Christine Mae A.

Iscala LLB 3-B

G.R. No. 168498

Rizal Commercial Banking Corporation vs. CIR
June 16, 2006
Ynares-Santiago, J.

Facts:

On July 5, 2001, petitioner Rizal Commercial Banking Corporation (RCBC for brevity) received a
Letter of Demand dated May 25, 2001 from the respondent Commissioner of Internal Revenue (CIR) 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.

On July 20, 2001, RCBC filed a protest to the assessment made by the CIR pursuant to Sec 228 of
the NIRC. However, the protest was not acted upon by the respondent. Hence, RCBC filed a petition for
review with the Court of Tax Appeals (CTA) for the cancellation of said assessments on April 30, 2002.

On July 15, 2003, CIR filed a motion to resolve first the issue of CTAs jurisdiction, which was
granted by the CTA in a Resolution dated September 10, 2003.The petition for review was dismissed
because it was filed beyond the 30-day period following the lapse of 180 days from RCBCs submission of
documents in support of its protest, as provided under Section 228 of the NIRC in relation to Section 11
of R.A. No. 1125, otherwise known as the Law Creating the Court of Tax Appeals.

RCBC neither filed an appeal nor a motion for reconsideration from the dismissal rendered by the
CTA division; rendering the assailed resolution final and executory on October 1, 2003 and an Entry of
Judgment made on December 1, 2003. Thereafter, CIR sent a demand letter to RCBC for the payment of
the deficiency tax assessments.

RCBC filed On February 20, 2004, a Petition for Relief from Judgment on the ground of excusable
negligence of its counsels secretary who allegedly misfiled and lost the September 10,
2003 Resolution. The CTA Second Division set the case for hearing on April 2, 2004 during which RCBC’s
counsel was present. CIR filed an Opposition while petitioner submitted its Manifestation and Counter-
Motion.

On May 3, 2004, the CTA Second Division rendered a Resolution denying RCBC’s Petition for
Relief from Judgment. Petitioner’s motion for reconsideration was denied in a Resolution dated
November 5, 2004, hence it filed a petition for review with the CTA En Banc, which affirmed the assailed
Resolutions of the CTA Second Division. Hence, the present appeal.

Issue:
Whether or not the CTA and CTA En Banc erred in denying RCBC’s Petition for Relief from
Judgment?

Law Applicable to the Case:

SEC. 228. Protesting of Assessment.- x x x.

xxxx

Within a period to be prescribed by implementing rules and regulations, the

taxpayer shall be required to respond to said notice. If the taxpayer fails to respond, the
Commissioner or his duly authorized representative shall issue an assessment based on
his findings.

Such assessment may be protested administratively by filing a request for

reconsideration or reinvestigation within thirty (30) days from receipt of the assessment
in such form and manner as may be prescribed by implementing rules and
regulations. Within sixty (60) days from filing of the protest, all relevant supporting
documents shall have been submitted; otherwise, the assessment shall become final.

If the protest is denied in whole or in part, or is not acted upon within

one hundred eighty (180) days from submission of documents, the taxpayer
adversely affected by the decision or inaction may appeal to the Court of Tax
Appeals within (30) days from receipt of the said decision, or from the lapse of
the one hundred eighty (180)-day period; otherwise the decision shall become
final, executory and demandable. (Emphasis supplied)
Arguments:

The Petitioner argues that it was denied due process when it was not given the opportunity to be
heard to prove that its failure to file a motion for reconsideration or appeal from the dismissal of its
petition for review was due to the failure of its employee to forward the copy of the September 10, 2003
Resolution which constitutes excusable negligence. As a result, denying petitioner the right to due
process and did not afford them the right to prove their case on the merits and got dismissed on mere
technicality.
The Defendant CIR on the other hand, opposed the arguments of RCBC on the ground that the
relief they sought had already prescribed, pursuant to Sec. 228 of the NIRC.

Conclusion/Court’s Ruling:

NO. The CTA did not err in denying the Petition. It is basic that as long as a party is given the
opportunity to defend his interests in due course, he would have no reason to complain, for it is this
opportunity to be heard that makes up the essence of due process. Moreover, after the CTA Second
Division dismissed the petition for relief from judgment in a Resolution dated May 3, 2004, petitioner
filed a motion for reconsideration and the court further required both parties to file their respective
memorandum. Indeed, petitioner was not denied its day in court considering the opportunities given to
argue its claim.

As aptly observed by the OSG, even if the petition for relief from judgment would be granted,
petitioner will not fare any better if the case were to be returned to the CTA Second Division since its
action for the cancellation of its assessments had already prescribed.

In the instant case, the Commissioner failed to act on the disputed assessment within 180 days from
date of submission of documents. Thus, petitioner opted to file a petition for review before the Court of
Tax Appeals. Unfortunately, the petition for review was filed out of time, i.e., it was filed more than 30
days after the lapse of the 180-day period. Consequently, it was dismissed by the Court of Tax Appeals
for late filing. Petitioner did not file a motion for reconsideration or make an appeal; hence, the disputed
assessment became final, demandable and executory.

As provided in Section 228, the failure of a taxpayer to appeal from an assessment on time
rendered the assessment final, executory and demandable. Consequently, petitioner is precluded from
disputing the correctness of the assessment.

In fine, the failure to comply with the 30-day statutory period would bar the appeal and deprive
the Court of Tax Appeals of its jurisdiction to entertain and determine the correctness of the
assessment.

Thus, the assailed Decision is AFFIRMED.