CTA Case No. 5156 (Resolution)

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES COURT OF TAX APPEALS QVEZON OITY RAHON A. GONZALES, Petitioner, - versus - C.T. A. CASE NO. 5156 ____-_-:_u~-~-~-1~-~-fk;=p.~ COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL �' REVENUE, Respondent. Promulgated: X- - - - RESOLUT:CON This concerns the order in open court on June 15, 1995 d:l.Billissing this case for failure of petitioner to prosecute his appeal. The records show that after the filing of respondent~s answer to petitioner-s petition for review on December 27, 1994,. petitioner filed, on January 30, 1995, a .1110tion for sUIIJIIIary Jud/JIIIBnt . Sai d .1110tion was set for hearing on a .1110tion day, February 24, 1995, but petitioner failed to appear on sai d date. On April 11, 1995, after the filing of respondent -s collllllBnt and petitioner~s reply, a resolution was promulgated by the COurt denying petitioner~s .1110tion for sUIIJIIIary JudJjJJilent "on the ground that there are genuine issues of fact that call for the presentation of evidence. ",. and setting the case for hearing on April 26,. 1995. On said date, petitioner was again absent but the Court, instead of diBIDissing the case, ordered the resetting

RESOLUTION - O.T.A. CASE NO. 6~66 - 2- to Hay 11, 1995 to give petitioner a chance to present his evidence. On Hay 10, 1995, the day before the scheduled hearing (on Hay 11, 1995), petitioner filed a '11otion To Reset Hearing" alleging that the notice of hearing was received by him only on that day and that on Hay 11, 1995, "he has a hearing in Civil Case No. 93-64246 (PPN Realty, Inc. vs. Restituto Bantay), RTC, Branch 12, Hanila, set ahead of the present case. Consequently, he prayed "that the hearing of this case scheduled for Hay 11, 1995 at 9:00 A.H. be SET to another date preferably in the June calendar of this Court . .. On Hay 11, 1995 (the date of hearing), there was of course no appearance again on the part of petitioner and respondent-s counsel verbally JIJOVed that the case be diBIIJissed for non-appearance and failure to prosecute. However, the Court did not rule on the JIJOtion immediately but simply considered the same submitted for resolution. On Hay 19, 1995, this Court denied respondent-s JIJOtion to diBIDiss for non-suit "to give petitioner a last chance to prosecute its case.. but NJ.lilL._a.__w.a,r.lJilJ8 .ne.x.t.-...Js..che..du..lc..d_..da.t..e.._.af._he..ax.ino..�._:�

RESOLUTION - C. T.A. CASE NO. 5~56 - 3- On June 15,. 1995,. the last date set by the Court,. petitioner manifested that "the hearing is premature because the case has not been set for pre- trial.�� He contended that pre-trial,. as prescribed under Rule 20 of the Rules of Court,. is mandatory and that,. without it,. "all proceedings thereafter are null and void_ .. Petitioner likewise cited Circular No. 13 of the Supreme Court dated July 1,. 1987 on pre-trial. However,. the Court,. after noting that petitioner was still unprt:~pared to prosecute his appeal in clear disregard of the warning of this Court,. and upon oral JDOtion of respondent's counsel,. dismissed the case for failure to prosecute. Clearly,. from the foregoing facts,. the Court has been lenient enough to petitioner but he was simply unprepared to go to trial and present his evidence_ . � Indeed,. if he wanted to raise the matter of pre- trial, why did he not say so at the first opportunity after the denial of his JDOtion for summary judgment? On April 26, 1995,. the first setting of the case for hearing, he should have appeared and raised already the question of pre- trial procedure before the Court or should have at least filed a JDOtion to that effect prior thereto. In fact, even on the next setting on Hay 11, 1995, he could have raised the question of pre- trial but instead he filed a JDOtion to reset (or

RESOLUTION - C. T . A . CASE NO. 6~158 - 4- postponement), praying that the hearing of the case be set to another date preferably in the June calendar of this Court. Obviously, by the actuation of petitioner, he should be deemed to have waived the question of pre-trial or considered estopped from raising the same in the June hearing rm.J.ch he h.J.mself requested. Is petitioner trying to show that he could toy with this Court-s proceedings? Or that he could hide his unpreparedness to go to trial and proceed with the prosecution of his case? By his conduct, he even defeated the very purpose of pre- trial which is to abbreviate the proceedings. At any rate, without prejudice to a 1110re extended opinion on the JDatter of pre-trial, which is applicable to proceedings of trial courts of general jurisdiction, the Court of Tax Appeals is a special court vested with exclusive and appellate .Jurisdiction . t.Cl.... _rf1Yi.flN..._.bz. _. _.ap..P.J:..al decisions of the Commissioner of Internal Revenue in internal revenue cases and decisions of the Commissioner of CUstoms in customs cases (Sec. 7, Rep. Act No. 1125). As such special court, it is vested with the power to promulgate its own rules and :regulations for the conduct of its business and is not bound by the technical rules of evidence (SBc. 8, ibid). Thus, on the matter of trial or hearing of cases filed before it, the Rules of the Court of Tax Appeals,

RESOLUTION - C. T.A . CASE NO. 6~66 -6- (promulgated and adopted by the Court on September 10, 1955 (�51 OG 4635; No. 9, Sept. 1955J), under Sections 1 and 2 thereof specifically provide as follows: RULE 11 SETriNG OF CASES FOR HEARING Sec. 1. .IIIIIIJ.f1..~. ~ the .r.t:.J1.PD.llden..Laha.l.l____ha..TBL-f.il.f11d_hi.lf1___anf/1JBY:__:t..o __tmL P.B.:t.i..:t.ian for Rfl.."'LJ._ewJ.he Clerk of Court .aha.ll..._a.t:J..t.___the cas(l. for ht:.arillll ~lHLJirst _a.Yi/l..ila.b.lfL_ ..d.a..t.e._ _illiiiJf:_diB.:t.f:.l.L_.b.J..l.ON.illJJl..._.__t;]w . t.tmt.b_dax..~r_. _thtL. .fl.1.illiL_ther..m:lL. Sec. 2. Where, due to the urgency of the case, either the petitioner or the respondent desires that the hearing thereof be set on an earlier date, the petitioner shall so state in his pleading, in which event the case shall be set for hearing by the Clerk on the first available date immediately after the filing of the respondent ~s Answer. �� (Underlining supplied.) Further, Rule 16 of the BaJDe CTA rules provides that the provisions of the Rules of Court applicable , to proceedings before the Court of First Instance (now Regional Trial Court) shall, insofar as they JDaY not be inconsistent with the provisions of Republic Act No . 1125 and the Rules of the Court of Tax Appeals, be applicable to cases pending before the Court, except that, in any case pending before it, , this Court JDay, in the exercise of its discretion, fix a shorter period for the filing of pleadings and other papers.

RESOLUTION - C. T.A. CASE NO. 6~66 - 6- Verily~ the Court of Tax Appeals is mandated by its rules to .i.JIJIIJed.i.ately set the case for hearing on the merits on the first available date following the tenth day after the filing of the anBflller_ (And we should emphasize the words ..shall'' and ''..immediately'' used by the rules). Withal~ the pre- trial procedure WJder the Rules of Court cannot be strictly or mandatorily required to govern the proceedings of the Court of Tax Appeals. Or simply the adoption of said procedure should be at the Court-s discretion. WHEREFORE~ confirming the order .in open court on JWJe 15~ 1995~ this case is DISHISSED for petitioner-s failure to prosecute h.i.s appeal . SO ORDERED. ~~~~ I RAMON 0 . DE Associate Ju