RICARDO TENCHAVEZ ANDRES [Kidstuff Marketing] v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES COURT OF TAX APPEALS QUEZON CITY SECOND DIVISION ********* RICARDO TENCHAVEZ ANDRES CTA Case No. 10733 [KIDSTUFF MARKETING], Members: Petitioner, -versus - UY, Chairperson , BACORRO-VILLENA, and CUI-DAVID, JJ. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL Promulgated: REVENUE, (r� - tJ ~J./ Respondent. JUll 92027 /t>:H X- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - X RESOLUTION Records show that on June 21 , 2022, petitioner filed a Compliance/Manifestation submitting the: 1) Special Power of Attorney executed by Ricardo T Andres; 2) Judicial Affidavit of Jesus D Tivoli ; and 3) Judicial Affidavit of Wendy S Sacramento, pursuant to the Court's Resolution dated April 18, 2022. Upon perusal of the attachments to the Compliance/ Manifestation, the Court NOTES that the same suffer from the following infirmities: 1. The competent evidence of identity, i.e., Passport P5083960B , stated in the acknowledgment portion of the Special Power of Attorney executed by Ricardo T Andres refers to one Rosemarie Andres and not to Ricardo T Andres. 2. The jurat portion of the Judicial Affidavit of Jesus D Tivoli , and the jurat portion of the Attestation of Atty. Rosendo Bartolome

RESOLUTION CTA Case No. I0733 Meneses therein , are not compliant with Rule IV, Sec. 2 (b),1 in relation to Rule II , Sec. 12 (a),2 of A.M. No. 02-8- 13-SC or the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice, as these failed to state the details of Jose D Tivoli and Atty. Rosendo Bartolome Meneses' competent evidence of identity. 3. The jurat portion of the Judicial Affidavit of Wendy S Sacramento, and the jurat portion of the Attestation of Atty. Rosendo Bartolome Meneses therein , are not compliant with Rule IV, Sec. 2 (b), in relation to Rule II , Sec. 12 (a), of A.M. No. 02-8-13-SC or the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice, as these failed to state the details of Wendy S Sacramento and Atty. Rosendo Bartolome Meneses' competent evidence of identity. Section 3, Rule 42 of the Revised Rules of Court provides, among other things, that the failure of the petitioner to comply with the contents of and the documents which should accompany the petition , shall be sufficient ground for the dismissal thereof, to wit: "Rule 42 Petition for Review from the Regional Trial Courts to the Court of Appeals Section 3. Effect of failure to comply with requirements. -The failure of the petitioner to comply with any of the foregoing requirements regarding the payment of the docket and other lawful fees, the deposit for costs, proof of service of the petition, and the contents of and the documents which should accompany the petition shall be sufficient ground for the dismissal thereof." 1 RULE IV POWERS AND LIM ITATIONS OF NOTARIES PUBLIC SEC. 2. Prohibitions. - (b) A person shal l not perform a notarial act if the person involved as signatory to the instrument or document - (I) is not in the notary 's presence personally at the time of the notarization; and (2) is not personally known to the notary public or otherwi se identified by the notary public through competent evidence of identity as defined by these Rules. 2 RULE II DEFINITIONS SEC. 12. Competent Evidence of Identity. - The phrase "competent evidence of identity" refers to the identification of an individual based on: (a) at least one current identifi cation document issued by an offi cial agency bearing the photograph and signature of the individual ;

R E S O L UT I O N CTA Case No. I0733 Page 3 of3 Thus , finding petitioner's Compliance/Manifestation and the attachments thereto as insufficient compliance with the Court's Resolution dated April 18, 2022, which gave petitioner one last opportunity to take appropriate action relative to the Court's observations3 in the said Resolution, the Amended Petition for Review filed on March 29, 2022 is hereby DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. SO ORDERED. ERL~UY Associate Justice ' a, LA~llr~M~AyA~AUI-DAA_VID Associate Justice 3 Paragra ph 2 and the Dispositive porti on of the Resolution dated A pril 18, 2022 reads as fo llows: "Upo n perusal of the Amended Petition for Review, the Court NOTES that the same sti ll suffers fro m the fo llowing infirm ities, to w it: I. The Amended Petition fo r Review is still no t compli ant w ith Sections 6 (a) and (b), Rule 7 of A.M. No. 19-1 0 -20-SC for failure to attach the Judicial Affidavits of Jesus D. Tivoli and supposed second witness described as representative of the finance department of the organization. 2. There is still no proof of a uth ority of Atty. Rosendo Bartolo me Meneses to fil e any and all plead ings and motions, and to re present petiti o ner, w ith full a utho rity, during pre-trial." XXX XXX XXX Accord ing ly, to avoid d ismissal of the instant case, and in the interest of j ustice w itho ut compro mis ing compliance w ith procedural requirements, petitioner is given o ne last o pportunity TO TAKE APPROPRIATE ACTION in accordance with the aforementi oned observatio ns of this Court w ithin ten (10) days fro m receipt hereof. Thereafter, the Court shall act accordi ng ly."