DWELLSTONE, INC. v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES Court ofTax Appeals QUEZON CITY Third Division DWELLSTONE, INC., CTA CASE N0.12448 Petitioner, Members: -versus- MODESTO-SAN PEDRO, Chairperson, and FERRER-FLORES, JJ COMMISSIONER OF Promulgated: INTERNAL REVENUE, ~ Respondent. JUL 1 4 2026L____ X -----------------------------------------------------------------=:3..:_(Q_f-�-~--�:~:----------------------------------- X RESOLUTION Before the Court is a Petition for Review, sent via licensed courier on June 8, 2026 but received by this Court on June 9, 2026, assailing respondent' s Decision, dated April 29, 2026, which petitioner received on May 7, 2026. The Petition must be dismissed. Rule 13, Section 3(c) of the Rules of Court allows for the filing of pleadings and other submissions by sending them via accredited courier: SECTION 3. Manner of Filing. - The filing of pleadings and other court submissions shall be made by: (a) Submitting personally the original thereof, plainly indicated as such, to the court; (b) Sending them by registered mail ; (c) Sending them by accredited courier; or (d) Transmitting them by electronic mail or other electronic means as may be authorized by the [c]ourt in places where the court is electronically equipped. In the first case, the clerk of court shall endorse on the pleading the date and hour of filing. In the second and third cases, the date of the mailing of motions, pleadings, [other court submi ssions, and] payments or deposits, as shown by the post office stamp on the envelope or the registry receipt, shall be considered as the date of their filing, payment, or deposit in court. The envelope shall be attached to the record of the case. In the fourth case, the date of electronic transmi ssion shall be considered as the date of filing.

RESOLUTIOi'i CTA CASE 0. 12448 Notably, when a party makes use of an accredited courier, the date of mailing is considered as the date of filing. This, however, is a general rule that sees exceptions. Rule 13, Section 14 of the Rules ofCourt requires that initiatory pleadings in particular be filed via personal filing or registered mail only, excluding accredited couriers: SECTION 14. Conventional Service or Filing of Orders, Pleadings and Other Documents. - Notwithstanding the foregoing, the following orders, pleadings, and other documents must be served or filed personally or by registered mail when allowed, and shall not be served or fil ed electronically, unless express permission is granted by the [c]ourt: (a) Initiatory pleadings and initial responsive pleadings, such as an answer; (b) Subpoena, protection orders, and w rits; (c) Appendices and exhibits to motions, or other documents that are not readily amenable to electronic scanning may, at the option of the party filing such, be filed and served conventionally; and (d) Sealed and confidential documents or records. (Emphasis and italics supplied.) To reiterate, the above does not include licensed/accredited couriers as a valid mode of filing initiatory pleadings, identifying only personal filing or filing by registered mail. What happens, then, when a party files an initiatory pleading vta licensed/accredited courier? Following Barroso v. Commission on Audit1 ("Barroso"), "the date when the Court actually received" the initiatory pleading "shall be deemed the date of filing, not the date of mailing." Here, petitioner received respondent's Decision on May 7, 2026, giving it until June 8, 20262 within which to file its Petition, following Rule 8, Section 3 of the Revised Rules of the Court of Tax Appeals, as amended. It sent the instant Petition via licensed courier on June 8, 2026, but this Court only received the Petition on June 9, 2026. Fallowing Rule 13, Section 14 of the Rules of Court and Barroso, the instant Petition for Review must be considered as fil ed on June 9, 2026, the date when the Court received it. The Petition was consequently fil ed late. Respondent's Decision has become final and executory, and this Court can no longer assume jurisdiction over petitioner's appeal. G.R. No. 253253 , April 27, 202 1. June 6, 2026 fe ll on a Saturday.

RESOL UTIO:\' CTA CASE 0 . 12~48 In Barroso, the Supreme Court overlooked this procedural lapse, mainly as the amendments to the Rules ofCourt which enacted this prohibition took effect less than a year before the Petition for Certiorari in that case was filed. However, said amendments took effect on May 1, 2020. Over five years have passed since then, and over four years have passed since the promulgation of Barroso. The leniency extended by the Supreme Court in Barroso is thus inapplicable here. Furthermore, Estrella v. SM Prime Holdings, Inc. ,3 promulgated on February 20, 2023, fully applied Barroso's construction of Rule 13, Section 14 ofthe Rules of Court, treating therein Petition as having been filed on the date on which the Court received said initiatory pleading, not the date on which it was sent by licensed/accredited courier. The prohibition on filing initiatory pleadings via licensed/accredited courier had thus been in full effect at least three years before petitioner even received respondent's Decision. Considering the late fi ling of the instant Petition, the finality of the assailed Decision, and this Court's result ing lack ofjurisdiction over the case at bar, there is unfortunately nothing We can do but to dismiss this Petition. FOR THESE REASONS, the instant Petition for Review, filed on June 9, 2026, is hereby DISMISSED fo r lack ofjurisdiction. SO ORDERED. ustice G. R. No. 25781 4 , February 20, 2023.