 20 15 [Per 1. Perez, Fi rst Di vision] citing Balgami v. Court of Appeals, G. R. No. 131287, December 9, 2004 [Per J. Callejo, Sr. , Second Di vision]. G.R. No. 13 1287, December 9, 2004 [Per J. Callejo, Sr. Second Division].