RCBC

RIZAL COMMERCIAL BANKING CORPORATION, Petitioner, v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent. D E C I S I O N YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.: This is a Petition for Review under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court assailing the Decision 1 of the Court of Tax Appeals (CTA) En Banc dated June 7, 2005 in C.T.A. EB No. 50 which affirmed the Resolutions of the CTA Second Division dated May 3, 2004 2 and November 5, 2004 3 in C.T.A. Case No. 6475 denying petitioner's Petition for Relief from Judgment and the Motion for Reconsideration thereof, respectively. The undisputed facts are as follows: On July 5, 2001, petitioner Rizal Commercial Banking Corporation received a Formal Letter of Demand dated May 25, 2001 from the respondent Commissioner of Internal Revenue for its tax liabilities particularly for Gross Onshore Tax in the amount of P53,998,428.29 and Documentary Stamp Tax for its Special Savings Placements in the amount of P46,717,952.76, for the taxable year 1997. 4 On July 20, 2001, petitioner filed a protest letter/request for reconsideration/reinvestigation pursuant to Section 228 of the National Internal Revenue Code of 1997 (NIRC). 5 As the protest was not acted upon by the respondent, petitioner filed on April 30, 2002 a Petition for Review with the CTA for the cancellation of the assessments which was docketed as C.T.A. Case No. 6475. 6 On July 15, 2003, respondent filed a motion to resolve first the issue of CTA's jurisdiction, 7 which was granted by the CTA in a Resolution dated September 10, 2003. 8 The Petition for Review was dismissed because it was filed beyond the 30-day period following the lapse of 180 days from petitioner's submission of documents in support of its protest, as provided under Section 228 of the NIRC and Section 11 of R.A. No. 1125, otherwise known as the Law Creating the Court of Tax Appeals. Petitioner did not file a motion for reconsideration or an appeal to the CTA En Banc from the dismissal of its Petition for Review . Consequently, the September 10, 2003 Resolution became final and executory on October 1, 2003 and Entry of Judgment was made on December 1, 2003. 9 Thereafter, respondent sent a Demand Letter to petitioner for the payment of the deficiency tax assessments. On February 20, 2004, petitioner filed a Petition for Relief from Judgment 10 on the ground of excusable negligence of its counsel's secretary who allegedly misfiled and lost the September 10, 2003 Resolution. The CTA Second Division set the case for hearing on April 2, 2004 11 during which petitioner's counsel was present. 12 Respondent filed an Opposition 13 while petitioner submitted its Manifestation and Counter-Motion. 14 On May 3, 2004, the CTA Second Division rendered a Resolution 15 denying petitioner's Petition for Relief from Judgment.Ï‚Î·Î±Ã±rÎ¿blÎµÅ¡ Î½Î¹râ€ Ï…Î±l lÎ±Ï‰ lÎ¹brÎ±rÃ¿ Petitioner's motion for reconsideration was denied in a Resolution dated November 5, 2004, 16 hence it filed a Petition for Review with the CTA En Banc, docketed as C.T.A. EB No. 50,

Upload
betson-cajayon
Category

Documents
view
220
download
1

Embed Size (px):

description

Rem

Transcript of RCBC

RIZAL COMMERCIAL BANKING CORPORATION, Petitioner, v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNALREVENUE, Respondent.D E C I S I O NYNARES-SANTIAGO, J.:This is a Petition for Review under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court assailing the Decision1 of the Court of Tax Appeals CTA! En Banc dated "une #, $%%5 in C.T.A. &' (o. 5% which affir)ed the Resolutions of the CTA *econd Division dated +a, -, $%%4$ and (ove).er 5, $%%4- in C.T.A. Case (o. /4#5 den,ing petitioner0s Petition for Relief fro) "udg)ent and the +otion for Reconsideration thereof, respectivel,.The undisputed facts are as follows12n "ul, 5, $%%1, petitioner Ri3al Co))ercial 'an4ing Corporation received a 5or)al 6etter of De)and dated+a, $5, $%%1 fro) the respondent Co))issioner of 7nternal Revenue for its tax lia.ilities particularl, for 8ross 2nshore Tax in the a)ount of P5-,99:,4$:.$9 and Docu)entar, *ta)p Tax for its *pecial *avings Place)ents in the a)ount of P4/,#1#,95$.#/, for the taxa.le ,ear 199#.4 2n "ul, $%, $%%1, petitioner filed a protest letter;re+otion.14 2n +a, -, $%%4, the CTA *econd Division rendered a Resolution15 den,ing petitioner0s Petition for Relief fro)"udg)[email protected] ?MACllAC?N lAJ.rACrDEPetitioner0s )otion for reconsideration was denied in a Resolution dated (ove).er 5, $%%4,1/ hence it filed aPetition for Review with the CTA En Banc, doc4eted as C.T.A. &' (o. 5%, which affir)ed the assailed Resolutions of the CTA *econd Division in a Decision dated "une #, $%%5.Oence, this Petition for Review .ased on the following grounds17.TO& O2(2RA'6& CTA A(D CTA E BAC 8RAP&6Q &RR&D 7( D&(Q7(8 P&T7T72(&R0* P&T7T72( 52R R&67&5, R7TO2ST 57R*T A552RD7(8 7T TO& 2PP2RTS(7TQ T2 ADDSC& &P7D&(C& T2 &*TA'67*O TO& 5ACTSA6 A66&8AT72(* C2(*T7TST7(8 7T* A66&8&D &TCS*A'6& (&8678&(C&, 7( C6&AR P726AT72( 25 P&T7T72(&R0* 'A*7C R78OT T2 DS& PR2C&**.77.C2(*7D&R7(8 TOAT TO& *S'"&CT A**&**+&(T, 7(*25AR A* 7T 7(P26P&* A66&8&D D&57C7&(CQ D2CS+&(TARQ *TA+P TAT&* 2( *P&C7A6 *AP7(8* ACC2S(T*, 7* A( 7**S& A55&CT7(8 A66 +&+'&R* 25TO& 'A(U7(8 7(DS*TRQ, P&T7T72(&R, 67U& A66 2TO&R 'A(U*, *O2S6D '& A552RD&D A( &VSA6 2PP2RTS(7TQ T2 5S66Q 67T78AT& TO& 7**S&, A(D OAP& TO& CA*& D&T&R+7(&D 'A*&D 2( 7T* +&R7T*, RATO&R TOA( 2( A +&R& T&CO(7CA67TQ.1# Relief fro) =udg)ent under Rule -: of the Rules of Court is a legal re)ed, that is allowed onl, in exceptional cases where., a part, see4s to set aside a =udg)ent rendered against hi) ., a court whenever he was un=ustl, deprived of a hearing or was prevented fro) ta4ing an appeal, in either case, .ecause of fraud, accident, )ista4e or excusa.le neglect.1: Petitioner argues that it was denied due process when it was not given the opportunit, to .e heard to prove that its failure to file a )otion for reconsideration or appeal fro) the dis)issal of its Petition for Review was due to the failure of its e)plo,ee to forward the cop, of the *epte).er 1%, $%%- Resolution which constitutes excusa.le negligence.