COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE v. JOHNNY M. KING , JR.

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES COURT OF TAX APPEALS QUEZON CITY ENBANC COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL CTA EB NO. 2513 REVENUE, (CTA Ca se No. 97 53) Petitioner, Present: DEL ROSARIO, P.J ., R I N G P I S -LIBAN , MANAHAN , -versus- BACORRO-VILLENA, MODESTO-SAN PEDRO, R E Y E S -F A J A R D O , CUI-DAVID, and # FERRER-FLO~, Ill/"? JOHNNY M. KING, JR., Respondent. ){- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - RESOLUTION For this Court's resolution is petitioner's Motion for Reconsideration filed on February 7 , 2023 without respondent's comment,1 seeking the reversal of the Court En Bane's Resolution dated January 27, 2023, dismissing his Petition for Review for failure to submit Proof of Service of the Petition for Review to respondent pursuant to the Court's Resolution dated August 1, 2022. Petitioner pleads for leniency and cites var1ous jurisprudence where the Supreme Court supposedly downplayed the technical rules of procedure in order to afford party litigants the amplest opportunity to properly ventilate the substantive merits of their cases in court. In compliance with the directive of the Court, petitioner attached as Anne){ "A" a photocopy of the official receipt of LBC E){press, Inc. showing the name of the consignee as "Atty. Roger Terence P. Camua," to show that service of the Petition 1 Records Verification dated May 4, 2023. ~

RESOLUTION CTAEBNo. 2513 for Review to respondent's counsel was done via a licensed couner. RULING OF THE COURT We deny petitioner's motion. To recall, the Court in a Resolution dated August 1, 2022,2 ordered petitioner to furnish respondent a copy of the Petition for Review it filed with the Court En Bane within five (5) days from notice. In a Resolution dated January 27, 2023, 3 the Court dismissed the Petition for Review for petitioner's failure to submit the proof of service within the period prescribed by the Court. On February 7, 2023, petitioner filed the instant Motion for Reconsideration seeking for leniency as its counsel may have overlooked the Court's Resolution dated August 1, 2022, hence, was not able to submit the proof of service within the prescribed period. This Court finds that the inordinate length of time for petitioner to submit the proof of service, is unreasonable and does not justify the reconsideration of the Court's Resolution dismissing its Petition for Review. It is worthy to point out that petitioner received the Resolution dated August 1, 2022 on August 3, 2022 and it was only after the dismissal of its case on January 27, 2023 that petitioner furnished a copy of the Petition for Review upon respondent via an accredited courier as evidenced by the official receipt issued by LBC Express dated January 30, 2023. This unreasonable delay in complying with the order of the Court manifests petitioner's disregard of the constitutional mandate for the speedy disposition of cases and hampered the administration of justice. As regards petitioner's argument that technicalities take the backseat in the interest of justice, the Supreme Court's 2 EB Docket, pp. 57-59. 3 EB Docket, pp. 62-65.~

RESOLUTION CTAEBNo. 2513 ruling in the case of Juanita Magsino vs. Elena de Ocampo and Ramon Guico,4 is instructive, and we quote: "Procedural rules are tools designed to facilitate the adjudication of cases. Courts and litigants alike are thus enjoined to abide strictly by the rules. And while the Court, in some instances, allows a relaxation in the application of the rules, this, we stress, was never intended to forge a bastion for erring litigants to violate the rules with impunity. The liberality in the interpretation and application of the rules applies only in proper cases and under justifiable cause and circumstances. While it is true that litigation is not a game of technicalities, it is equally true that every case must be prosecuted in accordance with the prescribed procedure to insure an orderly and speedy administration of justice." WHEREFORE, premises considered, petitioner's Motion for Reconsideration filed on February 7, 2023 is DENIED for lack of merit. Accordingly, the Petition for Review filed with the Court En Bane on July 29, 2021 is hereby DISMISSED with finality. SO ORDERED. Presiding Justice ~. ~ A ' - MA. BELEN M. RINGPIS-LIBAN Associate Justice ~ /'-~'~ CATHERINE T. ANAHAN Associate Justice 4 G.R. No. 166944, August 18,2014.

RESOLUTION CTAEBNo. 2513 JEAN lY.&~.II( ' BACORRO-VILLENA {On Leave) MARIA ROWENA MODESTO-SAN PEDRO Associate Justice (On Leave) MARIAN IVY F. REYES-FAJARDO Associate Justice LANltEiuEuS". MCUnI'~iAVID Associate Justice ~-><�.~ CO~~N G. FERREK-F1-0RES Associate Justic ~