Motion To Admit (REV)

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES
COURT OF TAX APPEALS

QUEZON CITY
EN BANC
CARLO J. CAPARAS
Petitioner,
- versus - CTA EB No. ________________

CTA CRIM. CASES Nos. 0-321, 0-
322, 0-323 and 0-324
COURT OF TAX APPEALS (3RD Div.),

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES,
and COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL
REVENUE
Respondents.
X-----------------------------------------------X
MOTION TO ADMIT
PETITION FOR CERTIORARI
COMES NOW the Petitioner, CARLO J. CAPARAS

(“Petitioner”), through counsel, and to this Honorable Court, most
respectfully states:
1. On 12 January 2017, the Court of Tax Appeals Third

Division (“Public Respondent”) issued its Resolution denying the
Petitioner’s Demurrer to the Respondent’s Evidence filed on 22
August 2016. The same was received by the Petitioner on 19 January
2017.
2. Within the reglementary period of 15 days, or on January

30, 2017, petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration of the aforesaid
Resolution.
3. On 13 June 2017, Petitioner received a copy of the

Resolution of the Public Respondent dated 2 June 2017, denying his
Motion for Reconsideration filed on 30 January 2017.
4. Petitioner thus had sixty (60) days from 13 June 2017, or
until 12 August 2017, within which to file the instant Petition.
5. Due to an event beyond the control of the undersigned

counsel and/or excusable negligence, the already prepared Petition
for Certiorari was not filed within the reglementary period provided
for by law on or before 12 August 2017.
6. The failure of the Petitioner to timely file the Petition for

Certiorari was due to a tragedy which befell on a family member of
the undersigned counsel.
6.01 That on 4 August 2017, death struck the mother of

the undersigned counsel which therefore required his
continuous attention to attend to his family. A certified true
copy of the Death Certificate is hereby attached as Annex “A.”
6.02. The presence of the undersigned counsel was

extremely required to facilitate the funeral arrangements for
the wake and internment of his mother.
6.03. On 8 August 2017, the burial of the undersigned

counsel’s mother took place.
6.04. The undersigned counsel was then tasked to take

care of the balances which were incurred for the funeral
services
6.05. By reason of this unforeseen and unfortunate event,

the undersigned counsel was unable to administer his duties
due to the distraught that was brought upon him.
7. Despite the urgency to file the above-entitled petition

within the reglementary period, the death of a family member
prevented the undersigned counsel to do so. Hence, the delay due to
excusable negligence.
8. The effects of the delay in filing the Petition for Certiorari
based on the circumstances abovementioned, should not, in the
interest of justice, deprive the Petitioner of his right to due process,
including the right to ventilate the merits of his case.
“x x x
The establishment of prompt efficacious

procedures to achieve legitimate state ends is a
proper state interest worthy of cognizance in
constitutional adjudication. But the Constitution
recognizes higher values than speed and efficiency.
Indeed, one might fairly say of the Bill of Rights in
general, and the Due Process Clause, in particular,
that they were designed to protect the fragile values of a
vulnerable citizenry from the overbearing concern for
efficiency and efficacy that may characterize praiseworthy
government officials no less, and perhaps more, than
mediocre ones.
(Stanley vs. Illinois, 404 U.S. 645, 656)
The United States, no doubt, shares the same

interest as the Philippine Government that no right
— that of liberty — secured not only by the Bills of
Rights of the Philippines Constitution but of the
United States as well, is sacrificed at the altar of
expediency.
xxx
In the Philippine context, this Court's ruling is

invoked:
One of the basic principles of the democratic

system is that where the rights of the individual are
concerned, the end does not justify the means. It is
not enough that there be a valid objective; it is also
necessary that the means employed to pursue it be in
keeping with the Constitution. Mere expediency will
not excuse constitutional shortcuts. There is no
question that not even the strongest moral conviction
or the most urgent public need, subject only to a few
notable exceptions, will excuse the bypassing of an
individual's rights. It is no exaggeration to say that a
person invoking a right guaranteed under Article III
of the Constitution is a majority of one even as
against the rest of the nation who would deny him
that right (Association of Small Landowners in the
Philippines, Inc. vs. Secretary of Agrarian Reform,
175 SCRA 343, 375-376 [1989]).”1
9. Thus, it is a legal maxim well entrenched in our

jurisprudence that the constitutional guarantees of freedom and fair
play accorded to the accused, being a substantive law, should prevail
over the procedural rule.2
“Ergo, where strong considerations of substantive

justice are manifest in the petition, the strict
application of the rules of procedure may be relaxed,
in the exercise of its equity jurisdiction. Thus, a rigid
application of the rules of procedure will not be
entertained if it will obstruct rather than serve the
broader interests of justice in the light of the
prevailing circumstances in the case under
consideration.”3
“x x x Procedural rules can bow to substantive

considerations through a liberal construction aimed
at promoting their objective of securing a just,
speedy and inexpensive disposition of every action
and proceeding.”4
10. Accordingly, Petitioner submits to this Honorable Court,

the attached Petition for Certiorari, and most respectfully prays that
the same be admitted, to serve the ends of justice and prevent grave
miscarriage thereof, as the Supreme Court had ruled in a case5, to wit:
“The general rule is that the perfection of an

appeal in the manner and within the period
prescribed by law is, not only mandatory, but
jurisdictional, and failure to conform to the rules will
render the judgment sought to be reviewed final and
unappealable. By way of exception, unintended
lapses are disregarded so as to give due course to
appeals filed beyond the reglementary period on
the basis of strong and compelling reasons, such as
1
Secretary of Justice v. Hon. Lantion, et. al., G.R. No. 139465, January 18, 2000.
2
Flores vs. Lindo, Jr. 648 SCRA 772, 783 [2011]
3
CMTC International Marketing Corporation v. Bhagis International Trading Corporation, G.R.
No. 170488, December 10, 2012.
4
Republic v. Hon. Caguioa et. al., G.R. No. 174385, February 20, 2013.
5
Department of Justice, et. al. v. Pennisi, G.R. No. 169958, March 5, 2010.
serving the ends of justice and preventing a grave
miscarriage thereof. The purpose behind the
limitation of the period of appeal is to avoid
an unreasonable delay in the administration of
justice and to put an end to controversies.”
PRAYER
WHEREFORE, premises considered, it is most respectfully

prayed of this Honorable Court that the attached Petition for
Certiorari be admitted in the interest of fair play and substantial
justice and to help maintain undersigned job during his trying
period with family.
Other reliefs just and equitable are likewise prayed for.
Makati City for Quezon City. 22 August 2017.
M.M. LAZARO AND ASSOCIATES

Counsel of Petitioner Carlo J. Caparas
19th Flr. Chatham House Bldg.
Valero cor. Rufino Streets
Salcedo Village, Makati City
Tel. No. 8441540; 8441731
Email: mmlazarofirm@mmlazarolaw.com
By:
PHILIPE T. AQUINO
PTR No. 5917994/01.11.17/Makati City
IBP LRN No. 09930/04.19.11/Makati City
Attorney’s Roll No. 59537
MCLE No. V-0019626/04.09.2016
Copy furnished:
COURT OF TAX APPEALS

Third Division
Public Respondent
Agham Road, Diliman
Quezon City
OFFICE OF THE SOLICITOR GENERAL

134 Amorsolo St.,
Legaspi Village, Makati City
PROS. GEN. CLARO A. ARELLANO

SR. ASST. STATE JUAN PEDRO C. NAVERA
National Prosecution Service
Department of Justice
Padre Faura, Manila
COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE

Private Respondent
ATTY. CATHERINE ROSE R. TORTOLES
Bureau of Internal Revenue
Room 704, Prosecution Division
BIR National Office Bldg.
BIR Road, Diliman Quezon City
EXPLANATION
Copies of this pleading were sent to the other parties by

registered mail, personal service not being practicable due to lack of
time and messengerial services.
PHILIPE T. AQUINO

Motion To Admit (REV)

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Motion To Admit (REV)

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Motion To Admit (REV)

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES

COURT OF TAX APPEALS

- versus - CTA EB No. ________________

COURT OF TAX APPEALS (3RD Div.),

COMES NOW the Petitioner, CARLO J. CAPARAS

1. On 12 January 2017, the Court of Tax Appeals Third

2. Within the reglementary period of 15 days, or on January

3. On 13 June 2017, Petitioner received a copy of the

5. Due to an event beyond the control of the undersigned

6. The failure of the Petitioner to timely file the Petition for

6.01 That on 4 August 2017, death struck the mother of

6.02. The presence of the undersigned counsel was

6.03. On 8 August 2017, the burial of the undersigned

6.04. The undersigned counsel was then tasked to take

6.05. By reason of this unforeseen and unfortunate event,

7. Despite the urgency to file the above-entitled petition

The establishment of prompt efficacious

(Stanley vs. Illinois, 404 U.S. 645, 656)

The United States, no doubt, shares the same

In the Philippine context, this Court's ruling is

One of the basic principles of the democratic

9. Thus, it is a legal maxim well entrenched in our

“Ergo, where strong considerations of substantive

“x x x Procedural rules can bow to substantive

10. Accordingly, Petitioner submits to this Honorable Court,

“The general rule is that the perfection of an

WHEREFORE, premises considered, it is most respectfully

Other reliefs just and equitable are likewise prayed for.

Makati City for Quezon City. 22 August 2017.

M.M. LAZARO AND ASSOCIATES

COURT OF TAX APPEALS

OFFICE OF THE SOLICITOR GENERAL

PROS. GEN. CLARO A. ARELLANO

COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE

Copies of this pleading were sent to the other parties by

You might also like