COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS v. AIR PHILIPPINES CORPORATION (APC)

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES COURT OF TAX APPEALS QUEZON CITY ENBANC COMMISSIONER OF CTA EB NO. 2079 CUSTOMS, (CTA Case Nos. 7872, 7883, 7922, 7929& 7952) Petitioner, Present: Del Rosario, PJ, Castaneda, Jr., -versus- Uy, Fabon-Victorino, Mindaro-Grulla, Ringpis-Liban, Manahan, Bacorro-Villena, and AIR PHILIPPINES Modesto-San Pedro, JJ. CORPORATION (APC), 20d#'- Promulgated: Respondent. JUL 18 x-------------------------------------------------------------------------------/-(-.-.-'-1---<~~--~-;'xh._ RESOLUTION This resolves petitioner's Motion for Extension of Time to File Petition for Review filed on June 7, 2019. Section 4(b), Rule 8 of the 2005 Revised Rules of the CTA, as amended, provides: "SEC. 4. Where to appeal; mode ofappeal. - XXX XXX XXX (b) An appeal from a decision or resolution of the Court in Division on a motion for reconsideration or new trial shall be taken to the Court by petition for review as provided in Rule 43 of the Rules of Court. The Court en bane shall act on the appeal." On the other hand, Section 4, Rule 43 of the Revised Rules of Court pertinently provides:

RESOLUTION CTA EB No. 2079 Page 2 of3 "SEC. 4. Period of Appeal. - The appeal shall be taken within fifteen (15) days from notice of the award, judgment, final order or resolution, xxx Upon proper motion and the payment of the full amount of the docket fee before the expiration of the reglementary period, the Court of Appeals may grant an additional period of fifteen (15) days only within which to file the petition for review. xxx"(Emphasis supplied) In the old case of Videogram Regulatory Board v. Court ofAppeals, et al., I the Supreme Court emphasized the policy on overly long extensions of time. Thus: "As early as August 26, 1986, in the case of Lacsamana vs. Second Special Cases Division ofthe Intermediate Appellate Court, this Court had already put a stop to and set a policy on overly long extensions of time. The Court said: Beginning one month after the promulgation of this Decision, an extension of only fifieen days for filing a petition for review may be granted by the Court of Appeals, save in exceptionally meritorious cases. The motion for extension of time must be filed and the corresponding docket fee paid within the reglementary period of appeal." (Citation omitted) A perusal of the records shows that petitioner received a copy of the assailed Resolution on May 21, 2019. Applying the above-quoted provisions of the Rules, in relation to the Videogram case, petitioner had fifteen (15) days from said date, or until June 5, 2019, within which to file his motion for extension to file the petition. Meanwhile, the Court En Bane notes that petitioner eventually filed the subject Petition on June 20, 2019. However, considering that the instant motion was filed belatedly only on June 7, 2019, the denial of the same is in order. Consequently, the said Petition shall be treated as if the same has not been filed. WHEREFORE, petitioner's Motion for Extension of Time to File Petition for Review is DENIED, for being filed out of time. 1 G.R. No. 106564. November 28. 1996.

RESOLUTION CTA EB No. 2079 Page 3 of3 SO ORDERED. Presiding Justice Q. C. ~�cc-:o4 Jl ER�.P.UY Associate Justice JUANITO C. CASTANEDiRfR.. Associate Justice ~N.M...:~~C~ (On Leave) CIELITO N. MINDARO-GRULLA MA. BELEN M. RINGPIS-LIBAN Associate Justice Associate Justice c~� Tr~'----- cATHERINE T. MANAHAN Associate Justice (On Leave) JEAN MARIE A. BACORRO-VILLENA Associate Justice NO PART MARIA ROWENA G. MODESTO-SAN PEDRO Associate Justice