CTA Case No. 546 (Resolution)

' PUHLJC OF 1"ltt<: PHILlPPll\!~ .(:;OUH.T 01� 11 � ' A.Pl~~ 1L4 TN CHUN~ , doing busin'ess under the firm name CEBU SCCIETY B .r�:ERY I T Petitioner; - versus - c.T.A. C1SE I-JO . 546 SILVERIO BLAOUERA , Collec- tor of Internal Revenue , Respondento X- - - - - - - - - - - - X RE S 0 L UT I 0 N The respondent assessed against the petitioner the sum of -14,901.50 as alleged deficiency percent - age tax for the years 1952 , 1953 , 1954 and 1955. The assessment is contained in a letter of respond- ent dated November 12 , 1955 , admitted by petitioner to have been received on or about the same date o (Par. 3 , Petition for Review.) Claiming that he has already paid the full amount of the tax due on his bakery business , petitioner instituted an action in the Court of First Instance of Cebu to enjoin the collection of said tax and for damages . This action was dismissed by the Court of First Instance of Cebu for lack of jurisdiction following the decision of the Supreme Court in Blaquera v. Rodriguez , G. R. i'To. L- 11192 , April 16, 1958 , wherein it was held that a "decision of the collector of Internal Revenue on the assessment made by him with regard to certain deficiency percentage taxes , as well as x x x his decision to collect the same by coercive summary

RESOLUTION - C.I.A. CASE NO . 546 -2- measures p rescribed b~ law (are ) matters whi ch come within the exclusive )urisdiction of the Court of Tax Appeals . 1 Petitioner has now c ome to this Court seek - ing a review of the decision of respondent. Respondent has filed a motion to dismiss the here- in petition for review solely on the ground that the appeal was filed beyond the thirty - day period provid- ed in Section 11 of Republic ct No. 1125. The de ci - sion of respondent dated 1 ovember 12, 1955 is admit - ted to have been received by petitioner on or about the same date and the pet i tion for review was filed with this Court on June 23 i 1958. The motion to dismiss was set for hearing on August 16, 1958. Neither petitioner nor his counsel appeared. This Court ~ proorio postponed the hear- ing to Septenmer 6 , 195i to give petitioner every op - portunity to oppose the motion arid to present his side of the case . On this latter date , neither- petitioner nor his counsel appeared. Consequently, respondent ' s counsel was allowed to presen t his evidence � .Yfi.nding the motion to dismiss meritorious , the herein petition for review is hereby dismissed , with costs against petitioner. ~ SO ORDERED. Manila , October 2 , 1958o l" E COI-JCUR: BOMAN M. UMALI Associate Judge