DANILO N. MATIAS v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES COURT OFTAX APPEALS QUEZON CITY ENBANC DANILO N. MATIAS, CTA EB No. 2824 Petitioner, (CTA Case No. 11025) Present: -versus- RINGPIS-LIBAN, Acting PJ, MANAHAN, BACORRO-VILLENA, MODESTO-SAN PEDRO, REYES-FAJARDO, CUI-DAVID, FERRER-FLORES, and ANGELES, JJ. COMMISSIONER OF Promulgated: INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent. X---------------------------------------------------X RESOLUTION REYES-FAJARDO, J.: In the Decision1 dated March 4, 2025, it was discussed that the Bureau of Internal Revenue (BIR)'s Warrant of Distraint and/ or Levy (WDL) and Warrant of Garnishment (WOG) received by petitioner sometime March or April 2022 fall under other matters arising from the National Internal Revenue Code (NIRC), as amended, over which, the Court of Tax Appeals (CTA) in Division has jurisdiction. However, petitioner failed to timely challenge said WDL and WOG within thirty (30) days from receipt thereof, as required by Section 11 of Republic Act (RA) No. 1125, as amended by RA No. 9282; hence, Rollo, pp. 57-64.

RESOLUTION CTA EB No. 2824 (CTA Case No. 11025) Page 2 of3 the CTA in Division is correct in dismissing CTA Case No. 11025. As a result, CTA EB No. 2824 was disposed as follows: WHEREFORE, the Verified Petition for Review En Bane dated November 10,2023, filed by Danilo N. Matias in CIA EB No. 2824 is DENIED for lack of merit. The Resolutions dated July 10, 2023 and October 9, 2023, handed down by the Court in Division in CIA Case No. 11025, are AFFIRMED. SO ORDERED. In his Motion for Reconsideration (of the Decision dated 04 March 2025)2 posted on April 3, 2025, petitioner explains that the BIR's right to assess him for deficiency internal revenue taxes for year 2017 is barred by prescription under Section 203 of the NIRC, as amended; thus, the final assessment is void. Being void, the collection thereof, through the BIR's WDL and WOG, are likewise null. Through his Comment/ Opposition [Re: Petitioner's Motion for Reconsideration (of the Decision dated 04 March 2025))3 filed on May 30, 2025, respondent ripostes that the assailed Decision properly sustained the CTA in Division's dismissal of CTA Case No. 11025. The Motion lacks merit. Indeed, before the CTA could examine petitioner's protestation, i.e., the BIR's final assessment issued against him, as well as the WDL and WOG effecting collection thereof are void, for being barred by prescription, and render a verdict thereon, it must foremost possess jurisdiction over CTA Case No. 11025. Lamentably, the CTA did not acquire jurisdiction over said case because petitioner belatedly challenged such WDL and WOG; hence, the sole action it could perform is to dismiss CTA Case No. 11025.4 Evaluation of the propriety of petitioner's protestation is no longer possible. ACCORDINGLY, petitioner's Motion for Reconsideration (of the Decision dated 04 March 2025), posted on April 3, 2025 is DENIED for lack of merit. The Decision dated March 4, 2025 is AFFIRMED. Id. at pp. 75-83. 3 Id. at pp. 88-94. 4 Bilag v. Ay-Ay, G.R. No. 189950, April24, 2017.

RESOLUTION CTA EB No. 2824 (CTA Case No. 11025) Page 3 of3 SO ORDERED. ~ 9t.u. FF. R. El4Y~vSk=FA~fJ'~l{'R~DO WE CONCUR: MARIAN Ivfi Associate Justice ~-~� , '--- MA. BELEN M. RINGPIS-LIBAN Associate Justice ~..r:. CATHERINE T. MANAHAN Associa+e Justice ' BACORRO-VILLENA MARIA ROWENA MODESTO-SAN PEDRO Associate Justice LA~~~VID Associate Justice Ca ORN~ ZON# G. F- ERR~ ER- ~ LO ES Associate Justice HENRY 1/f:NGELES Associate Justice