DAVAO CITY WATER DISTRICT v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE

Repub lic of the Philippines COURT OF TAX APPEALS Quezon City EN BANC DAVAO CITY WATER DISTRICT, Petitioner, CTA EB CASE NO. 600 (CTA Case No. 7522) -versus- Present: ACOSTA, P.J. , CASTANEDA, JR. BAUTISTA UY CASANOVA PALANCA -ENRIQUEZ FASON-VICTORINO MINDARO-GRUllA COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL COTANGCO -MANALASTAS, JJ. REVENUE, Respondent . Promulgated: 4,::1~4. APR 0 5 2010 /-' ¥'" ~ X-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------X RESOLUTION The issue is whether to give due course to the instant petition for review which seeks the reversal of both the Decision 1 and Resolution2 of the Former First Division . On January 28, 2010, Petitioner received the Resolution denying its Motion for Reconsideration from the Decision of this Court's division. Thus, petitioner has fifteen (15) days or until February 12, 2010 to perfect its appeal in accordance 1 Promulgated on October 1, 2009. 2 Promulgated on January 5, 2010.

Dovoo City Water District vs. CIR Page 2 of 5 CTA EB Case No. 600 (CTA Case Nos. 7522) RESOLUTION with the Rules 3 . While petitioner moiled its petition within the reglementory period (February 11, 201 0), petitioner foiled to pay the docket fee of Php 5,000.00. In on attempt to cure the defect, petitioner's counsel sent a letter4 to this Court which we received on March 10, 201 0, and attached thereto were postal money orders amounting to Php 4,000.00. Without any reason, petitioner requested that the postal money order in the amount of Php 1,000.00 that was moiled together with the petition on February 11, 201 0 and the postal money order in the amount of Php 4,000.00 received on March 10, 2010 be considered in compliance with the requisite docket fee. 3 Sec. 4 (b) Rule 8 of the 2005 Revised Rul es of the Court of Tax Appeals, as amended. SEC. 4. Where to appeal; mode of appeal.- (a) XXX. (b) An appeal from a decision or resolution of the Court in Division on a motion for reconsideration or new trial shall be token to the Court by petition for review as provided in Rule 43 of the Rules of Court. The Court en bone shall oct on the appeal. Sec. 4. Rule 43 of the Rules of Court SEC. 4. Period of Appeal. - The appeal shall be token within fifteen ( 15) days from notice of the award, judgment, final order or resolution , or from the dote of its lost publication, if publication is required by low for its effectivity, or of the denial of petitioner's motion for new trial or reconsideration duly filed in accordance with the governing low of the court or agency a quo.xxx. Sec. 7. Rule 43 of the Rules of Court SEC.?. 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 o ther lawful fees , the deposit for costs, proof of service of the petition, and the contents of the documents which should accompany the petition shall be sufficient ground for the dismissal thereof. 4 Rollo. p. 10

Davao City Water District vs. CIR Page 3 of 5 CTA EB Case No. 600 (CTA Case Nos. 7522) RESOLUTION We resolve. The High Court, on many occasions 5 has ruled that non compliance with the payment of docket fees within the prescribed period may cause the dismissal of the appeal. Likewise, the High Court in several cases 6 recognized certain peculiar circumstances attendant in a case that may warrant the relaxation of the strict application of the rules on the payment of docket fees. In this case, the dismissal of the petitioner's petition due to non-compliance and lack of justifiable reason for the late payment of docket fees is in order. It is well-established that the payment of docket fees within the prescribed period is mandatory for the perfection of an appeal. This is so because a court acquires jurisdiction over the subject matter of the action only upon the payment of the correct amount of docket fees regardless of the actual date of filing of the case in court. The payment of the full amount of the docket fee is a sine qua non requirement for the perfection of an appeal. The court acquires jurisdiction over the case only upon the payment of the prescribed docket fees 7 s Meatmasters International Corporation v. Lelis Integrated Development Corporation , G .R. No. 163022, February 28,2005; Navarro v. Metropolitan Bank and Trust Co., G .R. No. 138031, 27 May 2004; Barangay 24 of Legazpi City v . Elias Imperial, 393 Phil. 357, 363 (2000) 6 La Salette College v. Pilotin , G.R. No. 149227, 11 December 2003, 418 SCRA 380, 387 ; Mactan Cebu International Airport Authority v. Mangubat, 371 Phil. 393, 398 ( 1999) . 7 Meatmasters International Corporation v. Lelis Integrated Development Corporation , G.R . No. 163022, February 28,2005

Davao City Water District vs. CIR Page 4 of 5 CT A EB Case No. 600 (CTA Case Nos. 7522) RESOLUTION In the case at bar, the petitioner seasonably mailed its petition but it paid the docket fees twenty six (26) days after the lapse of the appeal period. In a letter we received from petitioner on March 10, 2010 indorsing the postal money orders dated Feb. 26, 2010, petitioner made no effort to justify the belated payment of the docket fees. Obviously, at the time this Court received postal money orders dated Feb. 26, 2010 as payment for the docket fees, the decision appealed from has attained finality and it is no longer appealable. To give due course despite the belated payment of the docket fee will in effect extend the period to appeal. Rules of procedure must be faithfully followed except only when , for persuasive and weighting reasons, they may be relaxed to relieve a litigant of an injustice commensurate with his failure to comply with the prescribed procedure. Concomitant to a liberal interpretation of the rules of procedure should be an effort on the part of the party invoking liberality to adequately explain his failure to abide by the rules. 8 1n this case, petitioner proffered no reason for the belated payment of the prescribed docket fees. In addition, perusal of the records reveal that petitioner did not attach any Secretary's Certificate to show the authority of its General Manager to file the petition and to sign, and execute. for and in behalf the petitioner such Verification and Certification against Forum Shopping. While a photocopy of an 8 Navarro v. Metropolitan Bank and Trust Co. , G .R. No. 138031. 27 May 2004;Cresenciano Duremdes v. Agustin Duremdes, G.R. No. 138256, November 12, 2003.

Davao City Water District vs. CIR Page 5 of 5 CTA EB Case No . 600 {CTA Case Nos. 7522) RESOLUT I ON excerpt from the minutes of the petitioner's regular meeting authorizing the filing of an action for a tax refund was attached , said excerpt will not be treated as a substitute to a Secretary's Certificate, considering that the same was neither certified by the corporate secretary nor sworn under oath . WHEREFORE, the instant petition for review is DENIED DUE COURSE and is accordingly DISMISSED. SO ORDERED . ~.~ ERNESTO D. ACOSTA Presiding Justice <:Z~e-~~'2.. qUANITO c. CASTANEDA, '3"R. Associate Justice _t/$- CAESAR A. CASANOVA Associate Justice Associate Justic ~~~ OLGA PALANCA-ENRIQUEZ Associate Justice ~N.I\AL.·~~G~ CIELITO N. MINDARO-GRULLA AMELIA R. COTANGCO-MANALASTAS Associate Justice Associate Justice