CAP JOHN HAY TRADE AND CULTURAL CENTER, INC. v. HONORABLE COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE (formerly UDK-SP 026)

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES COURT OF TAX APPEALS Quezon City Special Third Division CAP JOHN HAY TRADE AND CTA CASE NO. 10014 CULTU RAL CENTER, INC., Members: Petitioner, RINGPIS-LIBAN, Chairperson MODESTO-SAN PEDRO, and -versus- FERRER-FLORES,]].. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent. X-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------X RESOLUTION RIN GPIS-LIBAN, f. : For resolution of the Court is petitioner Cap John Hay Trade and Cultural Center, Inc.'s j\IJ.otion for Reconsideration flied via registered mail on February 23, 2024 and received by this Court on February 28, 2024. On 11arch 8, 2024, this Court issued a Minute Resolution reqwnng respondent Commissioner of Internal Revenue to comment on petitioner's Motion for Reconsideration within five (5) days from notice. On March 25, 2024, this Court received respondent CIR's Comment and Opposition (Re: Motion for Reconsideration dated 23 February 2024). Petitioner seeks reconsideration of the Decision of this Court promulgated on February 5, 2024, (the "Assailed Decision") which dismissed the Amended Petition for Review in CTr\ Case No. 10014 for lack of jurisdiction. In seeking reco nsideration of the Assailed Decision, petitioner mainly implores this Court to reconsider its ruling and to take cognizance of the merif/

RESOLUTION CTA CASE NO. 10014 of the case notwithstanding the undue delay in the filing of its administrative and judicial appeals. After careful evaluation of the arguments raised by petitioner vis-a-vis the case records as well as the relevant statutory rules and jurisprudence, this Court resolves to deny the present Motion for Reconsideration for lack of merit. This Court stands by its ruling dismissing the present Amended Petition for Review for lack of jurisdiction. Jurisdiction over the subject matter or nature of an action is fundamental for a court to act on a given controversy, and is conferred only by law and not by the consent or waiver upon a court which, otherwise, would have no jurisdiction over the subject matter or nature of an action. If the court has no jurisdiction over the nature of an action, its only jurisdiction is to dismiss the case. The court could not decide the case on the merits .1 All told, petitioner failed to raise any compelling reason to warrant the modification much less reversal of this Court's findings. WHEREFORE, petitioner's Motion for Reconsideration is DENIED for lack of merit. SO ORDE RED. ~- ~ Y'.__ MA. BELEN M. RINGPIS-LIBAN Associate Justice LPE CONCUR� MARIARO , ._,- .. �. . \) t �--� - ... ...... CORAZON G. FERRER-FLORES Associate Justice 1 Nippon Express (Philippines) Corp. vs. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, G.R. No. 185666, February 4, 2015.