CTA Case No. 153 (Resolution)

"EPUBLIC OF THE PHlLIPPl t.l COURT OF TAX AP.P.EAU) MANlLA cTHoE.,PAnc . , I , etit"oner, - versus - � T� � '� 153 ILVER IO lA RA, as ct ing Collect r of I t ~nal 1 eve e, spondent. x- - - - - ~ ~ ~ ~ - � � - - -x E '0 LU I N es ndent filed a '1 ot.:on for reli inar Hearing to deter. ine th que stion of jurisdict ion rais d n his t e petition for evie � es pon en n February 12, l 54 originally assessed and em de from petitio er t e anou t of 731 791. 66 as d cu. ntary s amp tax from 194 to ept ember , 195 , 1u 1,000.00 as co.p omise penalty ( nnex , Petition for eview; � 354 r ecord )o On arch , 1 , p ti io er requested a reinve&tigat io l f re pondent�s original a sessme t and de~and, o th~ grou ds t hat t ' e sa, e was arbi- trary and withou le a asis , nd assu.1 in t at t he tax is u , collection of said tax a alre dy pre ' ri ' e i ion for \ev�e � p. a55, r co d) . �eanwh�le p tit ioner on Sept- ember 6~ 19 , r qu st t at action on the assess- ment e held i abe yanc e until t he case o Inter- provincial Autobu s Co., Inc. vs . Collector o � I .. tarnal Revenue (G. � Oo L-6741) then pend ng in t he Supr eme Court , is dec i ded (Annex C, Pet i tion 261

LUTIO ... E � 153 , for eview ) . espondent, on �pte.ber 16 ~ 1954 d nied his requ st and ur ed petitioner to pay th amount of .66,959.92 (Annex D, P tition for v� ew; p.. 388 , record). In view of the c hange in t he a ount de,anded petit"on r, in a lett r dated Octo er 4, 1954, requested a clari- fic tion the of ( nn x E, etit�o for eview; p. 388, B record). n reply to this letter , res- pon ent on N v mber 15t 1954 wrote a letter en- ~los ng th rewith his letter da d ept 1ber 16, 1954 whic h shows th result of th reinvest! ation of t h c ase nd the consequ nt modification of the a es sment from the a~ount of - 74,791.66 to 66,959 . 92 ( xh b �ts and 1, otion, PPo 389- 393, B!R rec or ; ~ alsg Annexes F and F-1, Peti� tion f r Rev w) . The last ment oned letter of res- pond nt "th t h encl osed r educed sessment was :r c d by p t t oner on ovemb r , 1954. On Dec emb r 2, 195 , petitioner sousht reconsidera- ti n of the r odified assessment ado. ting as its own th r guments of ppellant pre sent ed before the uprem C urt i t he af r s c as of Interpr - vinc . al ut bus o., Inc . vs . er { !lector of Internal v nu ). In t his letter of pet i t ! ner, whith re pon ent r ceived on Decemb r 3, 1954 , it also reiterat i t quest that th cas b h ld �n abe- yanc p n i t e t r . inat i on of t he Interprovi nc ial uto u Co. a 0 I t h meant .e , t h Ci t y Tre a� surer of agupan e anded from petitioner. in a letter ; 262

cBE. r.ALU.. � � 15 , d.at d J a uary . 3, 19 1 the payment of the a 10unt 5 J B :cecor ). n Ja ua.ry 14, l955 petitioner olio e -up its request co � t ained i th~ lett r date � es- pendent finding t hat petitioner ha no yet paid t he a Siment in que tion again emanded pay en of th� same in a letter dated anuary 21, 1955 makin no reference to petitioner's tvo letters. Hence , in a ~ett r dated January 28, 1955, peti� tioner called the attention of respondent, to pe- tit ione.r1s letters of ecember 2, 1954 an January 14, 1955 equesting tha .the assess ent e recon� $.i dered and that th c asa e h l d i ab y nee pend... ing decision of the case of Interprovinci"'l Autobus Co. In reply to petitio r' lett r , re pon ent in a letter dated A y 28, 19~5 (Exhibits B and 5, Motion, I p. 401 BI.R rec rd) Jhich p... titione 'eceiv o June 11 , 1955 denie � e ormer' request . her�aft r , the present petition for revie Nas filed on uly 2, 1955. The issu raise i tl is inci ntis wlether or not the petition o revie as ile wi h�n the :reglementary period of 20 ays after the rece of the decision or ~u ing of espo d ollector of Int ernal evenue pur uant to section 11 of epublic .Ae t No. 112.5. espondent contends tha the XJ,-day period 6hould be eounted from November 20, 1954, the date �~ 2 6 3

R�$ 0 . TIOf � ..o. l 3� C.i.J CA~E. , when petitioner re eived t e ~ t~ r of respondent dated Septe ber 16 , 1954, i t las un� ~hang e a d unmodil i ccl ss ss tit"o r , o the o her hand , cla"n that � y p riod s ould be ~ou ted not fro11 he rec ei t o . lo e;1 er 20 , 1954 of re ponde t ' s 1 ter da ed Septe~ r 16 , 1954 but from June 11, 1955 vhen peti ion r .. ceived respon- dent� let r of uay 28, 1955. eti �on r argu that th letter of re o dent ~~ted ciept b r 16, - 1954 i an i nterlocu �ory ruliny a d not fi al e- caus , by virtu e o � t pe e c o th ca e of In� o., terprovincial Auto' us Inc. vs . Collee or of !nternal evenue ( ���~er) 1. t. e 3upren e ~ou t, -the cute e of that c ase \oJould leav soraet d.n still to be done by the oll ctor of I t r a1 tevenue as regar s the in~tant ca e , that is , eith~r etitioner shall be r quir d o pay the amount de1 andt.!d, or res- pondent Collector countermands the ;sse:3Sr:lC:1t. h c o tention o r .pon ntis \ell- ounded. Thii ourt has rep.ated_y eld .:n several o:.~�e& that- ' h t -r-. ' dec is ior ' me t �one � e- tion 7 {in ~a es involving disputed ssess� ments re e to de er i ations ua e or r� r iv t � the (.;ollector w'dc; would becoue 1i 1 a ex cutory les odifi or e~ verGed by aid fficial, or appealed to superior authority in a cord.a ce wi h 1~wo n (Angel arao v. Collector, c . To � Case , o. 229 1 iarch :) , 1956; see also ...ere d rug House v. Collector, ~� .r.A. Case Noo 180 , '-a 21 , 1956; � ,.as B. Villa., in � ollector, Van ��� �� Case o. 258 , Ju.rly. 3�1, 19 56; Dirk ongcn v. Collec or, ase o. 268, uly 1~ 19 ; o ert L.Jand v. ranet a, C.T. A. ase Oo 87, February 2 t 19~6i Auyo 9 Hian Vo Colle,tor, C.T�� Ca e No. 24:l, ugu t 30, 1956.)

c.r.-W�TI.O. � � :53 o� eove~ , the upr . � �<;ourt h d in one � . ca11on r ul d that � the . lett r of d and and $ �& e t � y t he 'Col l '"'e tol!' ~f Int rn 1 evenue i c>. 'de� i� s!on' i t at it i d termin tion f the tax- payer~s lia ility, and c ontains the su tantial a ! po� itiv part th reo�.� {V nt nilla v. ou f Tax App als, G�� ~ ecem er o. L- 7 84, 19�.19 5.} Again th s Court had occasion to rul~ that � ec isions or final orders of ad- ini�~at1ve offic r , like t e . ollector of eln�tsetr na ev nue or he onmissioner of s, are adjudic tive and final in character an th r fore kin to judi� c:1al. orders or eeiiion , i ot appeale t higher a.uthoritie � It would be wise to fol l o t i vie for th purpos e of if r ity an to pr vent the confusion that ay c au e to li i ant and 1 w- ye~ � henever an appeal from a dec ision of an administrativ body or officer is ~ont mplate �. x x x" { afa 1 ron v. Th Collector, c�. _.Case No . 2031 ol t i on of e ruary 16, 1956; see also F 11c1da a on vs. Coll ~tor of Inter 1 evenue, CoT. � Case No. 232, esoluti n of ~to er 27. 19 6. ) In the cast at bar, r spond t' 1 tter of ep m- ber 16, 1954 had i po ed of e pendin c a e so that, subj ct nly to a eo si ration o i deci ion, nothin re was to or can done on e ,erits . hat lett r � dec sion h d put n end to h litigation. � n o.rd r or a jud nt i e. fin�l wh n it finally disposes of the p �ndtng action o that othing ore can l)e done with it in the trial court . In ot er wor 1 ina or r or judg t is th t which gives an nd t th liti- x~ ( ol . I , ~ora 's o - 9 t io � x nts on the ul of Court 1 1952 dition, p � 894-895. ) 265

OLUTIO 'l - C~T� � C E NO. 153 .� 6 - , e ther fore find and o hol at spo d t letter of ptem r 16, 95 i fi al ord or decision and not er ly int rlo uto'Y� s an alt rnative ar u. nt , ition r c o - tends t hat, as Ulu �n hat respo ent ' lctte o eptember 161 19 4 is t he inal dec isio o ap- pealed fro 1 th petition for revie~ as st"ll filed on t im � I t i argued that, di counti g the t � wh n coun el sked his eli nt , peti toner her in, wh ther to appeal t he cas or not ich i a total of 10 d ys c ounting ro. Jun 16 19 5, date of receipt of petition r, to Jun 26 , 1955, date h n counsel r ceive note fro petitioner 0 appeal; se nn x , 1emora ciura for Petitioner), a total p riod o only 28 ays had en cons d in filing th peti �on for revi w. In upport of th� contention, tit�oner invo d t e l "b ralit y o the Suprell Court in accepting excuse for failur to comply with proc dural requirements . fin this vi not we 1 ta en. Iher s differ nc twe n a procedural require ent and one hic h i su stan iveo hil th proc ur 1 re- quirements laid don by th ul s of ourt ~ay be liberally applied n /or construed, the sub tan ive requirements involving tax proceedin s pr ovided by law ay ot begin an qually li ral co vtructiono Thi Court had repeatedly h ld t at the thirty- ay period provided by s ctton 11 f public ~ ct Oo 266

� � 15 , � 1� 1 25, i bin h1�h a,pp al fr h d 1 !on of t 11 c or of In :-nal .� .� nu _t r ina tve f t - jurisdiction of t i o �Jn v� .r n ta., . T�� C � 19 J ro . DX"u HouGe v. Collector , o. l � �v 21 , 1 a:r in s o. , lnc . � . � ort. oll c Cas o. 24 ) r ip .y pe i� pondent 's dec1 �ion, ion�" on 4'- l.:ef ,, of:- �r 20 , 1954 o r t � ftl�n of p titio r's r d rat! n date D c mb r 2. l o e :r 3, 195 � 1 days had el p .. ition r � reques for r - onsi er ~io su p unn of ni il J un 11 , l95~ , w1 r pet.! io r rec ive r S'~~" n nt � � l~tt r tea �' y 2 ~ 1<:--:,. denyi th e. Fro~ June 1, 19 5 to uly 2, 19 , Jh n h p tition for r vi w fil , 2 y 1 s consu � umm.in up, to al of 4 y a ther consu e .y . !tion r in brin ing t :1! appeal to this Court biob 1 be n th regl e t~ry p ri~d providect oy �pu li . Act o. 1125. VIE 0 T . .�, th p~tit~on for r � ould be , s it � h~re y ., is is � ith o ts a ins pet tion r. ani! , l?hil ippin � Ju y 11 , 1957., I ,. � I CON-- 267 J I' I

RESOWTION "" C. T. A. CASE � 153 , : I concur i n th resultt 268