CTA Case No. EB CRIM-51 (Resolution)

-~ \ ~PUBffiC OF THE PHILIPPINES - COURT OF TAX APPEALS QUEZON CITY ENBANC PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, CTA EB CRIM CASE Petitioner, NO . 051 (CTA Crim Case No. 0-654) -versus- Present: MARINA C. BABASA & PEDRO C. CARANDANG, DEL ROSARIO, P.J., Respondent. CASTANEDA, JR., BAUTISTA, UY, CASANOVA, FABON-VICTORINO, M I N D A R O -GRU LLA, RINGPIS-LIBAN, and M A N A H A N ,JJ. RESOLUTION On February 19, 2018, the Court in Division issued a Resolution1 denying Plaintiffs "Motion for Reconsideration (Re: Resolution promulgated December 01, 2017)" for lack of merit. Records show that counsel for Plaintiff received the Resolution on March 02, 2018,2 thus Plaintiff had until March 17, 2018 within which to file his Petition for Review with the Court En Bane. Petitioner flied on April 04,2018 a "Motion for Extension ofTime to File Petition for Review"3, which the Court granted in a Minute Resolution4 dated April 05, 2018. The Court granted Plaintiff a final and non-extendible period of fifteen (15) days, or until April 19, 2018, within which to ftle its Petition for Review, subject to the condition that the motion for extension is flied on time. Docket, pp. 116-119. 2 Id. at p. 115. 3 Rollo, pp. 1-3. 4 Id. at p. 4.

RESOLUTION CTA EB CRIM CASE NO. 051 (CTA Crim case No. 0-654) On April 19, 2018, the Plaintiff ftled its Petition for Review. It is settled that the perfection of an appeal in the manner and within the period set by law is not only mandatory, but jurisdictional, and failure of a party to perfect an appeal within the period flXed by law renders the judgment final and executory. Once a decision attains finality, it becomes the law of the case and no Court has the power to revise, review, change or alter the same. Since Plaintiffs "Motion for Extension of Time to File Petition for Review'' was ftled after the period provided for under the rules, the dismissal of the Petition for Review, for being ftled out of time, is in order. WHEREFORE, the instant case is hereby DISMISSED for lack of jurisdiction for failure by Plaintiff to ftle its "Motion for Extension of Time to File Petition for Review" within the fifteen-day reglementary period under Section 3(b), Rule 8 of the Revised Rules of the Court ofTax Appeals (RRCTA). SO ORDERED. Presiding Justice ~~C.~ol.,Q.. LOVEL~. Asstc~ateBJAusUticTeISTA JlfANITO C. CASTANEDA,')i~. ~ Associate Justice CAESAR A. CASANOVA Associate Justice E~P.UY Assoc1ate Justice ESPE ~N,M,�~.r;~ CIELITO N. MINDARO-GRULLA Associate Justice ~-~ d - (On Leave) MA. BELEN M. RINGPIS-LIBAN CATHERINE T. MANAHAN Associate Justice Associate Justice