MANILA BANKING CORPORATION vs. The Commissioner of Internal Revenue, et al.

DECISION -

- 2 - Revenue" docketed as C.ToA. Case No. 2993, which was a claim for tax. c:redit in the amount of .El3i4,295.45, repr:e- s.entingi penalty for late payment of the transaction tax previous.ly imposed on commercial papers pursuant to Presidential Decree No. 1154.

In a de~ision dated Oc:t .ober 30, 1981, this Court dismi s sed petitioner's claim for tax credit.· The ·motion for reconsideration of said decision filed by petitioner was denied by the Court on March 29, 1982.

On April 26, 1982, petitioner filed with the Supreme Court a petition for review, docke ted as ~.R. No. 60292, appealing from the d~cision of thi s Court dated October 30, 1981.

After: the. Supreme Court had required r espondent Commissioner of Internal Revenue to comment on pet.i- tioner's petition for review on certiorari, respondent Commissioner stat.ed that:

C 0 H M E N T

COMES NOW respondent, through undersigned couns:el, and in compliance with this Honorable Court's resolution dated Jul~ 21, 1982, r es- pectfully states that:

' 1.

Respondent has, after a careful and thorou9h study of the case, acceded to peti- . tione:r.' s claim that the transaction t a}t imposed under Section 210, Title V of the Tax Code, as amended, is a tax on income.

2.

Accordingly, respondent has, in Memo- randum No. 137-8.2, dated September 20, 1982, issued a tax credit in favor of petitioner ' 3 8~

- 3 - ~-tan ila Banl<ing Corporation, covering the amount of ~26,765.22, computed as· follmvs : Total amount claimed as refundable •••••••••••• ••••

Deduct:

5% surc:harge ( Sec. 51 ( e} ( 3) 'fl. 6 , 15 7 • 7 5 l.f,% in te:res.t · (Sec. 51 (e) ( l) 7 7 2. 4.,8

Amount of Tax Credit ••• •• •••

~34,295.45 7,530. 23 'i26; 765.22.

WHEREFORE, •it is' respectfully prayed that the petition for revie\v be d ismissed for being moot and ac:ademic.

On November 5, 1982, petitioner filed with the Supreme Court its comment stat.ing, amon9J others, that it agrees with the conclusion of respondetl t that the petition for review on certiorari has become moot and academic, and endor sing the prayer of respondent for the dismissal of the petition.

Consequently, in a resolution dated 15 November 1982, the Supreme Court "Res.olved , to DENY the petition for being moot and academic." (p. 29, CTA records.)

For reas;ons stated in the special and affirmative defenses of his anS\11er, responden~ Commissioner of Internal Revenue considers petitioner'~ petition for r e lief fr:om j udgment without me1:it and as;ks that it be dismissed.

We agree with this Gonclusion.

To begin with, under section 3, Rule 33 of the Rules of Court, the petition for r:elief should be filed wi thin sixty (60) .days "after the petitioner learns of · 390 - .4 - the judgment, order or other proceeding to be set aside, and not more than six (6) .months af t.~r. such judgment or order was enteJCed, or such proceeding \vas taken". Plainly, this language is broad enough to allow a party to seek relief f r om the judgment, as soon as he learns of it, without wai t .ing for the finality of the judgment on the merits.

(Mercado vs. Domingo, L-19 457, December 17, 1966, 18 SCRA 961. )

The six-month period i s merely a limitation to the sixty-day period after petitioner learns of the judgment, order or proceeding complained of.

In other wor:ds, the pet ition must be, filed within sixty (60) .days after kno\1>7ledge · s acquir ed of the proceedings, provid~ it is not beyond six {6) .months after judgment or order was ente red or the proceeding has actually occurred.

(Mor an, p. 277, Vol. II, 1979 Edition, citing Ramos, et al., vs. Albano, et al ., L -~380 , March 25 , 1953, Samson vs. Dinglasan, L-15320, October 25, .1960; Abao vs. Vertucio, L-16429 , October 25, 1960.)

....

Here,in the case at bar, copy of the decision of this Court in C.T.A. Case No. 2993, dismissing peti- tioner'~ petition for review, was r ceived by petitioner Manila Banking Corporation on December 10., 1981.

While

petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration on December 23, 1981, copy of this Court' ~ resolution 391 j

- 5 - denying t he motion for reconsideration was received by petitioner on April 16 , 1982.

The instant petition for rel i ef from judgment was filed with this Court on Octobe r 28, 1982.

It is thus beyond controversy that herein petitioner'~ motion for relief 'came too late, more than sixty ( 60) .days having elapsed since it learned that its peti t.ion for. revie'.'l was dismi s sed or the moti on for reconsideration thereof was denied . But there is more .

The~ief is against a judgment rendered v1here a party has been unjustly deprived of a hearing or has been prevented from takin~ an appeal by fraud, accident, mistake or excu sab;Le negligenc:e ; or a judg1ment or order is_ entered through fraud, accident, mistake, or excusable negligence.

Petitioner: has not been unju s tly deprived of a hearing in C.T.Ao Case No. 2993 since petitioner: itself, during the hearing on August 10, 1979, was the one who submitted the said case for: judgment on the pleadings without the objection of respondent.

(p. 31, r ecords qi CTA Case No . 2993.) Neither has petitioner by fraud, accident, mistake, or excus able negligence been unjustly pr evented from t aking an appeal from the decision of this Court in C. T.A. Case No. 2993 because, as alleged by petiti one r in its Petition for: Relief from Judgment filed in the i nstant case (par. 6, p . 2, OTA records) and as shown 392

DECISION -

CTA CASE NO . 3537 - 6 - in the records of C.T.A. Case No.

299~ (pp . 127-219) ~ peti tioner filed with this Court a notice of appeal and with the Supreme Court a petition for review \'lhich was docketed therein as GaR. No. 60292. Finally, it can never be said that judgment has been entered or pro- ceeding is taken against petitioner through fraud, accident, mistake or ·excusable negligence, considering that in its COMMENTS filed with the Supreme Court on November 5, 1982, it stated, among others, "We agree \'lith the conclusion of respondent that pet.i tioner ' s claim for tax credit has become moot and ~cademic because he has already grant7d it, and we endorse his prayer for the dis.mis.sal of. our appeal here xxx xxx.'' Hence, in its resolution of November 15, 1982, the Supreme Court stated:

"G.R. No. 60292 (Manila Banking Corp. vs. Court of Tax Appeals, et al.).- Acting on the petition for review on certiorari, as well as the comment of the respondents thereon· and petitioner's reply thereto, the Court Resolved to DENY the petition for being moot and academic."

~ , ' And the same has, on November: 22, 1982 become final and executory and recorded in the Book of Entries of Judgments of ·the Supreme Court on February 7, 1983. (p.

218, records of CTA Case No. 2993.) Against this backdrop, to say that petitioner by fraud, accident, mistake or excusable negligence has 393 '

- .7 - been unjustly deprived of a hearing in C.T.A. Case No. 2993, or has been prevented fr om taking an appeal from the decision of this Court therein; or the jud91ment in the said case was entered, or any other proceeding was taken, against petitioner through fra~d, accident, mis- take or eltcusable negligence, \•muld be to incur in self-contradiction.

WHEREFORE, the petition for relief from judgment is hereby dis.mis.sed at petitioner's costs.

WE

CONCUR:

G.,~~'ll<li-

AMANTE

ILLER

Presiding Judge

~~~~~ CONSTANTE C. ~AQUIN Associat.e Judge ......,,~x.,. ... at~ 394