DAVAO CONTRACTORS DEVELOPMENT COOPERATIVE v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE

REPUBLIC OF t'HE PHILIPPINES Court ofTax Appeals QUEZON CITY THIRD DIVISION DAVAO CONTRACTORS C.T.A. CASE NO. 8144 DEVELOPMENT COOPERATIVE, Members: Petitioner, BAUTISTA, Chairperson, PALANCA-ENRIQUEZ, and -versus- COTANGCO-MANALASTAS, JJ. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL Promulgated: REVENUE, MAR 2 1 2011 Respondent. ~~r-~ ..;:�/�- � X -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- X RESOLUTION PALANCA-ENRIQUEZ, J.: This resolves: 1) petitioner's "Motion for Reconsideration (of the Resolution dated 9 December 2010)" filed on January 18, 2011; and 2) respondent CIR's "Comment" filed on February 16, 2011. In its motion, petitioner invokes exceptions to the rule on exhaustion of administrative remedies. (UJ2� We find no merit in the motion.

C.T.A. CASE NO. 8144 2 RESOLUTION To reiterate, the Court dismissed the present Petition For Review on the ground that the alleged failure of the CIR to resolve petitioner's "Motion For Reconsideration" on the revocation of its exempt status cannot be considered as inaction of the CIR that is appealable to this Court under Section 7(a)(2) ofRA 9282, as amended, in relation to Section 3(a)(2) ofRule 4 of the 2005 Revised Rules of the CTA, as amended, for the simple reason that the NIRC of1997, as amended, and the Cooperative Code of the Philippines, as amended, do not provide a specific period for the CIR to act and resolve the "Motion For Reconsideration" of a taxpayer on the revocation of its exempt status. Both Section 7(a)(2) ofRA 9282, as amended, and Section 3(a)(2) ofRule 4 ofthe 2005 Revised Rules of the CTA, as amended, expressly provide that the CTA in Division shall exercise exclusive original or appellate jurisdiction to review by appeal the "inaction by the CIR in cases involving disputed assessments, refunds of internal revenue taxes, fees or other charges, penalties in relation thereto, or other matters arising under the NIRC or other laws administered by the BIR where the NIRC or other applicable law provides a specific period for action." From the above provision, it is clear that the NIRC or the applicable law must provide a specific period of action in order that (yl)-

C.T.A. CASE NO. 8144 3 RESOLUTION the lapse of the said period maybe considered as inaction of the CIR, that is appealable to this Court. Thus, it is clear that this Court has no jurisdiction over the subject matter of the present Petition For Review. Jurisdiction over the subject matter is conferred only by law. When the court has no jurisdiction over the case, it has no recourse, but to dismiss the same. The lack of jurisdiction affects the very authority of the court to take cognizance of and to render judgment on the action; otherwise, the inevitable consequence would make the court's decision a "lawless" thing (Municipality of Sta. Fe vs. Municipality ofAritao, 533 SCRA 586). WHEREFORE, premises considered, petitioner's "Motion for Reconsideration (of the Resolution dated 9 December 201 0)" 1s hereby DENIED for lack of merit. SO ORDERED. ~ f[~C---[ -- OLGA PALANCA-ENRIQUEZ Associate Justice UTISTA ~/ ~ _:;yj:--:/_L_ AMELIA R. COTANGCO-MANALASTAS Associate Justice