THE CITY OF MANILA, LIBERTY M. TOLEDO, in her Capacity as THE TREASURER OF MANILA and JOSEPH SANTIAGO, in his capacity as CHIEF LICENSE DIVISION OF CITY OF MANILA v. COCA-COLA BOTTLERS PHILIPPINES

C> i ' iEPUBUC Of THE PHILIPPINES COURT OF TAX APPEALS I QUEZON CITY :I ENBANC THE CITY PF~~ANILA, LIBERTY M. T()LEDO, in her capacity a~ liHE TREASURER Of MANILA ardi~OSEPH SANTIAGO, in his cap,ciW as CHIEF LICENSE DIVISION!: of! ~lTV OF MANILA, '1 Petitioners, II C.T.A. EB No. 307 (C.T.A. AC No. 31) I II , ,II! Present: :I .! Acosta, P.J., Castaneda, Jr., -vers~s-. I Bautista, I I i I :I Uy, i 1 1 Casanova, and :I Palanca-Enriquez, JJ.: .I I , Ii I COCA-CO~ [~OTTLERS PHILIPPI~ES, I Promulgat~d: /I;~--1_/-7'.~~/1'--.r.�.',�e __ �I Respondent. JAN 8 ho-- --------- ----------- -I r woo X- ---1- ,,-~1l - - - - - ~ - - ; - - - - - - - . ~_7/ .-;J X .. �'l" t'_I-J. -- - II I c s D E I I 0 N . ." CASTANeDA,iJrt., :1_.: I '! ! On app~~lI are the Resolutions dated July 26, 2007, June 8, 2007 2~, 2~07 and May issued by the Court in Division dismissing the Petition 'I ~ for Review do�,eted as CTA AC 31 due to prescription.

~ V DECISION (G~� ~.1) Aq CTA EB 307 Page 2 of 13 , ! 1 1 iI I iI :l The rllaten1,JaI antecedent facts: l 1\ The qItv pi fi Manila is a public corporation empowered to collect and , I! assess busirII\es~I' I1~axes, revenue fees and permit:\fees through its Officers 1o U L1.bertv M. lTI 1e p act�mg 1� n th e capac.1�tv as c�1ty Treasurer of Manila and ' 1' I , . . Joseph SaitiaH acting in the Capacity ~s. Chief Ucense Division ("petitioner~"); \1hile Coca-Cola Bottlers Philippines,. Inc. ("respondent"), a corporation I\dulir\organized and existing under the laws of the Republic of the Philippi~es,j i~ engaged in the manufacturing and selling beverages. I I ! PetitifneH assessed the respondent of business taxes, inclusive of : II penalties a+d lnjterests, in the cumulative amount of P18,583,932.04 for I �, ! the taxable jve~r\2000. 1 For f~Iilu~:~! to seel< redress with the petitioners, the respondent filed an action fir t~1~ ~ancellation of assessment on business taxes before the ~~ourt Regional Tllial C'RTC") of the City of Manila, Branch 47 because it .I was taxed ltwift� under Sections 14 and 21 of the Manila Revenue Code ("MRC"), a~ artlj'nded. On ~Iutyi: i4, 2006, the RTC of Manila, Branch 47 issued a Decision l dismissing IIlres:p' {Jndent's action. The Trial Court reasoned that the business taxes impOse1 ~nder Section 21 of the MRC, as amended are distinct and 9-c. I !I .. il I ;I I I : I II :; I ! I lI . ii V� 1 Rollo, p. I

~I ~~ DECISIOI'I ~ i 11 CfA EB 307 (CT(\ Aq 31) Page 3 of 13 iI I different from rne business' taxes levied, under Section 14 of the same Code, and t~Ius~' I absence of prohibited double taxation.' lhe Re~onsiderat;on The 1esHndent filed a Motion for which was granted by rIeiI rial: court in the Order.dated November 16, 2006, and in effect, reve' sinb the Decision dated July 14, 2006. In the Order dated i November 16,\ 2006, the trial court decreed the cancellation and I withdrawal of 1 rhe assessment, and barred petitioners from further imposing b11sinei�ts tax:s against the respondent, pursuant to Section 21 of the MRC, a anr'nded. � In a !Mo~,ibI n, the petitioners pr~yed . re~onsideration of the for� the Order datJ Nltember 16, 2006, but the trial court prom"ulgated another II Order date~I ARrJI4, 2007 denying the 4 same. Unfardj [the petitioners elevated the case before the Court in fi+!I Division by filing a "Motion for Extension of Time to File Petition for Diss~tis~~d, Review" on Mq'fi 4, 2007.5 on May 18, 2007, the petitioners sent by registered mail, anot~er. ~otion denominated as "Second Motion for Extension of Time to Fil~ a 'p~tition for Review".' p..--- 'I �i !I 1 ;j Il :' ii !I 2 See Rollo, p . 3~'-~I1. 3 See Rollo, ~p. 7~-V9. 4 See Rollo, ~P� Sp-136. 5 See Rollo,,. 87jl. 6 See Rollo, . 92; i lj ;I l IIi. 81 r I, I

!I ! ~~ 1!J DECISION (CT~: , ~i1) CTA.EB 307 Aq Page 4 of 13 11 Meanwhil~~ acting on the first Motion for Extension, the Court in 11 Division issfd Resolution dated May 24, 2007 denying the same, and dismissing te lrse due to petitioners' failure�to file their Petition for Review withr t r r (30) days from receipt of the April 4, 2007 Order.' On May \30, 2007, the petitioners filed by registered mail, the I II .. Petition for ~evie'w docketed as CTA AC 31.8 re~olv~~g In the second Motion for Extension, the Court in Division issued a _I I. dated June 8, 2007 finding no coge~t reason to set REfoltjion aside the ~Y 12r, :2007 Resolution, thus, reiterating the dismissal of the Petition.9 I i \ Und~un,,d, the petitioners sought a reconsideration of the Court's Resolutionsldarr June 8, 2007 and May 24, 2007. In arttje'r Resolution dated July 26, 2007, the Court in Division stood firm il itf !stance dismissing the Petition for Review docketed as CTA AC 31.10 H1endJ, before Us is the Petition for Review docketed as CTA EB ~hel. 307, with following assignment errors committed by the Court in I Division: II 11 'I II I' ,! T11Ei HONORABLE FIRST DIVISION ERRED IN DISMISSING THE PET10N. ~OR REVIEW ON THE GROUND THAT IT WAS FILED OUT OF ?ttr TIME. iI II ' Rollo, p; 3t31.j I I 8 see erA AC 1. i , 9 Rollo, pp. 3~-34.1 10 2,-29.:� I Rollo, pp. 1I I iI I iI ) ;~ II i I. II j :

:' I' :rouc;Pnr DECJSIONi .l ~ ~ ~;eE: ~ONORABLE ITH$ FIRST DIVISION ERRED IN NOT CONSIDERING THE MERfT OF THE PETIDON. 11 ! I i AccorringI o the petitioners, the Court in D.ivision erred in ruling that their appeal fil~l through a Petition for Review docketed as CfA AC 31 undert!ke~ rec~ived was beyond the prescribed period. Since petitioners the RTC's firlllrder on April 20, 2007, the assigned counsel Maureen T. Vila mistakrlyl relieved that the appeal period is fifteen (15) days. To rectify the s1tuitlon, on May 4, 2007, Atty. Vila filed a Motion for Extension of Time pratin1 ror additional fifteen (15) days from May 5, 2007 until May 2007t 20,~ithirl which to file the Petition before the Court in 12 Division. However, tty 18, 200:, or� two days before the lapse of the first extension ru1~t, petitioners filed through registered mail, a second Revie~ Motion for r�tftsion of lime to file a Petition for requesting for additional ~eri1~ of ten (10) days, or.until May 30, 2007 reckoned from May 20, 20r t\thin which to file the Petition. o~ It w9s y on May 30, 2007, petitioners filed a Petition for Review +f docketed af. AC 31 via registered mail because personal filing is no tonger fealibl~ lsince the messenger tasked to file the same arrived in II Jik- Court after its lrl ceiving section had already closed. However, they came 1 i 11 Rollo, p. 7. i 1 12 Rollo, pp. 8 -88.] I

l iI r"."J DECISION l i (CTfI I CTA EB 307 AO 1) Page 6 of 13 / tha~ to know I Je Court in Division issued a Resolution.as early as of May . . PetitiTer~ assert that prio: to the lapse of-the thirty (30) day period w1thm wh1c1 to/ re an appeal w1th the Court m DIVISIOn, they seasonably filed the secpn4 ration fo.r Extension of Time on May 18, 2007. And prior to lapse of th~ ~~riod prayed for in the second Motion for Extension, er~ petitioners rble to file the Petition for Review by registered mail. The Pftit( lners likewise submit that the first Motion for Extension is unnecessal si1 the period for filing an appeal with the Court in Division is thirty (30~ d~ s, instead of fifteen (15) days from receipt of the R.TC's final Order, /' an~I ~hus, the second Motion for Extension may be treated as the first extfnsl1n, under Rule 7 of the Revised Rules of the Court of Tax Appeals whi~h lsi supplemented by Section 1, Rule 42 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Proced~re~ The latter provision states that "the Court may grant an prri~ additional of fifteen (15) days within which In file the Petition for T~us-/t Review". e petitioners have properly pleaded for an additional time when they filfr the second Motion for Extension of Ttme through registered rmaiq [n May 18, 2007 since the same was filed two days before the lapse ol thb original thirty (30) day period. This Motion did not reach I the Court il gi ision before it rendered the assailed Resolution because jwa~ J?c_ the Motion filed through registered mail. The filing of a pleading or II II II II I ! I I

DECISION I ~ ~ CfA EB 307 (Crr A 1) motion throtgh egistered mail is sanct.ioned under Section 3, Rule 13 of r the 1997 Ruts Civil Procedu:e. The s mr holds true With regard to theofiling of the Petition for Review itsel 1dj eted as CfA AC 31. The Petition was filed via registered r mail, within th~ xtended period. Likewise invoking Section 3, Rule 13 of the 1997 Riles Civil Procedure, the date of mailing is the date of filing. Hen~e. the retTr was tiled on time,' ' ' ' ' ' Anen~ th~ railure to file the duplicate originals or certified true copies of the RTC'r firr Order, Including the required number of copies of the Petition, peri!Trs attribute the same due to inadvertence brought by f time press~re work. To show compliance, they have submitted the required d~ui nts to the Court En Bane, thii 1 By 4ereii focusing on procedural matters, the Court failed to consider rits of the case on the existence or absence of prohibited io1. � double taxa ment, the respondent counters that the Court In Division j In 1 correctly di mis ed the Petition docketed as CTA AC 31 for having been til filed out of e, and f(W failure of the petitioners to file the correct number of co1i s, and the duplicate original or certified true copy of the r4� RTC's final r. ~ �. I I

. ,I. Ii .II.. II I'I i 11) (Cr~ DEqSION AO CfA EB 307 Page 8 of 13 1 \ 7r8~ ~nd The 1sj'ndent further alleges that the bases of the assessment, Ordinance 8011, amending the MRC have been nullified by the Supreme Co~rt ~ G.R. No. 15625:2 involving the same parties and issues.13 I THE COURT'S RULING I. The Prtrr is devoid of merit. In thrr lfirst Motion for Extension of Time to file Petition, the T Order date A 4, 2007 which was sought to be appealed before the Court in orsi Counting from April 20, 2007, the petitioners are entitled thir, (� ) days, or until May 20, 2007 to appeal with the Court in fin I Order issued by the RTC which acted in its original jurisdiction .he action for cancellation of assessment, pursuant to . Section 9 o blic Act (''R.A.") 9282, reading: SEf. 9. Section 11 of the same Act is hereby amended to read as follow: I SEC. 11. Who May Appeal; Mode ofAppeal; Effect of Apf~al. - Any party adversely affected by a decision, ruling or ~i~action of the Commissioner of Internal Revenue, the Co missioner of Customs, the Secretary of finance, the ~the ~ Sef t~ry of Trade and Industry or the Secretary of -----+-A-g+-r central Board of Assessment Appeals or . r' 13 June 27, 2106, 3 SCRA 279, G.R. 156252. tiB I

DECISION I !I II A"I'lI! J erA EB 307 (CTt ACI13'1) Page 9 of 13 1 ~h_e ~~ gl?nal Trial Courts may file an appeal with the CTA WI~~~~ thirty (30) days after the receipt of such decision or 1 ui1I~ or after the expiration of the period fixed by law for cti as referred to in section 7(a)(2) herein. Appeal shall be made by filing a petition for review undfl a procedure analogous to that provided for under R~lt r2 ~f the1.� 997 Rules of Civil Procedure with the CTA w1try1~ thirty (30) days from the receipt of the decision or ruli~~ or in the case of inaction as herein provided, from thej~piration of the period fixed by law to act thereon. A Divlsipn of the CfA shall hear the appeal: Provided. hmtlerer, That with respect to decisions or rulings of the Ce~t11~al Board of Assessment Appeals and the Regional Tri~l Court in the exercise of its appellate jurisdiction, ap~e I shall be made by filing a petition for review under a prq: dure analogous to that provided for under Rule 43 of her the thel� 997 Rules. of Civil Procedure with the CTA, which shall case en bane. . Bein~ s~ pletory to R.A. 9282, the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure Petition for Re ew, upon Motion, and payment of the full amount of the f. docket fee . further extension of tlfteen (15) days may be granted on re~rs compelling in accordance with the provision of sectton 1, Rule 42 of the 1991 R llr of Civil Procedure which provides: SUEpConTfOprN9p~~-rHmowotaiopnpeaanl dtaktehne; time forfiling. .:._ X X X � of the docket payment of the �fuil amount and ~the[ ,awful fees and deposit for costs before the expiration of the reglef11e~tcpry period, the Court of Appeals may grant an additional period of fi~ee~ ~15) days only within which to file the petition for review. No furthrr er1ension sha.ll be granted except for the most compelling reason and i~ n ase to exceed fifteen (15) days. J~--

DECISION 1f~ II 'lI . ; 1! '") erA EB 307 (crf Ad 1) I i1 While I it true that the petitioners filed their first Motion for nlb Extension o1 to file the Petition prior to the lapse of the period of filing an appral lith the Court in Division, they, tlowever, failed to file the Petiti~n actual ithln the period prayed for In the first Motion for I Extension. lfhe ourt in Division observed that: In this ps , petitioners aver that they received the Regional Trial Court decisiol on pril 20, 2007, hence, they had until May 20, 2007 to file a petition for r~view to assail the said decision. In fact, in their motion to extend the filing of the Petition for Review they requested until May 20, 2007 tp fi~~~ the same. However, as of the promulgation of this Resolutjon,. ~o petition for review had been filed, thus, leaving the Court with nolothbf option than to dismiss the case. 14 I II When lth, retitloners filed their first Motion for Extension to file the Petition, they c~lnot safely assume that the Court in Division granted the Motion. Motonr for Extension are not granted as a matter of right, but in the sound d1scTrn of the Court:15 Petitioners are duty bound to file the Petition withiin ,~e period p1"ayed for in the Motion for Extension. In the case of Vidto,Jm Regulatory Board vs. Court of Appeals 16 the Supreme , ~erve ~~ong Court had th;,is toI say: [Let bar ta~ltl is as (a) warning cmaseemsb~ef rnsotopf ut_hrepoPsehlyili_pdpeiln~ey whp their own sweet time with their "lr y..- its proqres~ or no cogent reason. It does no cred1t to their standmg m tphleeadpir~nf~essilpn.theMirorme.ostioonwhisenacttheedy do no t file the required brief or upon. Not only should they not ~r,; 14 15 Rollo, p. 31 Pen l , G.R. 166980, April 3, 2007, 520 SCRA 3.32 and Cosmo Entertainment Bernardo vs. A1anagement, In~ vs. ~a Ville Commercial C01poration, G.R. 152801, August 20, 2004, 437 SCRA 14s. 1 16 G.R. 106561, N v mber 28, 1996 citing Roxas vs. Court of Appeals, December 10, 1987, 156 SCRA 252. 88 'I Ii

II II i � ~!:~;hcriAJ11( ~ t~'lllfleir presunje mqtion for extension of time will be granted by the court(,). mycp less should they except that the extension may be granted shall ~ co rted from �notice. They should file their briefs or pleading~ within he e ended period requested. Failing in this, they have on!_y f) e1tsis)." . .'" . themse ves o blame if their appeal or case is dismissed. (Underscorioo Ours The rlgh o appeal is neither a natural right nor a pa1t of due process. Thj p ection of an appeal within the period and in the manner b[ prescribed lal is mandatory; noncompliance with this legal requirement is fatal, and haj he effect of making the judgment final and executory. 18 Thus, for f,1lurr to timely appeal the case before the court in Division within the rflenentary period, the RTC's Order dated April 4, 2006 which in effect tderid the cancellation of the assessment against the respondent lee m~ final and executory. . The Cpu En Bane subscribes also to the findings of the Division in I I t~e dismissing I se due to the petitioners' failure to comply with the ol~ the duplicatf inal and certified true copy of the assailed verdict of the I RTC, under fe i~n 4, Rule 5 and Sections 2, Rule 6 of the Revised Rules Jr of the Court !of Appeals. In the case of B. E. San Diego, Inc. vs. Rosario T Alzu/19, the ISui.jme Court' explal.ned the importance of appending the :: i~Z�" NLl. J (?c--- prescribed ar~hments to the Pet1t1on, hold1ng that: 1. 146212, September 5, 2007, 532 SCRA 232. " G.R. !69501j Jun , 2007, 5<4 5CRA 403. I ti8

Ii r) DECISION I' I ! ji v v CTA EB 307 (Cl1r A ObviowjiY, ~1~ main reason for the prescribed attachments is to facilitate the review ipnd f.~aluation of the petition by making readily available to the CA all the orders, h.res9htions, decis�,�ions, pleadings, transcripts, documents, and pieces of eviden~ thft are material and relevant to the issues presented in the petition without[rely1n on the cas. e records of the lower court. The rule is the..reviewing cou1t cpn eftermine the merits of the petition so~ly on the basis of the submilions b the parties without the use of the records of the court a quo. I .. WHEiE iRE, premises considered, the Petition for Review is lED. hereby DISri Th.e assailed Resolutions dated July 26, 2007, June 8, 2007 andfMa 24, 2007 are AFFIRMED. I SOOrD ED. Q~~ G.~~..l C).. <1UANITO C. CASTANEuK; JR. Associate Justice I ~�~-�- ~ WECONCVR ERNESTO D. ACOSTA I Presiding Justice I ' I ER~.uv CAESAR~. C Associatf J Associate Justice ~�7~~ OLGA PALANCA-ENiUQDEZ Associate Justice !

I: I, DE!=!SION I i i \'1 erA EB JD7 (ClTIA A jH) I l C~RTIFICATION i I Pursu~nt tIo� Articl~ VIII, Section 13 of the Constitution, it. is hereby certired ~hat the conclusions in the above)decision were reached in consultatipn ifore the case was assigned to the writer of the opinion of the CourtJ ., I L~.~ i ERNESTO D. ACOSTA Presiding Justice \