G.R. No. 101132 - JANUARY 1993 - PHILIPPINE JURISPRUDENCE CASE NUMBERCASE TITLE G.R. No. 101132January 29, 1993 Renato L. Liboro vs. Court of Appeals et al. G.R. No. 96950January 29, 1993 People of the Philippines vs. Dominador Villarin G.R. No. 96921January 29, 1993 Development Bank of the Philippines vs. Judge Amir Pundogar G.R. No. 89036January 29, 1993 People of the Philippines vs. Jaime P. Magallanes G.R. No. 88821January 29, 1993 People of the Philippines vs. Elmer L. Danguilan G.R. Nos. 86883-85January 29, 1993 People of the Philippines vs. Norberto Manero, Jr., et al. G.R. No. 67035January 29, 1993 Phil.-Singapore Ports Corp. vs. National Labor Relations Commission, et al. G.R. Nos. 64821-23January 29, 1993 Univ. of Pangasinan Faculty Union vs. National Labor Relations Commission, et al. G.R. No. 59888January 29, 1993 Carlos Caballero vs. Court of Appeals et al. G.R. No. 45664January 29, 1993 National Power Corporation vs. Court of Appeals, et al. G.R. No. 106041January 29, 1993 Benguet Corporation vs. Central Bo. of Asses. Appeals, Et. Al G.R. No. 104848January 29, 1993 Antonio Gallardo, et al. vs. Sinforoso V. Tabamo, Jr., et Al G.R. No. 103590January 29, 1993 GOVERNMENT SERVICE INSURANCE SYSTEM vs. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL. G.R. No. 103578January 29, 1993 Rodolfo T. Allarde vs. Commission On Audit et al. G.R. No. 102685January 29, 1993 Miguel M. Medija, Jr. vs. Sandiganbayan, et al. G.R. No. 101976January 29, 1993 Commissioner of Internal Revenue vs. Commission On Audit G.R. Nos. 100264-81January 29, 1993 Devt. Bank of the Philippines vs. National Labor Relations Commission A.M. No. MTJ-91-619January 29, 1993 Hugolino V. Balayon, Jr. vs. Gaydifredo O. Ocampo A.M. No. P-89-290January 29, 1993 Office of the Court Administrator vs. Ramon G. Enriquez A.C. No. 1512January 29, 1993 Victoria Barrientos vs. Transfiguracion Daarol G.R. No. 98451January 28, 1993 Dolomite Mining Corporation vs. Dionisia Montalbo, et al. G.R. No. 103292January 27, 1993 People of the Philippines vs. Modesto F. Cabuang, et al. G.R. No. 100800January 27, 1993 People of the Philippines vs. Romeo Boniao G.R. Nos. 99289-90January 27, 1993 Miriam Defensor-Santiago vs. Conrado M. Vasquez, et Al G.R. No. 98695January 27, 1993 Juan J. Syquia, et al. vs. Court of Appeals, et al. G.R. No. 98069January 27, 1993 People of the Philippines vs. Ramon Flores, et al. G.R. No. 96177January 27, 1993 People of the Philippines vs. Mari H. Musa G.R. No. 95329January 27, 1993 Heracio R. Revilla vs. Court of Appeals, et al. G.R. No. 94337January 27, 1993 Pople of the Philippines vs. Utoh D. Lakibul G.R. No. 84274January 27, 1993 People of the Philippines vs. Gito Magalang, et al. G.R. No. 83992January 27, 1993 Rural Bank of Davao City, Inc. vs. Court of Appeals, et al. G.R. No. 100894January 26, 1993 Jose R. Guevarra vs. Court of Appeals, et al. G.R. No. 104019January 25, 1993 Victronics Computers, Inc. vs. Regional Trial Court, Branch 63, Makati, et al. G.R. No. 102005January 25, 1993 People of the Philippines vs. Fortunato Pamon, et al. G.R. Nos. 100917-18January 25, 1993 People of the Philippines vs. Florentino Adlawan, et al. G.R. No. 87165January 25, 1993 People of the Philippines vs. Leticia Labarias G.R. Nos. 34189-91January 25, 1993 Victory Liner, Inc. vs. Jose E. Evangelista, et al. G.R. No. 103185January 22, 1993 Conrado Calalang vs. Court of Appeals, et al. G.R. No. 101535January 22, 1993 Phil. National Const. Corp. vs. National Labor Relations Commission, et al. G.R. No. 97196January 22, 1993 China City Restaurant Corp. vs. National Labor Relations Commission, et al. G.R. No. 94927January 22, 1993 Roberto Rubio Alcasid, et al. vs. Court of Appeals, et al. G.R. No. 94134January 22, 1993 People of the Philippines vs. Enrique G. Pariente G.R. No. 93240January 22, 1993 People of the Philippines vs. Catalino H. Lorioda, et al. G.R. No. 75605January 22, 1993 Rafael (Rex) Verendia vs. Court of Appeals, et al. G.R. No. 70547January 22, 1993 Phil. National Railways, et al. vs. Intermediate Appellate Court, et al. G.R. Nos. L-51385-86January 22, 1993 People of the Philippines vs. Damaso De Guzman G.R. No. 103323January 21, 1993 Ramon S. Paulin, et al. vs. Celso M. Gimenez, et al. G.R. No. 102432January 21, 1993 Ricardo P. Presbitero, Sr. vs. Court of Appeals, et al. G.R. No. 100446January 21, 1993 Aboitiz Shipping Corporation vs. General Accident Fire And Life Assurance Corp. G.R. No. 97995January 21, 1993 Philippine National Bank vs. Court of Appeals, et al. G.R. No. 96895January 21, 1993 Oscar L. Pili vs. National Labor Relations Commission, et al. G.R. No. 94704January 21, 1993 People of Philippines vs. Cherina Dayon G.R. No. 86683January 21, 1993 Philip S. Yu vs. Court of Appeals, et al. G.R. No. 66140January 21, 1993 Industrial Textile Manufacturing Company of the Philippines, Inc. vs. Lpj Enterprises, Inc. G.R. No. 57092January 21, 1993 Edgardo De Jesus, et al. vs. Court of Appeals, et al. G.R. No. 42204January 21, 1993 Ramon J. Farolan, Jr. vs. Court of Tax Appeals, et Al G.R. No. 102063January 20, 1993 People of the Philippines vs. Rolando G. De La Cruz G.R. No. 93407January 20, 1993 People of the Philippines vs. Ricardo C. Pinto G.R. No. 76497January 20, 1993 BA Finance Corporation vs. Intermediate Appellate Court, et al. G.R. Nos. 102633-35January 19, 1993 Rhone-Poulenc Agrochemicals Philippines, Inc. vs. National Labor Relations Commission, et al. G.R. No. 101527January 19, 1993 Imperial Textile Mills, Inc. vs. National Labor Relations Commission, et al. G.R. No. 102380January 18, 1993 Herodotus P. Acebedo, et al. vs. Bernardo P. Abesamis, et al. G.R. No. 102978January 18, 1993 People of the Philippines vs. Reynaldo B. Morre G.R. No. 102836January 18, 1993 Isidro Cariño, et al. vs. Carlos Ofilada, et al. G.R. No. 102603January 18, 1993 Sps. Villamor Donato And Luzonia O. Donato vs. Court of Appeals, et al. G.R. No. 100199January 18, 1993 People of the Philippines vs. Prudencio Dominguez, et al. G.R. No. 97934January 18, 1993 People of the Philippines vs. Primo Camaddo, et al. G.R. Nos. 95156-94January 18, 1993 People of the Philippines vs. Rodolfo Dulay G.R. No. 92600January 18, 1993 People of the Philippines vs. Orlando C. Dulay G.R. No. 90602January 18, 1993 People of the Philippines vs. Rolando D. Pacleb G.R. No. 100586January 15, 1993 People of the Philippines vs. Dindo Castillon, et al. G.R. No. 93517January 15, 1993 People of the Philippines vs. Isabelo Guibao G.R. No. 101163January 11, 1993 State Investment House, Inc., vs. Court of Appeals, et al. G.R. No. 88694January 11, 1993 Albenson Enterprises Corp., et al. vs. Court of Appeals, et al. G.R. No. 101929January 6, 1993 Benjamin Dizon, et al. vs. Court of Appeals, et al. G.R. No. 97229January 5, 1993 People of the Philippines vs. Edna P. Cordero The Lawphil Project - Arellano Law Foundation, Inc. Renato L. Liboro vs. Court of Appeals et al. People of the Philippines vs. Dominador Villarin Development Bank of the Philippines vs. Judge Amir Pundogar People of the Philippines vs. Jaime P. Magallanes People of the Philippines vs. Elmer L. Danguilan People of the Philippines vs. Norberto Manero, Jr., et al. Phil.-Singapore Ports Corp. vs. National Labor Relations Commission, et al. Univ. of Pangasinan Faculty Union vs. National Labor Relations Commission, et al. Carlos Caballero vs. Court of Appeals et al. National Power Corporation vs. Court of Appeals, et al. Benguet Corporation vs. Central Bo. of Asses. Appeals, Et. Al Antonio Gallardo, et al. vs. Sinforoso V. Tabamo, Jr., et Al GOVERNMENT SERVICE INSURANCE SYSTEM vs. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL. Rodolfo T. Allarde vs. Commission On Audit et al. Miguel M. Medija, Jr. vs. Sandiganbayan, et al. Commissioner of Internal Revenue vs. Commission On Audit Devt. Bank of the Philippines vs. National Labor Relations Commission Hugolino V. Balayon, Jr. vs. Gaydifredo O. Ocampo Office of the Court Administrator vs. Ramon G. Enriquez Victoria Barrientos vs. Transfiguracion Daarol Dolomite Mining Corporation vs. Dionisia Montalbo, et al. People of the Philippines vs. Modesto F. Cabuang, et al. People of the Philippines vs. Romeo Boniao Miriam Defensor-Santiago vs. Conrado M. Vasquez, et Al Juan J. Syquia, et al. vs. Court of Appeals, et al. People of the Philippines vs. Ramon Flores, et al. People of the Philippines vs. Mari H. Musa Heracio R. Revilla vs. Court of Appeals, et al. Pople of the Philippines vs. Utoh D. Lakibul People of the Philippines vs. Gito Magalang, et al. Rural Bank of Davao City, Inc. vs. Court of Appeals, et al. Jose R. Guevarra vs. Court of Appeals, et al. Victronics Computers, Inc. vs. Regional Trial Court, Branch 63, Makati, et al. People of the Philippines vs. Fortunato Pamon, et al. People of the Philippines vs. Florentino Adlawan, et al. People of the Philippines vs. Leticia Labarias Victory Liner, Inc. vs. Jose E. Evangelista, et al. Conrado Calalang vs. Court of Appeals, et al. Phil. National Const. Corp. vs. National Labor Relations Commission, et al. China City Restaurant Corp. vs. National Labor Relations Commission, et al. Roberto Rubio Alcasid, et al. vs. Court of Appeals, et al. People of the Philippines vs. Enrique G. Pariente People of the Philippines vs. Catalino H. Lorioda, et al. Rafael (Rex) Verendia vs. Court of Appeals, et al. Phil. National Railways, et al. vs. Intermediate Appellate Court, et al. People of the Philippines vs. Damaso De Guzman Ramon S. Paulin, et al. vs. Celso M. Gimenez, et al. Ricardo P. Presbitero, Sr. vs. Court of Appeals, et al. Aboitiz Shipping Corporation vs. General Accident Fire And Life Assurance Corp. Philippine National Bank vs. Court of Appeals, et al. Oscar L. Pili vs. National Labor Relations Commission, et al. People of Philippines vs. Cherina Dayon Philip S. Yu vs. Court of Appeals, et al. Industrial Textile Manufacturing Company of the Philippines, Inc. vs. Lpj Enterprises, Inc. Edgardo De Jesus, et al. vs. Court of Appeals, et al. Ramon J. Farolan, Jr. vs. Court of Tax Appeals, et Al People of the Philippines vs. Rolando G. De La Cruz People of the Philippines vs. Ricardo C. Pinto BA Finance Corporation vs. Intermediate Appellate Court, et al. Rhone-Poulenc Agrochemicals Philippines, Inc. vs. National Labor Relations Commission, et al. Imperial Textile Mills, Inc. vs. National Labor Relations Commission, et al. Herodotus P. Acebedo, et al. vs. Bernardo P. Abesamis, et al. People of the Philippines vs. Reynaldo B. Morre Isidro Cariño, et al. vs. Carlos Ofilada, et al. Sps. Villamor Donato And Luzonia O. Donato vs. Court of Appeals, et al. People of the Philippines vs. Prudencio Dominguez, et al. People of the Philippines vs. Primo Camaddo, et al. People of the Philippines vs. Rodolfo Dulay People of the Philippines vs. Orlando C. Dulay People of the Philippines vs. Rolando D. Pacleb People of the Philippines vs. Dindo Castillon, et al. People of the Philippines vs. Isabelo Guibao State Investment House, Inc., vs. Court of Appeals, et al. Albenson Enterprises Corp., et al. vs. Court of Appeals, et al. Benjamin Dizon, et al. vs. Court of Appeals, et al. People of the Philippines vs. Edna P. Cordero The Lawphil Project - Arellano Law Foundation, Inc.
Republic of the Philippines
SUPREME COURT
Manila
EN BANC
G.R. No. 101132 January 29, 1993
RENATO L. LIBORO, petitioner,
vs.
COURT OF APPEALS, COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE and COURT OF TAX APPEALS,respondents.
G.R. No. 105368 January 29, 1993
COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, petitioner,
vs.
COURT OF APPEALS, MANUEL G. ABELLO, JOSE C. CONCEPCION, TEODORO D. REGALA, AVELINO V. CRUZ, and COURT OF TAX APPEALS, respondents.
M.L. Gadioma Law Office for petitioner in G.R. No. 101132.
Angara, Abello, Concepcion, Regala and Cruz for parties in G.R. No. 105368.
BELLOSILLO,J.:
These two cases have drawn the Office of the Solicitor General to take opposing sides of a common issue. While it zealously defends respondents in G.R. No. 101132, it vigorously argues for petitioner in G.R. No. 105368. The petitions herein were consolidated because they involve common questions of law arising from a similar set of facts.
Statement of Facts
In G.R. No. 101132: Petitioner Renato L. Liboro is a practicing lawyer who on 15 April 1981 filed his income tax return for the year 1980. However, an examiner of the Bureau of Internal Revenue found his return deficient of P14,009.84.1On 30 September and 30 November 1985, petitioner was notified of his tax deficiency. He responded with a protest letter dated 19 December 1985.
On 11 May 1988, respondent Commissioner of Internal Revenue denied petitioner's protest for lack of legal basis. Petitioner then filed a petition for review before respondent Court of Tax Appeals. On 29 March 1991, respondent Court of Tax Appeals rendered a decision2in CTA Case No. 4270 dismissing the petition for lack of merit. Petitioner received copy of the decision on 29 May 1991 and had until 13 June 1991 to file a petition for review before respondent Court of Appeals.
However, on 11 June 1991, instead of filing a petition for review with the Court of Appeals, petitioner filed a Notice of Appeal with the Court of Tax Appeals, and on 13 June 1991, a motion for an extension of thirty (30) days to file petition for review before respondent Court of Appeals, docketed therein as CA-G.R. SP No. 25152. On 20 June 1991, the Special Tenth Division of respondent Court of Appeals ruling that "[t]here is nothing in the said Supreme Court Circular in point which authorizes an extension of the period for the filing of a petition for review before this Court," denied the petition and regarded the proceedings closed and terminated.3On 18 July 1991, the Tenth Division4denied petitioner's motion for reconsideration as well as the admission of its Petition for Review.5Hence, the instant petition inG.R. No. 101132.
In G.R. No. 105368: Petitioner Commissioner of Internal Revenue rejected the argument of private respondents Manuel G. Abello, Jose C. Concepcion, Teodoro D. Regala and Avelino V. Cruz that they were not liable for donors tax of P263,032.66 each for their contributions to the campaign chest of Sen. Edgardo J. Angara when the latter ran for the Senate in the 1987 elections, on the ground that a political or electoral contribution is not a gift within the contemplation of the National Internal Revenue Code.
On 12 September 1988, private respondents filed a petition for review before respondent Court of Tax Appeals, docketed as CTA Case No. 4296. On 21 November 1991, respondent Court of Tax Appeals held that "transfer of property in the form of contributions or expenditures in elections are not gifts within the meaning of the gift tax law," and ordered respondent Commissioner to withdraw his assessments and desist from collecting donor's taxes.6Petitioner Commissioner of Internal Revenue received copy of the decision of respondent Court of Tax Appeals on 9 January 1992 and had until 24 January 1992 within which to file a petition for review before respondent Court of Appeals. However, on 24 January 1992, instead of filing his petition for review in
CA-G.R. SP No. 27134, petitioner filed a motion for extension of thirty (30) days or until 23 February 1992 to file his petition for review.
On 30 January 1992, the Fifteenth Division of respondent Court of Appeals7granted the motion for extension of time but only for a non-extendible period of fifteen (15) days, or until 8 February 1992. On 20 February 1991, unmindful of the resolution of respondent Court of Appeals, petitioner filed a second motion for extension of thirty (30) days from 23 February 1992, or until 24 March 1992, to file a petition for review. On 24 March 1992, petitioner filed a third motion for extension of another ten (10) days.
Meanwhile, on 19 March 1992, the Tenth Division of respondent Court of Appeals issued a resolution denying petitioner's second motion for extension thus —
The period of fifteen (15) days granted to petitioner within which to file a petition for review being non-extendible, petitioner's motion for an additional extension of thirty (30) days, filed on February 21, 1992 is DENIED, pursuant to the ruling in the case ofLacsamana, et al. v. The Honorable Second Special Cases Division of the Intermediate Appellate Court, et al., (L-73146-53, August 26, 1986).8
On 30 April 1992, respondent Court of Appeals denied petitioner's motion for reconsideration as well as the admission of its Petition for Review.9Hence, the instant petition inG.R. No. 105368.
Common Issue
The issue before Us is whether Circular No. 1-9110of this Court allows the Court of Appeals to grant motions for extension of time to file petitions for review from final orders or decisions of the Court of Tax Appeals and other quasi-judicial agencies.
Arguments
In G.R. No. 101132, the Office of the Solicitor General arguing for respondent Commissioner of Internal Revenue11submits that Circular No. 1-91 "clearly prescribes that the appeal be taken within fifteen (15) days from notice of the questioned ruling, award, or judgment by filing with the Court of Appeals a verified petition for review in six (6) legible copies, serving copy thereof on the adverse party and the court or agency of origin."12Hence, appeal from the Court of Tax Appeals is taken by filing a petition for review with the Court of Appeals within the period provided in Circular No. 1-91. Consequently, petitioner Atty. Renato L. Liboro then had only fifteen (15) days within which to file a petition for review of the decision of the Court of Tax Appeals before the Court of Appeals, and is not allowed to file a motion for extension of time therefor.
However, in G.R. No. 105368, the Office of the Solicitor General maintains that "respondent Court of Appeals can grant a longer period of time within which to file a petition for review oncertiorari(sic) if there are meritorious reasons therefor,"13and that its discretion in giving due course to an appeal should be guided and tempered by the interest of justice.14Moreover, to justify the successive motions for extension of time, the Office of the Solicitor General claims that it has been burdened with a continuing heavy pressure of work handling as it does no less than 89,000 cases before quasi-judicial bodies, Regional Trial Courts, the Sandiganbayan, the Court of Appeals and the Supreme Court, around 7,000 of which cases are assigned to an Assistant Solicitor General, and at least 700 of which are delegated to each Solicitor.15Consequently, the motion for extension of time to file petition for review should have been granted, and the petition given due course.
Conclusion
The Solicitor General is persuasive in G.R. No. 105368. However, his reference toHabaluyas Enterprises, Inc. v. Judge Japson16in G.R. No. 101132 is misplaced. WhileHabaluyasprohibits any motion for extension of time to file a motion for new trial or reconsideration, thus —
Hence, for the guidance of Bench and Bar, the Court restates and clarifies the rules on this point, as follows: 1.) Beginning one month after the promulgation of this Resolution, the rule shall be strictly enforced thatno motion for extension of time to file a motion for new trial or reconsiderationmay be filed with the Metropolitan or Municipal Trial Courts, the Regional Trial Courts, and the Intermediate Appellate Court.Such a motion may be filed only in cases pending with the Supreme Courtas the court of last resort, which may in its sound discretion either grant or deny the extension requested . . . .
the cases at bar concern not a motion for extension of time to file a motion for new trial or reconsideration, but to file a petition for review.
Indeed, the case ofLacsamana v. Second Special Cases Division of the Intermediate Appellate Court17invoked by the Solicitor General in G.R. No 105368 is more authoritative and applicable. Although the case involves an appeal from a decision of the Regional Trial Court, it deals directly with a motion for an extension of time to file a petition for review with the Court of Appeals. InLacsamanacase, We restated and clarified the modes and periods of appeal set forth inHabaluyasthus —
1)Ordinary Appeals by mere Notice of Appeal.—In an ordinary appeal from the final judgment or order of a metropolitan or municipal trial court to the regional trial court, and from the regional trial court to the Court of Appeals in actions or proceedings originally filed in the regional trial court, thefifteen-day period for appealprovided by Section 39 of BP No. 129 and Section 19(a) of the Interim Rules is interrupted or suspended by a motion for new trial or reconsideration, unless such motion fails to satisfy the requirements of Rule 37 (Section 3 of Rule 41). If the motion for new trial or reconsideration is denied, the moving party has only the remaining period from notice of denial within which to file a notice of appeal, which is the only requirement for taking an appeal under the present rules. Obviously,no extension of time to file such a notice of appeal is needed, much less allowed.
xxx xxx xxx
3)Appeals by Petition for Review to the Court of Appeals. — The final judgment or order of a regional trial court in an appeal from the final judgment or order of a metropolitan trial court, municipal trial court and municipal circuit trial court, may be appealed to the Court of Appeals through a petition for review, in accordance with Section 22 of BP No. 129 and Section 22(b) of the Interim Rules, or to this Court through a petition for review oncertiorariin accordance with Rule 45 of the Rules of Court and Section 25 of the Interim Rules. The reason for extending the period for the filing of a record on appeal is also applicable to the filing of a petition for review with the Court of Appeals.The period for filing a petition for review is fifteen days. If a motion for reconsideration is filed with and denied by a regional trial court, the movant has only the remaining period within which to file a petition for review. Hence, itmay be necessaryto file amotionwith the Court of Appealsfor extension of time to file such petition for review.
xxx xxx xxx
6)Period of Extension of Time to File Petition for Review. —Beginning one month after the promulgation of this Decision, an extension ofonly fifteen daysfor filing a petition for review may be granted by the Court of Appeals, save in exceptionally meritorious
cases . . . .
From these rules, it is clear that the prohibition against granting an extension of time applies only in a case where ordinary appeal is perfected by a mere notice of appeal. The reason is that only the filing of the notice of appeal is required to perfect an appeal and nothing more. However, it is different in a petition for review where the pleading is required to be verified. A petition for review, unlike an ordinary appeal, requires careful preparation and operose research in order to put up a persuasive and formidable position. In other words, the drafting petition for review entails more time and effort than filing a notice of appeal. Hence, inLacsamana, a motion for extension of time was granted to enable a party to file a petition for review from a final decision of the Regional Trial Court to the Court of Appeals in accordance with Sec. 22 of B.P. 129 and par. 22 (b) of the Interim Rules.
Since Circular No. 1-9118now provides that an appeal from the Court of Tax Appeals or other quasi-judicial agencies to the Court of Appeals is by a petition for review, and no longer by mere notice of appeal, thus —
4.Period of Appeal. — The appeal shall be taken within fifteen (15) days from notice of the ruling, award, order, decision, or judgment or from the date of its last publication, if publication is required by law for its effectivity. One (1) motion for reconsideration of said ruling, award, order, decision, or judgment may be allowed. If the motion is denied, the movant may appeal during the remaining period for appeal reckoned from notice of the resolution of denial.
5.How Appeal Taken. — Appeal shall be taken by filing a verified petition for review . . . . with the Court of Appeals, a copy of which shall be served on the adverse party and on the court or agency
a quo. . . .
a corresponding motion for extension of time to file a petition for review should likewise be granted. There is indeed no reason why a motion for extension of time to file a petition for review pursuant to Circular No. 1-91 may not be filed, if a motion for extension of time to file a petition for review pursuant to Sec. 22 of B.P. 129, and par. 22(b) of the Interim Rules, may be granted.
But the extension nonetheless should be limited only to fifteen (15) days, save in exceptionally meritorious cases where the Court of Appeals may grant a longer period, as similarly provided inLacsamana. Generally then, a
non-extendible period of fifteen (15) days may be granted unless there are compelling reasons which may warrant the allowance of a longer period. Thus,ubi eadem ratio, ibi eadem legis dispositio.19
Considering however that the procedure enunciated herein may work injustice to petitioners or those similarly situated if given retroactive application, as procedural statutes are accorded, in view of the absence in Circular No. 1-91 of an express provision regulating motions for extension of time to file a petition for review with the Court of Appeals from decisions of the Court of Tax Appeals and other quasi-judicial agencies, this Court resolves to give prospective application to the rule herein adopted.
Henceforth, for the guidance of the Bench and Bar, the Court further clarifies Circular No. 1-91 in relation withLacsamana, as follows —
Motions for extension of time to file petition for review.—As a matter of general policy, motions for extension of time to file petition for review of final decisions of the Court of Tax Appeals or any quasi-judicial agency pursuant to Circular No. 1-91 may be granted by the Court of Appeals for a period ofnot more than fifteen (15) days, save in exceptionally meritorious cases where the Court of Appeals may grant a longer period.
The motion for extension of time, which must contain a proof of service on the lower court, tribunal, office, or quasi-judicial agency concerned, as well as on the adverse parties, must be filed, and the corresponding docket fee paid within the reglementary period of appeal.
This shall take effect one month after the promulgation of this Decision.
WHEREFORE, the resolutions of respondent Court of Appeals in
CA-G.R. SP No. 25152 dated 20 June 1991 and 18 July 1991, and in CA-G.R. SP No. 27134 dated 19 March 1992 and 30 April 1992 areSET ASIDE. The Tenth Division of the Court of Appeals, and the Court of Appeals for that matter, are hereby ordered toADMITthe petitions for review in CA-G.R. SP No. 25152 and CA-G.R. SP No. 27134 and to continue with the proceedings, if warranted, until terminated.
SO ORDERED.
Narvasa, C.J., Gutierrez, Jr., Cruz, Feliciano, Padilla, Bidin, Griño-Aquino, Regalado, Davide, Jr., Romero, Nocon, Melo and Campos, Jr., JJ., concur.
#Footnotes
1 P12,284.11 as deficiency income tax assessment for taxable year 1980, and P1,725.73 as deficiency expanded withholding tax.
2 Penned by Presiding Judge Alex Z. Reyes, concurred in by Associate Judge Constante C. Roaquin and Acting Associate Judge Stella Dadivas-Farrales;Rollo, pp. 45-51.
3 Penned by Justice Fidel P. Purisima, Chairman, concurred in by Justices Filemon H. Mendoza (in lieu of Associate Justice Eduardo R. Bengzon who was on leave) and Salome A. Montoya, pp. 1-2;Rollo, p. 27-28.
4 Composed of Justice Fidel P. Purisima, Chairman, and Justices Eduardo R. Bengzon and Salome A. Montoya, Members
5Rollo, p. 30.
6 Penned by Associate Judge Ernesto D. Acosta, concurred in by Associate Judge Constante C. Roaquin, with Presiding Judge Alex Z. Reyes dissenting in a separate opinion, p. 14;Rollo, p. 114.
7 Composed of Ricardo L. Pronove, Jr., Chairman, and Justices Nicolas P. Lapeña, Jr., and Consuelo Ynares-Santiago, Members.
8 Penned by Justice Consuelo Ynares-Santiago, concurred in by Justice Fidel P. Purisima, Chairman, and Justice Minerva P. Gonzaga-Reyes;Rollo, pp. 53-54.
9Rollo, p. 134.
10 Circular No. 1-91, dated 27 February 1991, governs appeals to the Court of Appeals from final orders or decisions of the Court of Tax Appeals and other quasi-judicial agencies (see196 SCRA xi).
11 Represented by Solicitor General Francisco I. Chavez, Asst. Solicitor General Romeo C. de la Cruz and Solicitor Leah D. Regala.
12 Memorandum of respondent Commissioner of Internal Revenue, p. 7;Rollo, G.R. No. 101132, p. 106.
13SeePetition for review filed by Solicitor General Ramon S. Desuasido, Asst. Solicitor General Romeo C. de la Cruz, Solicitor Leah D. Regala and Solicitor Nestor J. Ballacillo, p. 8.
14Ibid., p. 11.
15Ibid, p. 12.
16 G.R. No. 70895, 30 May 1986; 142 SCRA 208.
17 G.R. Nos. 73146-53, 26 August 1986; 143 SCRA 643.
18 R.A. 5434, insofar as it refers to appeals from quasi-judicial bodies to the Intermediate Appellate Court, par. 22 (c) of the Resolution of the Court En Banc dated 11 January 1989 providing for the Interim or Transitional Rules and Guidelines relative to the Implementation of the Judicial Reorganization Act of 1981, and par. 4 of the Rules set forth inLacsamana,have in effect been repealed by Circular No. 1-91.
19 "Where there is the same reason, there is the same legal disposition;"seeEdroso v. Sablan, 25 Phil. 295, 315 (1913).