CTA Case No. 11066 (Resolution)

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES COURT OF TAX APPEALS QUEZON CITY SECOND DIVISION SIENNALYN GOLD MINING CTA CASE NO. UDK-SP 044 CORPORATION, Members: Petitioner, -versus- UY, Chairperson, BACORRO-VILLENA, and CUI-DAVID, JJ. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL Promulgated: REVENUE, MAR 17 2023 Respondent. ~ v,~~ -~-.: ~ X---- - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - --- -- --- - - - - - RESOLUTION On February 22, 2023, petitioner filed a Motion for Extension of Time to Pay Filing Fee stating that it received on February 9, 2023, a copy of the Resolution dated February 2, 2023, and requesting that it be given an extension of sixty (60) days from February 24, 2023, or until April25, 2023, to pay the filing fee ofl>647,619.81. In its motion, petitioner states that it needs additional time to raise the amount required to pay the filing fees that it considers to be "highly excessive, onerous, and confiscatory," considering that petitioner is still in the exploration stage and has no income yet from its mining operations and is operating at a loss. Before resolving the motion, a review of the antecedent facts is in order. In this case, petitioner assails the Warrant of Distraint and/or Levy that it received on December 6, 2022 and appealed the same to the Court within thirty (30) days from its receipt by attempting to file personally with the Court a Petition for Review on Certiorari on January 5, 2023.

RESOLUTION CTA Case No. UDK-SP 044 vs. Commissioner of Internal Revenue Siennalyn Gold Mining Corporation xP-a-g-e--2---o--f-S-------------------------------------------------------------------------------x However, the Petition for Review on Certiorari was not received by the Court because petitioner was unable to pay the docket fees; and so, petitioner filed its Petition for Review on Certiorari via registered mail on the same date. 1 After four (4) days from the lapse of the reglementary period, or on January 9, 2023, petitioner filed via courier its Ex- Parte Manifestation and Motion to Reduce Filing Fee and to Admit Petition for Review on Certiorari,2 which the Court denied Resolution dated February 2, 2023 and gave petitioner an in its ional period of fifteen (15) days from receipt t hereof to pay addit the docket fees. Hence, the instant motion. It is well-settled that the payment of docket fees within the prescribed period is mandatory for the perfection of an appeal.3 This is so because a court acquires jurisdiction over the subject matter of the action only upon the payment of the correct docket fees, regardless of the actual date of filing the case in court.4 The failure to pay or even the partial payment of the appeal fees does not toll the running of the prescriptive period, hence, will not prevent the judgment from becoming final and executory. s To support its motion, petitioner invoked the cases of Yambao v. Court of Appeals (Yambao)6 and Julian v. Development Bank of the Philippines (Julian)/ which ruled that "the appellate court may extend the time for the payment of the docket fees if the appellant can show that there is a justifiable reason for his failure to pay the correct amount of docket fees within the prescribed period, like fraud, accident, mistake, excusable negligence, or a similar supervening casualty, without fault on the part of the appellant. "B These cases, however, convince the Court to deny petitioner's motion. In Yambao, the Supreme Court did not fault therein petitioners because they were able to pay the docket fees, albeit incomplete, due to the erroneous assessment by the Clerk of 1 Received by the Court on January 11,2023. 'Received by the Court on January 10, 2023. 186l02, February 24,2016. February 28, 3 National Transmission Corporation v. Heirs ofTeodulo Ebesa, G.R. No. Corporation, G.R. No. 163022, 4 Meatmasters International Corporation v. Lelis Integrated Development 2005. 5 National Transmission Corporation v. Heirs ofEbesa, G.R. No. 186102, February 24,2016. 6, G.R. No. 140894, November 27,2000. 7, G.R. No. 174193, December 7, 2011. 8 /d. (Emphasis on the original).

RESOLUTION CTA Case No. UOK-SP 044 vs. Commissioner of Internal Revenue Siennalyn Gold Mining Corporation xP-a-g-e---3--o--f-5-------------------------------------------------------------------------------x Cwdraeepoxoiaptccuhsekuroiltesnl.natabtfTfteeloheherecsuhosnipiu,fesrrtgethtflhsaiecmgeirleauainpSbrycepeuedeep,tlxorleptaoepmenrnrateidyocadatCt,hhnoeeslusiimhckrttoioeimrwlhrafeeerrtclahftduosaadrutmi,pntthheoareeuYcvrncaeepitmndaiioesbynfnamgatdo,ejouncctmsthaktsiaieosfuttftiaaaflttekbthheyleeees,, without fault on the part of the appellant.9 In Julian, no payment was made by petitioner, s o the Supreme Court saw no justifiable reason to relax the strict application of the rules on payment of docket fees. hnpiapcnneoanarocgenystaeslfmipxcsigsLhartieeceticionnbakniwtctteesoayedionilr.,olnfyenoaH"ddgJnroooeouayafdcwclntikksciaedimeoenvmattm,etenhirfpplyt,efaaoeeeetratelspil.psfitiartuniaPayiopgrisuensttedtrheriefo",rvetrahipeohodsienmganaoorichesacnnclrtkigym'iittsendsocategsaedfbanoexsleaatleulc,etrosenaewasrloimstesayiflapilviootlsatsersesooty,sgaatnm,eahklxlotpeefeeipon,eongleretntaeixrsdiateaotnisextofutkinichnasntisuls,eanalisr,tonngaancnohbtfinhonaolaoeder-srlf time to pay the appropriate docket fees. pfpaoelrluetoisntwcidoFreindubteroetrtodhahepldrasro,voocteshkcpeieectterco.dfane,AsteeiisgnsaouiiifnonnDua, ipsnenlpsloylattiacPlpealaavmbizeldeenvn.. ptaTsCad;hordetutiirhtraeitulo, osnpt,fahaAlheypimpsspeueepantmielttstsi,iholtOinafooeswnrr bhwwetihceaahenss made by petitioner in this case. The Court is aware of instances where the Supreme Court d the strict rule on payment of docket fees. In Sun has relaxe Office, Ltd. (SIOL) v. Asuncion, 11 the Supreme Court Insurance more liberal interpretation of the rule since "the adopted a pondent demonstrated his willingness to abide by the private res rules by paying the additional docket fees as required" and held thus: if1ne.ei tI, itat hitsoartnyovptelsestiasmdaipnltgyr,i atbhluectoftiuhlirent gpwaoiytfhmt hjeuenr itcsoodmfi ctpht ileoanipnrotevosecrrraitbphepedr sodupobrcijaketecett mcpolaeutartdetirnmograinsyanatoultlroaewcocfoptmahyepmaancetinieodtnbo. yWf pthhaeeyrmefetehenetwofiifltitnhhgienodfaotchrkeeeiatnsfioeteina,attobhrlyee 9 Yambao v. Court ofAppeals, G.R. No. 140894, November 27, 2000. 10 G.R. No. 120150, March 27, 2000. 11 G.R. Nos. 79937-38, February 13, 1989.

RESOLUTION CTA Case No. UDK-SP 044 Siennalyn Gold Mining Corporation vs. Commissioner of Internal Revenue xP-a-g-e--4---o-f--5-------------------------------------------------------------------------------x time but in no case beyond the applicable prescriptive or reglementary period. {Emphasis supplied) by This liberal i nterpretation of the rule was further expanded the Supreme Court in the case of Buenajlor v. Court of Appeals (Buenajlor),l2 viz.: dNfrn"sgaeoihorenigceovtlkualaueaecetrrlumetcdtThtodohebefrteemnleedoeaetaeauslasnsstsrpi,tceycoaawedtfbydhpiwlitiiienhscsisartmiihthipnrrhoeciuptsedduhlestemeehalralxulesltam,elelptoeroneuepcwefcsiirssttstetcsiehsotoboochoenuenrffairjlatbtuqythpceustoephdtdadnieelCicoisasfepoiclpcid;eeukaraerdernSeyir,ttotdiem'insdctofegoofsanenoniiaewrtsduarpii,nyltnllw:mdsaduyfiFadauticniaihslthrsltmdniscenaotdprni,tfesoodwtsttwtriahhhaioyentleeen.h,rt circumstances." {Emphasis supplied) miEnxiutcsieatptNbotoieroytewnpmsiltephtahhsdataaistnnigzdgeiorndargntahttphapletilbpicelaiarybatimeloirtenaylnitsfaoofprifplefliidinlcisniausgtfisffotieicnelilsetonihfntetfpghuaeleylnmwerruhealnelentrsu,talhreieet. strictly construed against the filing party.13 nBCr(e1oue5gter)ltnaeidaouVmajrtleyeoaornrsmirilt,yfaar,hrtofiyamoctsrahplreealeyrlncirCeoodeidaniopsd-utmbpyroyatif,esytxsgmhieiinvenregicnRnitpagseecespdctooioetlfitiurtiodsttniiadoodenonnirccs'esdeckrarePettaweetntidiiottfhniFaeoadeenrsdbtyhifrtoeuaiwroaunRrirttyhauehlolv2iinir,nfeiig2twfyt0etoh2eiinnnne3 to pay the docket fees. JtdeahaxanenytdeusCnnaItosonoriuytoprenit5anff,oyoeafn2ctc60htFc,20eoe3fdarb1rdpaor4ayupmunsarnocrtttyeophirl2wepit4aaihlt,tyaeeh2ptedh0tshnoe2eedc3dko,too1eeff5ctntktpfehheeeteeetstsif1t.oeri5eefTogj-nihudsleuesarhmtsyiih,gcedagehnedrltaaayadbnnruleydtiniennwfnpeageaiggrarriiinvrvpoaeoeldnanntyhto5be.en0ydr To reiterate, the Supreme C our t consistently ruled that full with in the prescrib ed period is payment of docket fees nal16 f or t he perfection of the appeal. mandator y an d jurisd ictio 111111234563GAHTC, nh.2oeRieg0ur.1nsv3N8.t0oi;tonChf.NgoDdau1a1rtr45yait2ogdfo0nora2aofnyA1mls,vpT.NfpprrTeaoeoahntmvielsetsmi,mMFoGienbsabe.senRrirroiu'.ls2naaNrr9eyCBo,c2.oa9e0rn2,ipp03k2ot0i80nro.22ga0f3t3Cit,oh,owneSrhpeavi.spocstrhHaeaimeitlsiieorbdpsneer,Wot3iGftaT,i.roR2ern0oa. e2ndNr0tu'o;sol.oRfre2aDEc0mbei5seio0tpsrn6taae8io,sn,fGtvMt..ahRSane.prdcRoN/houeorss6.eoL,s1le2u8Gv0t6ii1uo1o9in0mn.2do,DacFte,eecGdbe.rmFRueah.breNyrruo62a.,4r2y,22202620.62124.605;2, A3A.lfuognussot v. Spouses Andres, G.R. No. 139611, October 4, 2002.

RESOLUTION CTA Case No. UDK-SP 044 Siennalyn Gold Mining Corporation vs. Commissioner of Internal Revenue x------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------x Otherwise, the appellate court will not be able to act on the subject matter of the action, and the decision or final order sought to be appealed will become final and executory. 17 The same ruling is expressed in the case of La Salette College v. Victor C. Pi.lotin, IB where the Supreme Court states that payment of docket fees is not a trivial matter. These fees are necessary to defray court expenses in the handling of cases. For this reason, and to secure a just and speedy disposition of every action and proceeding, the Rules mandate the payment of docket fees and other lawful fees within the prescribed period. Otherwise, the jurisdiction of the proper court to handle a case is adversely affected. The requirement of a docket fee is not a mere technicality of law or procedure and should not be disregarded without the most compelling reasons.I9 Unfortunately, the reasons given by petitioner do not merit the relaxation of the rules. As in the case of Julian, it is unusual for petitioner not to be advised appropriately by its counsel of the correct docket fees before filing its Petition with this Court. For failure to pay the corresponding docket fees on time, petitioner failed to perfect its appeal, divesting the Court of jurisdiction to take cognizance of the Petition for Review. WHEREFORE, petitioner's Motion for Extension of Time to Pay Filing Fee is DENIED for lack of merit. Accordingly, the Petition for Review is DISMISSED for lack of jurisdiction. SO ORDERED. ER~.UY Associate Justice ... \ Ju.IAAiJMt{_ ORRO-VILLENA LANt~CS':cui-DAVID Associate Justice 17 Spouses Lee V Land Bank ofthe Philippines, G.R. No. 218867, February 17,2016. 18 G.R. No. 149227, December II, 2003. 19 Julian v. Development Bank ofthe Philippines, G.R. No. 174193, December 7, 2011.