San Francisco Water District vs. Bureau of Internal Revenue, et al.

DECISION

Fabon-Victorino, J.:

In this Petition for Review, petitioner San Francisco Water District seeks to set aside the Resolutions dated July 29, 2011 1 and November 15, 2011 2, both rendered by the Regional Trial Court, Branch 6, Prosperidad, Agusan del Sur (RTC) in Special Civil Action No. 56-2011 entitled "San Francisco Water District, Rep. by General Manager Elmer T.

Luzon

vs.

The

Bureau of Internal Revenue of the

Department of Finance herein rep. by its Revenue District Officer, ROO 104, Bayugan, Agusan del Sur", the respectiv/e dispositive portions of which read, as follows:

CTAACNO. 83

Resolution dated July 29, 2011

WHEREFORE, finding that it has no jurisdiction over the subject matter of this action, the Court hereby orders the case dismissed. No costs.

Manifestation

of the

Development Bank of the Philippines (San

Francisco branch) and the respondent BIR, and finding no compelling grounds to disturb the questioned Resolution, the motion is hereby denied.

SO OREDERED.

The undisputed facts are as follows:

Petitioner

San

Francisco

Water

District

is a government-owned and controlled corporation created by virtue of Presidential Decree No. 198, as amended, with office address at Redondo Building, Barangay 2, San Francisco, Agusan del Sur. 3 Respondent Bureau of Internal Revenue (BIR), as represented by the Revenue District Officer of Revenue District Office (RDO) No. 104, Bayugan City, Agusan del Sur, is a government agency with office address at BIR Revenue District Office No. 104, Bayugan City, Agusan del Sur. 4

CTA AC NO. 83

Section 11 of RA No. 1125, as amended by RA No. 9282, states that:

SEC. 11. Who May Appeal; Mode of Appeal; Effect of Appeal. - Any party adversely affected by a decision, ruling or inaction of the Commissioner of Internal Revenue, the Commissioner of Customs, the Secretary of Finance, the

Secretary of Trade and Industry or the

Secretary of Agriculture or the Central

Board of Assessment

Appeals

or the Regional Trial Courts may file an appeal with the CTA within thirty (30) days after the receipt of such decision or ruling or after the expiration of the period fixed by law for action as referred to in Section 7(a)(2) herein.

Appeal shall be made by filing a petition for review under a procedure analogous to that provided for under Rule

42 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure

with the CTA within thirty (30) days from the receipt of the decision or ruling or in the case of inaction as herein provided, from the expiration of the period fixed by law to act thereon. A Division of the CTA shall hear the appeal: Provided, however, That with respect to decisions or rulings of the Central Board of Assessment

Appeals and the Regional Trial Court in the

exercise of its appellate jurisdiction appeal shall be made by filing a petition for review under a procedure analogous to that provided for under Rule 43 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure with the CTA, which shall hear the case en bane.

XXX

XXX

XXX

No appeal taken to the CTA from the J decision of the Commissioner of Internal

Revenue or the Commissioner of Customs

CTA AC NO. 83

On January 22, 2004, the RTC of Agusan denied petitioner's Petition for Declaratory Relief with Prayer for a Writ of Preliminary Injunction or Restraining Order on the ground that it has no jurisdiction to enjoin respondent from collecting deficiency taxes for the years 1997 and 1999 from petitioner. The Court of Appeals (CA) sustained the RTC and the ruling became final and executory on August 23, 2010. 5 On the basis of the said final judgment, respondent's counsel forwarded the docket of petitioner's 1997 and 1999 delinquent accounts to BIR ROO No. 104 for the collection of petitioner's delinquent accounts. 6 Consequently, a Warrant of Garnishment was issued by Revenue District Officer Satar T. Laguinlab of BIR RDO No. 104 for the purpose of collecting the said delinquent accounts. 7 On January 6, 2011, respondent served the Warrant of

Garnishment to the Development Bank of the Philippines

(DBP), San Francisco Branch, garnishing petitioner's General Fund in the amount of Php734, 793.63 for the income tax due for the years 1997 and 1999.8 The following day, or on January 7, 2011, petitioner's representative, together with its Division Manager Ela F. Moreno and its counsel, went to the office of respondent Revenue District Officer to discuss the matter, but the latter was not available. They were however allegedly advised by the Assistant Revenue District Officer to prepare a letter request to lift the Warrant of Garnishment. 9 Following the advise, petitioner, on that very day, wrote a letter to respondent requesting the lifting of the Warrant of Garnishment.

On January 19, 2011, petitioner, through its General Manager, personally and in writing requested the Revenue District Officer to lift the Warrant of Garnishment invoking Republic Act (RA) No. 10026, which grants exemption to

CTA AC NO. 83 local water districts from paying income taxes and condoning income tax due from August 13, 1996 until the effectivity of RA No. 10026. 10 Petitioner likewise informed the Revenue District Officer that it was financially incapable and was willing to comply with the requirements for purposes of condonation as soon as the guidelines or the Implementing Rules of RA No. 10026 become available. 11 But instead of acting on the letter-request, respondent allegedly wrote a letter dated January 27, 2011 to the DBP San Francisco Branch Manager to effect immediate turn- over/transfer of petitioner's General Fund of Php734, 793.63 to respondent's account.

On January 28, 2011, petitioner received a letter from the DBP informing and furnishing it with a copy of the Notice of Execution of Garnishment received from respondent. 12

This

prompted petitioner to file a

Petition

for Injunction 13 with the RTC of Agusan on January 28, 2011 docketed as Spl. Civil Case No. 56-2011. In the said case, petitioner claimed that the acts of respondent in garnishing and causing the transfer of petitioner's fund to its account run counter to the provisions of RA No. 10026 and the decision of the CA in the case of "Commissioner of Internal Revenue vs. The Secretary of Justice and Camarines Norte

Water District (CNWD)"14 •

In its Answer15, respondent raised as affirmative defense the RTC's lack of jurisdiction over the subject matter of the Petition.

Citing Section 218 of the National Internal

Revenue Code (NIRC) 16, respondent argued that the RTC is not vested with the competence to try and hear the case much more grant any injunctive relief to stop the collection of taxes imposed under the NIRC. The jurisdiction,

CTA AC NO. 83 according to petitioner, is with the Court of Tax Appeals (CTA) pursuant to Section 11 of RA No. 1125, as amended by RA No. 9282. Further, petitioner could not invoke RA No. 10026 on the condonation of taxes due from local water districts since no application for condonation was filed by petitioner with the BIR.

Besides, petitioner failed to show that it was financially incapable of paying its 1997 and 1999 tax liabilities.

On July 29, 2011, the RTC of Agusan rendered the assailed

Resolution

dismissing petitioner's

Petition

for Injunction on jurisdictional ground.

Citing Supreme Court

ruling in the case of Southern Cross Cement Corp. vs. Philcemcor, 17 the Court a quo held that it has no jurisdiction to enjoin the collection of taxes as the power lies with the CTA.

On

August

24, 2011, petitioner moved for reconsideration but the same was denied in the similarly assailed Resolution dated November 15, 2011. Hence, this Petition for Review posted on December 8, 2011, with the following errors allegedly committed by the Court a quo, 18 viz:

1. The Regional Trial Court erred in finding that it has no jurisdiction over the subject matter of the case.

2. The Regional Trial Court erred in not finding that the GARNISHMENT runs counter to the provisions of R.A. No. 10026

and Supreme Court Administrative Circular

No. 10-2000.

With the filing of respondent's Memorandum 19 on July 4, 2012, and petitioner's Manifestations20 on August 8,

CTA AC NO. 83

2012, stating that it will no longer file a memorandum, the instant Petition for Review was submitted for decision on August 28, 2012. 21

THE RULING OF THE COURT

Primordial

under the circumstances is the determination of whether this petition is within the province of the Court, 22 specifically whether it has jurisdiction to entertain an appeal involving the assailed Resolutions of the RTC of Agusan dismissing petitioner's Petition for Injunction on the ground of lack of jurisdiction and denying its subsequent Motion for Reconsideration. Settled is the rule that jurisdiction over the subject matter is fundamental for a court to act on a given controversy.

It is conferred by law, not by consent of the parties. To inquire into the existence of jurisdiction over the subject matter is the primary concern of a court, for thereon would depend the ability of its entire proceedings. 23 Republic Act No. 1125, as amended by RA Nos. 9282 and 9503, creating the Court of Tax Appeals (CTA), did not grant this Court blanket authority to decide any and all tax disputes. In defining the CTA's jurisdiction, RA No. 1125, as amended, limited the CTA's authority to those matters enumerated therein. 24 Section 7 of RA No. 1125, as amended, specifies the subject matters within the CTA's jurisdiction, to wit:

SEC. 7. Jurisdiction. - The CTA shall exercise:

(a) Exclusive appellate jurisdiction to review by appeal, as herein provided:

CTA AC NO. 83

(¹)

Decisions

of the

Commissioner

of

Internal

Revenue

in cases involving disputed assessments, refunds of internal revenue taxes, fees or other charges, penalties in relation thereto, or other matters ansmg under the

National Internal Revenue Code

or other laws administered by the Bureau of Internal Revenue; (²)

Inaction

by the

Commissioner

of

Internal

Revenue

in cases involving disputed assessments, refunds of internal revenue taxes, fees or other charges, penalties in relations thereto, or other matters ansmg under the

National Internal Revenue Code

or other laws administered by the Bureau of Internal Revenue, where the

National

Internal

Revenue

Code

provides a specific period for action, in which case the inaction shall be deemed a denial;

(³) Decisions, orders or resolutions of the Regional Trial Court in local tax cases originally decided or resolved by them in the exercise of their original or appellate jurisdiction;

( 4)

Decisions

of the

Commissioner of Customs

in cases involving liability for customs duties, fees or other money charges, seizure, detention or release of property affected, fines, forfeitures or other penalties in relation j thereto, or other matters arising under the Customs Law or other

CTA AC NO. 83 laws administered by the Bureau of Customs;

(5)

Decisions

of the

Central

Board of Assessment

Appeals in the exercise of its appellate jurisdiction over cases involving the assessment and taxation of real property originally decided by the provincial or city board of assessment appeals;

(6)

Decisions

of the Secretary of Finance on customs cases elevated to him automatically for review, from decisions of the Commissioner of Customs which are adverse to the Government under Section

2315 of the Tariff and Customs

Code;

(7)

Decisions

of the Secretary of Trade and Industry, in the case of nonagricultural product, commodity or article,

and the Secretary of Agriculture

in the case of agricultural product, commodity or article, involving dumping and countervailing duties under

Sections

301 and 302, respectively, of the Tariff and Customs Code, and safeguard measures under Republic Act No. 8800, where either party may appeal the decision to impose or not to impose said duties.

(b) Jurisdiction over cases involving criminal offenses as herein provided: ( 1)

Exclusive

original jurisdiction over all criminal offenses arising from violations j

of the National Internal Revenue

CTA AC NO. 83

Code or Tariff and

Customs

Code

and other laws administered by the Bureau of

Internal

Revenue

and the Bureau of Customs: Provided, however,

That

offenses or felonies mentioned in this paragraph where the principal amount of taxes and fees, exclusive of charges and penalties, claimed is less than

One

million pesos (Pl,OOO,OOO.OO) or where there is no specified amount claimed shall be tried by the regular Courts and the jurisdiction of the CTA shall be appellate. xxx.

(2) Exclusive appellate jurisdiction in criminal offenses:

(a)

Over

appeals from the judgments, resolutions or orders of the

Regional

Trial

Courts in taxes cases decided by them, in their respective territorial jurisdiction.

(b) Over petitions for review of the judgments, resolutions or orders of the

Regional Trial Courts in

the exercise of their appellate jurisdiction over taxes cases originally decided by the

Metropolitan

Trial

Courts, Municipal Trial

Courts

and

Municipal

Circuit Trial Courts in

their respective jurisdiction.

j

CTA AC NO. 83

(c) Jurisdiction over tax collection cases as herein provided:

(1)

Exclusive

original jurisdiction in tax collection cases involving final and executory assessments for taxes, fees, charges and penalties:

Provided, however, That Collection cases where the principal amount of taxes and fees, exclusive of charges and penalties, claimed is less than

One

million pesos (Pl,OOO,OOO.OO) shall be tried by the proper Municipal Trial Court, Metropolitan Trial Court and Regional Trial Court.

(2) Exclusive appellate jurisdiction in tax collection cases:

(a)

Over

appeals from the judgments, resolutions or orders of the

Regional

Trial

Courts in tax collection cases originally decided by them, in their respective territorial jurisdiction.

(b) Over petitions for review of the judgments, resolutions or orders of the

Regional Trial Courts in

the exercise of their appellate jurisdiction over tax collection cases originally decided by the

Metropolitan

Trial

Courts, Municipal Trial

Courts

and

Municipal

Circuit Trial Courts, in their respective~ -

CTA AC NO. 83 jurisdiction.

supplied)

(Emphasis

Thus, with regard to decisions, judgments, orders or resolutions of RTCs, the

CTA's

exclusive appellate jurisdiction to review the same by appeal or by petition for review is limited to the following:

1. Decisions, orders or resolutions of RTCs in local tax cases originally decided or resolved by them in the exercise of their original jurisdiction;

2. Decisions, orders or resolution of RTCs in local tax cases decided or resolved by them in the exercise of their appellate jurisdiction;

3. Judgments, resolutions or orders of RTCs in criminal offenses (tax cases) originally decided by them in their respective territorial jurisdiction;

4.

Judgments, resolutions or orders of RTCs in the exercise of their appellate jurisdiction over criminal offenses (tax cases) originally decided by the Metropolitan Trial Courts, Municipal Trial

Courts and Municipal Circuit Trial Courts in

their respective jurisdiction;

5. Judgments, orders or resolutions of RTCs in tax collection cases originally decided by them, in their respective territorial jurisdiction; and 6.

Judgments, resolutions or orders of RTCs in the exercise of their appellate jurisdiction over tax collection cases originally decided by the Metropolitan Trial Courts, Municipal Trial Courts and Municipal Circuit Trial Courts, in their respective jurisdiction.

There is nothing in Section 7 of RA No. 1125, as amended, as well as in Sections 2 and 3 of the Revised

CTA AC NO. 83

Rules of the CTA (RRCTA) 25 which give the CTA - whether in Division or En Bane - jurisdiction over cases decided by the

RTC

involving petitions for injunction to restrain the collection of national internal revenue taxes. In the absence of a clear mandate from the law creating this Court, it cannot assume jurisdiction over the petition assailing the Resolutions of the RTC of Agusan dismissing petitioner's Petition for Injunction to restrain the transfer of petitioner's fund to respondent pursuant to Warrant of Garnishment issued by the latter and denying petitioner's Motion for Reconsideration. Considering that this Court has no jurisdiction over the subject matter of the appeal and it has no authority to resolve the same on the merits, this Court has no option but to dismiss the instant Petition for Review.

To repeat jurisdiction is conferred by law. 26 Thus, any judgment, order or resolution issued without jurisdiction is

CTA AC NO. 83 void 27 and cannot be given any effect. 28 Jurisdiction can be challenged at any stage of the proceedings and for lack of it, a court can dismiss a case ex mero motu. 29 Despite competence, the Court cannot also possibly rule on petitioner's prayer to enjoin the implementation of the Warrant of Garnishment pending the resolution of its appeal and to declare said Warrant of Garnishment null and void.

There is no dispute that the CTA has appellate jurisdiction over other cases arising under the NIRC or related laws administered by the BIR, which include the determination of whether a Warrant of Garnishment issued by the BIR is valid or void. Section 7(a)(1) of RA No. 1125, as amended, provides:

SEC. 7. Jurisdiction. - The CTA shall exercise:

(a) Exclusive appellate jurisdiction to review by appeal, as herein provided: (1)

Decisions

of the

Commissioner

of

Internal

Revenue

in cases involving disputed assessments, refunds of internal revenue taxes, fees or other charges, penalties in relation thereto, or other matters ans1ng under the

National

Internal

Revenue

Code

or other laws administered by the Bureau of

Internal

Revenue;

(Emphasis supplied)

CTA AC NO. 83

In the case of Philippine Journalists, Inc. vs. Commissioner of Internal Revenue30, the Supreme Court states:

The appellate jurisdiction of the CTA is not limited to cases which involve decisions of the Commissioner of

Internal

Revenue

on matters relating to assessments or refunds. The second part of the prov1s1on covers other cases that arise out of the NIRC or related laws administered by the Bureau of Internal Revenue. The wording of the provision is clear and simple. It gives the CTA the jurisdiction to determine if the warrant of distraint and levy issued by the BIR is valid and to rule if the Waiver of Statute of Limitations was validly effected.

This is not the first case where the CTA validly ruled on issues that did not relate directly to a disputed assessment or a claim for refund. In Pantoja v. David, we upheld the jurisdiction of the CTA to act on a petition to invalidate and annul the distraint orders of the Commissioner of Internal Revenue. Also, in Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Court of Appeals, the decision of the

CTA

declaring several waivers executed by the taxpayer as null and void, thus invalidating the assessments issued by the BIR, was upheld by this Court.

(Emphases

supplied;

citations omitted) However, the exercise of the Court's jurisdiction to rule on decisions of the Commissioner of Internal Revenue (CIR) on other matters arising under the NIRC or other laws administered by the BIR, is conditioned on the timeliness of the filing of the appeal.

CTA AC NO. 83 or the Regional Trial Court, provincial, city or municipal treasurer or the Secretary of Finance, the

Secretary of Trade

and Industry or the Secretary of Agriculture, as the case may be, shall suspend the payment, levy, distraint, and/or sale of any property of the taxpayer for the satisfaction of his tax liability as provided by existing law: Provided, however, that when in the opinion of the Court the collection by the aforementioned government agencies may jeopardize the interest of the Government and/or the taxpayer the Court at any stage of the proceeding may suspend the said collection and require the taxpayer either to deposit the amount claimed or to file a surety bond for not more than double the amount with the Court.

(Emphasis

supplied) As borne by the record of the case, respondent served the Warrant of Garnishment to the DBP, San Francisco Branch, garnishing the General Fund of petitioner in the amount of Php734,793.63 for the income tax due for 1997 and 1999 on January 6, 2011. 31 Pursuant to Section 11 of RA No. 1125, as amended, petitioner had thirty (30) days from January 6, 2011 or until February 5, 2011, within which to seek the nullification of the Warrant of Garnishment. However, instead of filing a Petition for Review with the CTA, petitioner filed a Petition for Injunction with the RTC of Agusan on January 28, 2011. For reason only known to it, petitioner filed the instant Petition for Review only on December 8, 2011 to appeal the assailed Resolutions of the RTC of Agusan. Since the perfection of an appeal in the manner and within the period permitted by law is not only mandatory but also jurisdictional, the failure to perfect the appeal renders the Warrant of Garnishment final and executory and beyond J the power of this Court to review. 32

CTA AC NO. 83

In fine, the Court is already deprived of jurisdiction to enjoin the implementation of the Warrant of Garnishment and declare the same as null and void since no Petition for Review was timely filed before the Court pursuant to Section 11 of RA No. 1125, as amended.

WHEREFORE, the instant Petition for Review filed by petitioner

San

Francisco

Water

District

is hereby DISMISSED, for lack of jurisdiction.

ATTESTATION

. FASON-VICTORINO I attest that the conclusions in the above Decision were reached in consultation before the case was assigned to the writer of the opinion of the Court's Division. E~ P.UY

Chairperson

CTA AC NO. 83

CERTIFICATION

Pursuant to Article VIII, Section 13 of the Constitution, and the Division Chairperson's Attestation, it is hereby certified that the conclusions in the above Decision were reached in consultation before the case was assigned to the writer of the opinion of the Court.

Presiding Justice