Cta Eb CV 01107 M 2015dec18 Ass

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES
COURT OF TAX APPEALS

QUEZON CITY
ENBANC
SAN FRANCISCO WATER CTA EB No. 1107

DISTRICT, Represented by its (CTA AC No. 83)
General Manager Engr. Elmer T.
Luzon,
Petitioner,
Present:
Del Rosario, P.J.,

-versus- Castaneda, Jr.,
Bautista,
Uy,
Casanova,
Fabon-Victorino,
Mindaro-Grulla,
Cotangco-Manalastas, and
THE BUREAU OF INTERNAL Ringpis-Liban, JJ.
REVENUE OF THE
DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE,
REP. HEREIN BY ITS REVENUE
DISTRICT OFICER, REVENUE Promulgated:
DISTRICT OFFICE 104,
BAYUGAN, AGUSAN DEL SUR, DEC 18 2015
Respondent.
X---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------X
RESOLUTION
CASTANEDA, JR., J.:
For the Court En Bane's resolution is petitioner's Motion for

Reconsideration of the Decision dated June 30, 2015, filed through
registered mail on August 4, 2015, with respondent's Comment filed on
October 15, 2015. 9t
RESOLUTION
CTA EB NO. 1107 (CTA AC NO. 83)
Page 2 of4
For easy reference, the dispositive portion of the assailed Decision

reads:
"WHEREFORE, in view thereof, the present Petition

for Review is hereby DISMISSED for lack of jurisdiction.
Accordingly, the Decision dated July 10, 2013 is hereby
AFFIRMED."
In its motion, petitioner submits that while it understands that the

Court En Bane has no jurisdiction to rule upon the merits of the instant
Petition, this Court has the power to review the propriety of the warrant of
garnishment issued by respondent.
On the other hand, respondent maintains that the Regional Trial Court
(RTC) did not err in dismissing the case for lack of jurisdiction.
From the foregoing, this Court is confronted with the issue whether it
has the power to hear, try and decide on the merits of the instant case.
We rule in the negative.
Jurisdiction is defined as the power and authority of the court to hear,

try and decide a case. 1 In relation thereto, "there is no rule in procedural law
as basic as the precept that jurisdiction is conferred by law, and any
judgment, order or resolution issued without it is void and cannot be given
any effect. " 2
As laid down in the assailed Decision, the CTA - whether sitting En

Bane or in division, is not conferred with jurisdiction to decide over cases
decided by the RTC vis a vis petitions for injunction to restrain the collection
of national internal revenue taxes. Thus:
"There is nothing in Section 7 of RA No. 1125, as

amended, as well as in Sections 2 and 3 of the Revised Rules of
the CTA (RRCTA) 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. f-
1
Maricris D. Dolo! v. Han. Ramon Paje, G.R. No. 199199, August 27, 2013, citing Landbank ofthe Philippines v.
Villegas, G.R. No. 180384, March 26,2010,616 SCRA 626,630.
2
Angelita P. Magno v. People of the Philippines, G.R. No. 171542, April 6, 2011, citing Machado v. Gatdula, G.R.
No. 156287, February 16, 2010, 612 SCRA 546, 559, citing Spouses Vargas v. Spouses Caminas, G.R. Nos. 137839-
40, June 12, 2008, 554 SCRA 305, 317; Metromedia Times Corporation v. Pastorin, G.R. No. 154295, July 29, 2005,
465 SCRA 320, 335; Dy v. National Labor Relations Commission, 229 Phil. 234, 242 (1986) and National Housing
Authority v. Commission on the Settlement of Land Problems, G.R. No. 142601, October 23,2006,505 SCRA 38, 43.
RESOLUTION
CTAEBNO.ll07(CTAACNO. 83)
Page 3 of4
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 R TC 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." 3
Petitioner recognizes that this Court has no jurisdiction to decide on

the merits of the Petition, yet, it pleads for this Court to review the propriety
of the warrant of garnishment issued by respondent, which precisely
involves the merits of the instant case. Consequently, it would be a mere
exercise in futility should this Court take cognizance of the instant Petition
albeit being bereft of the power to hear and decide the same.
Considering the foregoing, We see no compelling reason to reverse

the assailed Decision.
WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, petitioner's Motion for

Reconsideration is hereby DENIED, for lack of merit.
SO ORDERED.
~he.~/~
((jANITO C. CASTANEDA, SR.
Associate Justice
WE CONCUR:
I
~
(With Separate Cone ring Opinion)
ROMAN G. DEL ROSARIO
Presiding Justice
ER~.UY
Associate Justice
3
Decision dated June 30, 2015, Docket, p. 198.
RESOLUTION
CTA EB NO. 1107 (CTA AC NO. 83)
Page 4 of4
$---·
CAESAR. A. CASANOVA
Associate Justice
~N.M~LM~C~ ~/-~~-
CIELITO N. MINDARO-GRULLA AMELIA R. COTANGCO-MANALASTAS
Associate Justice Associate Justice
®.14.~ $'-
MA. BELEN M. RINGPIS LIBAN
Associate Justice
REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES
Court of Tax Appeals
QUEZON CITY
ENBANC
SAN FRANCISCO WATER CTA EB N0.1107

DISTRICT, Represented by its (CTA AC No. 83)
General Manager Engr. Elmer T.
Luzon,
Petitioner,
Present:
DEL ROSARIO, f_J

CASTANEDA, JR.,
-versus- BAUTISTA,
UY,
CASANOVA,
FABON-VICTORINO,
MINDARO-GRULLA,
THE BUREAU OF INTERNAL COTANGCO-MANALASTAS, and
REVENUE OF THE RINGPIS-LIBAN, JJ.
DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE,
REP. HEREIN BY ITS REVENUE Promulgated:
DISTRICT OFFICE 104,
BAYUGAN, AGUSAN DEL SUR, DEC 18 2015
Respondent.
-e;l-/:5ZJ/ ~
X ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ X
SEPARATE CONCURRING OPINION
DEL ROSARIO, PJ.:
I concur with the ponencia in denying the Motion for Reconsideration

for lack of merit considering that the taxpayer failed to assail the Warrant of
Distraint and Levy with the Court of Tax Appeals (CTA) within thirty (30)
days from receipt thereof.
I am, however, of the opmwn that the CTA has jurisdiction to

entertain the appeal of the decision of the RTC denying the petition for
injunction seeking to restrain the implementation of the Warrant of Distraint
and Levy issued by the BIR as a mode of collecting taxes. Dt'/
C.T.A. EB Case No.1107 2
Separate Concurring Opinion
With the enactment of Republic Act (RA) No. 1125, as amended by

RA 9282 and 9503, the CTA was created specifically to handle and
resolve controversies involving tax matters. In Bureau of Customs vs. The
Honorable Agnes VST Devandera, Acting Secretary, Department of Justice,
et al., 1 the Supreme Court clarified the power of the CTA to rule on tax
matters emanating from the National Internal Revenue Code (NIRC) of
1997, as amended, viz:,
"Since the Court ruled in City of Manila v. Hon. Grecia-Cuerdo that the
CTA has jurisdiction over a special civil action for certiorari questioning
an interlocutory order of the RTC in a local tax case via express
constitutional mandate and for being inherent in the exercise of its
appellate jurisdiction, it can also be reasonably concluded based on the
same premise that the CTA has original jurisdiction over a petition for
certiorari assailing the DOJ resolution in a preliminary investigation
involving tax and tariff offenses.
If the Court were to rule that jurisdiction over a petition for certiorari
assailing such DOJ resolution lies with the CA, it would be confirming the
exercise by two judicial bodies, the CA and the CTA, of jurisdiction over
basically the same subject matter~ precisely the split-jurisdiction situation
which is anathema to the orderly administration of justice. The Court
cannot accept that such was the legislative intent, especially considering
that R.A. No. 9282 expressly confers on the CTA, the tribunal with the
specialized competence over tax and tariff matters, the role of judicial
review over local tax cases without mention of any other court that may
exercise such power." (Emphases supplied)
In view of the Supreme Court's recent pronouncement, the CTA

should take cognizance of the appeal from the denial of a petition for
injunction for the collection of taxes, which is inherent in the exercise of
its appellate jurisdiction over "other matters arising under the NIRC of
1997, as amended." Between the CTA and Court of Appeals, this Court is
better equipped to resolve the present controversy considering that this case
concerns basically a plea to enjoin the BIR from collecting taxes pursuant to
the NIRC of 1997, as amended.
As afore-discussed, however, while the CTA has jurisdiction over the

decision of the RTC in denying the petition for injunction, the present case
may be dismissed outright for having been filed beyond the reglementary
period within which to assail the BIR' s Warrant of Distraint and Levy {)tlf
1
G.R. No. 193253, September 8, 2015.
C.T.A. EB Case No.ll 07 3
Separate Concurring Opinion
All told, I VOTE to deny petitioner's Motion for Reconsideration.
Presiding Justice

Cta Eb CV 01107 M 2015dec18 Ass

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Cta Eb CV 01107 M 2015dec18 Ass

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

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

Cta Eb CV 01107 M 2015dec18 Ass

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES

COURT OF TAX APPEALS

SAN FRANCISCO WATER CTA EB No. 1107

Del Rosario, P.J.,

CASTANEDA, JR., J.:

For the Court En Bane's resolution is petitioner's Motion for

For easy reference, the dispositive portion of the assailed Decision

"WHEREFORE, in view thereof, the present Petition

In its motion, petitioner submits that while it understands that the

We rule in the negative.

Jurisdiction is defined as the power and authority of the court to hear,

As laid down in the assailed Decision, the CTA - whether sitting En

"There is nothing in Section 7 of RA No. 1125, as

In the absence of a clear mandate from the law creating

Petitioner recognizes that this Court has no jurisdiction to decide on

Considering the foregoing, We see no compelling reason to reverse

WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, petitioner's Motion for

SAN FRANCISCO WATER CTA EB N0.1107

DEL ROSARIO, f_J

SEPARATE CONCURRING OPINION

DEL ROSARIO, PJ.:

I concur with the ponencia in denying the Motion for Reconsideration

I am, however, of the opmwn that the CTA has jurisdiction to

With the enactment of Republic Act (RA) No. 1125, as amended by

In view of the Supreme Court's recent pronouncement, the CTA

As afore-discussed, however, while the CTA has jurisdiction over the

All told, I VOTE to deny petitioner's Motion for Reconsideration.

You might also like