BRYAN M. TORREGOSA v. REGIONAL DIRECTOR BUREAU OF INTERNAL REVENUE, DAVAO CITY REVENUE REGION 19

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES COURT OF TAX APPEALS QUEZON CITY ENBANC BRYAN M. TORREGOSA, CTA EB NO. 2520 (CTA Case No. 9703) Petitioner, P rese nt: DEL ROSARIO, P.J.) CASTANEDA, JR., - versus - UY, RINGPIS-LIBAN, MANAHAN, BACORRO-VILLENA, REGIONAL DIRECTOR MODESTO-SAN PEDRO, BUREAU OF INTERNAL REVENUE, DAVAO CITY REYES-FAJARDO, and CUI-DAVID, JJ. REVENUE REGION NO. 19, p ro mulgated : Respondent. fEB 1 5 ~~ //. .,?dJel~ � X- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - { RES O LU T IO N O n May 20, 2021, the Court in Division iss ued a Resolution 1 denying Petitioner's "Motion for Reconsideration" for lack of merit. O n October 25, 2021, Petitioner flied the instant "Petitio n for Review"2, declaring therein that he received the May 20, 2021 Resolution on Augus t 20, 2021. Contrary to Petitioner's allegation however, records show that his counsel, the lawyer who signed the " Petition for Review", received the l\tfay 20, 2021 Resolution on June 07, 2021. Emphasis must be placed that during this time, all appellate collegiate courts within the National Capital Region (NCR) have already physically reopened, after the lifting of the Modified Enhanced Communi ty Quarantine (l\tiECQ) on l\1ay 15, 2021.3 Thus, Petitioner only had until June 22, 2021 within Rollo, pp. 19-21. 2 Id., at pp. 1-15. 3 Courts were again declared physically closed on August 02, 2021. (Supreme Court Administrative Circular No. 56-2021, July 30, 2021)

RESOLUTION CTA EB NO. 2520 (CTA case No. 9703) which to file his "Petition for Review" with the Court En Bane, and that the instant petition was belatedly filed on October 25, 2021. It is settled that the perfection of an appeal in the manner and within the period set by law is not only mandatory, but jurisdictional, and failure of a party to perfect an appeal within the period fixed by law renders the judgment final and executory. Once a decision attains finality, it becomes the law of the case and no Court has the power to revise, review, change or alter the same. Since Petitioner's "Petition for Review" was filed after the period provided for under the rules, its dismissal, for being flied out of time, is in order. WHEREFORE, the instant case is DISMISSED for lack of jurisdiction for failure by Petitioner to flle its "Petition for Review" within the fifteen-day reglementary period under Section 3(b), Rule 8 of the Revised Rules of the Court of Tax Appeals (RRCTA). SO ORDERED. Presiding Justice c;;, 04<.<~ c .ca .,t;-.~ ~, ~. JflANITO C. CASTANEDA, JR. Associate Justice ER~.UY Associate Justice ~-~ .....-r (__ MA. BELEN M. RINGPIS-LIBAN Associate Justice ?~7~ CATHERINE T. MANAHAN Associate Justice

RESOLUTION CTA EB NO. 2520 (CTA Case No. 9703) ~ JEAN lUtuun 01\.\...Vftl\.V-VILLENA MARlAR e Justice ~~f.~-~ MARIAN rvfJF. REii:s-F;{fARDO Associate Justice ~ikod LANEE S. CUI-DAVID Associate Justice