LG ELECTRONICS PHILIPPINES, INC. v. CITY OF PASIG, represented by its Hon. Mayor Soledad C. Eusebio, and CRISPINA V. SALUMBRE, in her capacity as City treasurer of Pasig, CITY OF DAVAO, represented by the Hon. Mayor Rodrigo R. Duterte, et al., City Treasurer of Davao City, CITY OF ILOILO, represented by the Hon. Mayor Jerry T. Trenas, et al., CITY OF DAGUPAN, represented by the Hon. Mayor Benjamin S. Lim, et al., CITY OF CAGAYAN DE ORO, represented by the Hon. Mayor Vicente Y. Ernano, et al.

CTA Form No.8 (For DCC) 11111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111 21-000143-0040 REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES COURT OF TAX APPEALS QUEZON CITY SPECIAL FIRST DIVISION CTA AC NO. 250 LG ELECTRONICS PHILIPPINES, INC., Petitioner, -versus- NOTICE OF RESOLUTION CITY OF PASIG, represented by its Hon. Mayor Soledad C. Eusebio, et al., Respondents. To: GUNO & !LAGAN (Counsel for Petitioner) Suite 1517, 15th Floor, AIC Burgundy Empire Tower ADB Avenue corners Gamet and Sapphire Roads Ortigas Center, Pasig City CITY OF PASIG REPRESENTED BY ITS HON. MAYOR SOLEDAD C. EUSEBIO Office of the City Legal Officer- Pasig City 5th Floor, Pasig City Hall Building Caruncho Avenue, Fasig City CITY OF PASIG REPRESENTED BY CRISPINA V. SALUMBRE, rN HER CAPACITY AS CITY TREASURER OF PASIG Office of the City Legal Officer - Pasig City 5th Floor, Fasig City Hall Building Caruncho Avenue, Pasig City CITY OF DAVAO REPRESENTED BY THE HON. MAYOR RODRIGO R. DUTERTE, ET AL. Office of the City Legal Officer- Davao City Davao City Hall, City Hall Drive San Pedro St., Davao City CITY TREASURER OF DAVAO CITY Office of the City Legal Officer- Davao City Davao City Hall, City Hall Drive San Pedro St., Davao City CITY OF ILOILO REPRESENTED BY THE HON. MAYOR JERRY T. TRENAS, ET AL. Office of the City Legal Officer-Iloilo City City Hall Building, Dela Rama St. Iloilo City CITY OF DAGUPAN REPRESENTED BY THE HON. MAYOR BENJAMIN S. UM, ET AL. Office of the City Legal Officer- Dagupan City City Hall Building Complex, Dagupan City CITY OFCAGAYAN DE ORO REPRESENTED BY THE HON. MAYOR VICENTE Y. ERNANO, ET AL., Office of the City Legal Officer ~ Cagayan De Oro City Ground Floor, Chief Executive Building, Cagayan De Oro City Page I of2

HON. MARIA CHERYL B. LAQUl-CEGUERA Presiding Judge Thru: Atty. Nastasia Anne C. Padilla Branch Clerk of Court National Capital Judicial Region Regional Trial Court Branch 268, Pasig City GREETINGS: You are hereby notified by these presents that on July 10, 2024, a Resolution was rendered in the above-entitled case, copy of which is attached hereto. Quezon City, Philippines, July 11, 2024. \ Mar~ AttyE. xecu~~; F. Chan -Te Court II Page 2 of2

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES COURT OF TAX APPEALS QUEZON CITY SPECIAL FIRST DIVISION LG ELECTRONICS PHILIPPINES, CTA AC NO. 250 INC., Petitioner, Members: -versus- DEL ROSARIO, P.J., Chairperson, MANAHAN, and REYES-FAJARDO, JJ. CITY OF PASIG, represented by its Hon. Mayor Soledad C. Eusebio, and CRISPINA V. SALUMBRE, in her capacity as City Treasurer of Pasig, CITY OF DAVAO, represented by the Hon. Mayor Rodrigo R. Duterte, et.al., City Treasurer of Davao City, CITY OF ILOILO, represented by the Hon. Mayor Jerry T. Trenas, et.al., CITY OF DAGUPAN, represented by the Hon. Mayor Benjamin S Lim, et.al. , CITY OF CAGAYAN DE ORO, represented by the Hon. Mayor Vicente Y. Promulgated: Ernano, et al., R e s p o n d e n ts . ){- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- RESOLUTI MANAHAN, J. : Submitted b efore the Court is petitioner's Motion for Reconsideration (of the Decis ion dated October 5, 2023}, filed on October 27, 2023, with respondent City of Davao's Comment/ Opposition (To Petitioner's Undated Motion for Reconsideration) filed through registered mail on December 6, 2023 and received by the Court on December 21, 2023; and respondent City of Pasig's Co mment (To the Motion for Recons ideration dated 27 October 2023}, filed on February 12, 2 0 24 . On the other hand, respondents' City of Iloilo and City of~

RESOLUTION CTA AC No. 250 Cagayan de Oro, and respondent City of Dagupan failed to file their respective comments as per Records Verification Reports dated February 15, 2024 and March 19, 2024, respectively. Petitioner also filed a Reply (Re: Respondent City of Fasig's Comment dated 12 Febmary 2024 on Petitioner's Motion for Reconsideration dated 27 October 2023) on February 29, 2024; and with respondent City of Pasig's Rejoinder (To the Reply dated 21 Febmary 2024), filed through registered mail on March 22, 2024 and received by the Court on April 1, 2024. On October 5, 2023, the Court promulgated a Decision, dismissing petitioner's appeal for failure to timely file its Petition for Review within thirty (30) days from the receipt of the assailed Decision of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) Pasig City - Branch 268 on SCA Nos. 2642, 2643, 2644 and 2655, the dispositive portion of which states: "WHEREFORE, in light of the foregoing considerations, the present Petition for Review ts DISMISSED for this Court's lack of jurisdiction. SO ORDERED." Petitioner's Arguments Petitioner insists that the appeal filed before the Court was duly perfected and was filed within the reglementary period. Petitioner asserts that the Petition for Review was filed via electronic mail and copies were served to the respondents via electronic mail and accredited courier prior to the expiration of the reglementary period or on March 25, 2021. As to the required hard copies of the pleadings, petitioner states that it submitted them on May 17, 2021 or upon the physical opening of the Court. Petitioner further claims that the docket fees were paid as soon as the physical opening of the Court took place on May 17, 2021. As such, petitioner maintains that the Court acquired jurisdiction over the present case. Respondents' Arguments On the other hand, in its Comment, respondent City of Davao submits that petitioner should have filed the hard copies~

RESOLUTION CTA AC No. 250 of the petition either by registered mail or accredited couriers on or before March 30, 2021 to comply with the Court of Tax Appeals (CTA) En Bane Resolution No. 4-2021. Thus, filing of the hardcopies on May 17, 2021 or thirty-eight (38) days following the electronic filing of the same, was utterly beyond the reglementary period. Meanwhile, in its Comment, respondent City of Pasig contends that petitioner itself admitted in its Petition for Review and Reply that it is liable for Local Business Taxes (LBT) to the City of Pasig. Respondent City of Pasig argues that the statements made by petitioner certainly qualify as judicial admissions as they are deliberate, clear, unequivocal written statement of petitioner's counsel in the course of the proceedings before the Court. In any case, respondent City of Pasig further points out that perusal of petitioner's Motion for Reconsideration, particularly the attached Annexes "A" and "B", clearly shows the fact that petitioner did not furnish respondent city via electronic mail or accredited courier a copy of its Petition for Review. In petitioner's Reply to respondent City of Pasig's comment, petitioner submits respondent City of Pasig is silent on the issue raised in the Motion for Reconsideration with regard to the timeliness of the filing of the Petition for Review. Considering that respondent City of Pasig did not discuss the issue of timeliness of the filing of the Petition for Review, the City of Pasig did not discuss this issue which is the crux of the Court's ruling in the said Decision, and the basis of petitioner's arguments in its Motion for Reconsideration, petitioner argues that respondent City of Pasig should be deemed to have agreed with the timeliness of the said Petition for Review. Lastly, petitioner further avers that considering respondent City of Pasig has conceded that the rightful tax authority were respondents Davao City, Iloilo City, Dagupan City and Cagayan de Oro City, respondent City of Pasig must have likewise conceded that petitioner was under no obligation to pay the local business tax to it, it being a wrong taxing authority. Conversely, in its Rejoinder, respondent City of Pasig asserts that it never accepted the taxing authority of the other local government units. In fact, it has always been the position of respondent City of Pasig that it was petitioner which conceded that it is liable to the City of Pasig. a-.

RESOLUTION CTA AC No. 250 RULING OF THE COURT After due consideration, the Court finds petitioner's Motion for Reconsideration bereft of merit. Again, to appeal the decision of the RTC in the exercise of its original jurisdiction, the party adversely affected must file a petition for review within thirty (30) days after the receipt of a copy of such decision. And, for the Court to have jurisdiction over an appeal, Sections 1 and 3(b), Rule 8 of the Revised Rules of the Court of Tax Appeals (RRCTA) further provide that: "SECTION 1. Review of cases in the Court en bane.- In cases falling under the exclusive appellate jurisdiction of the Court en bane, the petition for review of a decision or resolution of the Court in Division must be preceded by the filing of a timely motion for reconsideration or new trial with the Division." "SEC. 3. Who may appeal; period to file petition.- (a) A party adversely affected by a decision, ruling or the inaction of the Commissioner of Internal Revenue on disputed assessments or claims for refund of internal revenue taxes, or by a decision or ruling of the Commissioner of Customs, the Secretary of Finance, the Secretary of Trade and Industry, the Secretary of Agriculture, or a Regional Trial Court in the exercise of its original jurisdiction may appeal to the Court by petition for review filed within thirty days after receipt of a copy of such decision or ruling, or expiration of the period fixed by law for the Commissioner of Internal Revenue to act on the disputed assessments. In case of inaction of the Commissioner of Internal Revenue on claims for refund of internal revenue taxes erroneously or illegally collected, the taxpayer must file a petition for review within the two-year period prescribed by law from payment or collection of the taxes." (Emphasis supplied) To recall, by its own allegation, petitioner admitted that it received a copy of the Order dated January 25, 2021 by the RTC Pasig City - Branch 268 only on February 23, 2021. 1 Counting thirty (30) days therefrom, petitioner had until March 25, 2021 to file its Petition for Review with this Court. I Par. 4, Petition for Review, Docket (CTA AC No. 250)- Vol. I, p. 7. ~

RESOLUTION CTA AC No. 250 It must be noted that pursuant to CTA En Bane Resolution No. 5-2021, the Court was closed from March 23,2021 to March 26, 2021 and pleadings may be filed electronically during said period. In the present Motion for Reconsideration, petitioner asserts that it timely filed its Petition for Review on March 25, 2021 via electronic mail. Petitioner even attached in its Motion the screenshot of the thread of its electronic mail as Annex "A" to prove that it indeed sent a copy of the Petition for Review on March 25, 2021 via electronic mail. However, granting that the Petition for Review was filed through electronic mail on March 25, 2021, the same must still be dismissed for being filed out of time pursuant to CTA En Bane Resolution No. 04-2021. 2 In the said CTA Resolution, the Court may continue to receive petitions and pleading electronically during the Period of State of Public Health Emergency due to the Covid-19 Pandemic, in accordance with the following guidelines: "NOW, THEREFORE, pursuant to its authority under Section 8 of Republic Act No. 1125, as amended, this Court, sitting En Bane RESOLVES, as it hereby RESOLVED, to adopt the following guidelines in relation to the filing of pleadings, motions, and other court submissions by email during the Period of State of Public Health Emergency due to the Covid- 19 Pandemic: 1. Pleadings, motions, and other court submissions may be filed by email through the official email address of the CTA Judicial Records Division jrd.cta@judiciary.gov.ph copy furnished the official email address of the CTA En Bane enbanc.cta@judiciary.gov.ph for en bane cases or the email address of the concerned CTA Division for Division cases, as follows: First Division I stdiv.cta@judiciarv.gov.ph Second Division 2nddiv.cta@judiciarv.gov.ph Third Division 3rddiv.cta@judiciary.gov.ph 2. The cut-off time for pleadings, motions, and other court submissions filed by email shall be at 4:30 p.m. which is the same cut-off time for the physical filing of pleadings, motions, and other court submissions. Pleadings, motions, and other court submissions filed by '"Pleadings, Motions and Other Court Submissions Filed by Email", dated February 24, 2021.~

RESOLUTION CTA AC No. 250 email after the 4:30 p.m. cut-off time shall be considered as filed on the next working day." (Emphases supplied) Herein, while petitioner filed its Petition for Review via electronic mail on March 25, 2021, the time indicating when sent was 5:27p.m. Considering that the Petition for Review was filed after 4:30 p.m., the above-cited guidelines state that it shall be considered as filed on the next working day, which is March 26, 2021. Accordingly, the Petition for Review was filed beyond the thirty (30) day period to file an appeal. Consequently, the Court has not acquired jurisdiction over the said petition for being filed out of time. Time and again, it has been held that the perfection of an appeal in the manner and within the period laid down by law is not only mandatory but also jurisdictional. The failure to perfect an appeal as required by the rules has the effect of defeating the right to appeal of a party and precluding the appellate court from acquiring jurisdiction over the case.3 The right to appeal is not a natural right nor a part of due process. It is merely a statutory privilege, and may be exercised only in the manner and in accordance with the provisions of the law.4 Correspondingly, in view of petitioner's failure to timely file its Petition for Review, the Court did not acquire jurisdiction to take cognizance of the same. To stress, by way of reiteration, when a court has no jurisdiction over the subject matter, the only power it has is to dismiss the action. 5 WHEREFORE, in light of the foregoing considerations, petitioner's Motion for Reconsideration (of the Decision dated October 5, 2023) is DENIED for lack of merit. SO ORDERED. c-~ /�~~(~~~~�~�~A---- CATHERINE T. MANAHAN Associate Justice 3 China Bankinq Corporation v. Citi! Treasurer a( Manila, G.R. No. 204117, July 1, 2015. Commissioner o( Internal Revenue v. Fort Honifacio Development Corporation, G.R. No. 167606, August 11, 2010. 4 Manila Mininq Corporation us. Lowito Amoret al., G.R. No. 182800, April 20, 2015; Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Fort Bonifacio Development Corporation, supra. s Escandor v. Carpio-Morales, et a!., supra, citing the case of Velasquez, Jr. v. Lisondra Land, Inc., supra.

RESOLUTION CTA AC No. 250 WE CONCUR: Presiding Justice rvv(1.. ~ [h._;--: f0.w., -F~�~ MARIAN REYBS-FAJli'RDO Associate Justice