COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE v. THE COURT OF TAX APPEALS - FIRST DIVISION and YI WINE CLUB, INC.

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES Court of Tax Appeals QUEZON CITY En Bane COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL CTA EB NO. 2127 REVENUE, (CTA Case No. 8809) Petitioner, Present: DEL ROSARIO, P.J., - vers us- CASTANEDA, JR., UY, FABON-VICTORINO, MINDARO-GRULLA, RING PIS-LIB AN, MANAHAN, BACORRO-VILLENA, and MODESTO-SAN PEDRO, JJ THE COURT OF TAX APPEALS- Promulgated: FIRST DIVISION and Yl WINE DEC 0 2 2019 CLUB, INC., R espondents. ~~:t:'VA~. -~------ X ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -----------/--- X RESOLUTION For resolution is petitioner's "Motion for Reconsideration [Re: Resolution dated 07 October 20 19]" (hereinafter referred to as "MR") filed on 24 October 2019. On 7 October 2019, the Court En Bane dismi ssed petitioner's Petition for Certiorari on the ground that resort to Certiorari is improper since the Decision and Resolution of the Court a quo are proper subjects of appeal. In petitioner's MR, he avers that the Resolutions it assai l are orders denying his Petitions for Relief from Judgment, which are not subject to appeal under Section 1, Rule 41 of the Revised Rules of Court; that, accordingly, resort to Certiorari is proper; and that respondent Court acted with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess ofjurisdiction. The Court En Bane finds no merit in petitioner's MR.

RESOLUTION CTA EB NO. 2127 (CTA Case No. 88091 Page 2 of4 Despite petitioner's reliance on Section 1, Rule 41 ofthe Revised Rules of Court, the full provision thereof (as amended by A.M. No. 07-7-12-SC1) will show that it pertains to appeals from the Regional Trial Courts, to wit: RULE 41 Appeal from the Regional Trial Courts SECTION 1(11). Subject of appeal.- An appeal may be taken from a judgment or final order that completely disposes of the case, or of a particular matter therein when declared by these Rules to be appealable. No appeal may be taken from: (a) An order denying a petition for relief or any similar motion seeking relief from judgment; (b) An interlocutory order; (c) An order disallowing or dismissing an appeal; (d) An order denying a motion to set aside a judgment by consent, confession or compromise on the ground of fraud, mistake or duress, or any other ground vitiating consent; (e) An order of execution; (f) A judgment or final order for or against one or more of several parties or in separate claims, counterclaims, cross-claims and third-party complaints, while the main case is pending, unless the court allows an appeal therefrom; and (g) An order dismissing an action without prejudice. In any ofthe foregoing circumstances, the aggrieved party may file an appropriate special civil action as provided in Rule 65.2 Accordingly, the above provision is not applicable to appeals from the Divisions of the Court of Tax Appeals (CTA). To reiterate, the existence and availability of the right to appeal from a decision of a Division of the CTA to the CTA En Bane prohibits the resort to a Petition for Certiorari under Rule 65 ofthe Rules ofCourt.3 1 December 27, 2007. 2 Emphases ours. 3 Nuque v. Aquino, et. a/., G.R. No. 193058, 8 July 2015.

RESOLliTION CTA �8 NO. 2127 (CTA Case No. 8809) WHEREFORE, premises considered, petitioner's "Motion for Reconsideration [Re: Resolution dated 07 October 20 19]" is hereby DENIED for lack of merit. SO ORDERED. Presiding Justice Q. c.a.J."........ ~,c?.- JUANfto C. CASTANEIJA, JR. Associate Justice ERL~P.UY Associate Justice ABON-VICTORINO ~N.M~-~.c~ CIELITO N. MINDARO-<'fRULLA Associate Justice ~- ~ _d \.__ MA. BELEN M. RINGPIS-LIBAN Associate Justice ~ T.~A,-/-...Nfl.A~H.....,....A"'fN'---- CATHERINE Associate Justice \..

RESOLUTION CTA �8 NO 2127 (CTA Case No. 8809) Page 4 of4 MARIA te Justice