REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES

COURT OF TAX APPEALS

QUEZON CITY

SECOND DIVISION
*********
SANVAR PHARMA SALES CO., CTA Case No. 10517
Petitioner,

Members:

-versus- UY, Chairperson,

BACORRO-VILLENA, and
CUI-DAVID, JJ.

COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL Promulgated:

REVENUE,
Respondent. MAt 18 2Ul3

X- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

RESOLUTION
For resolution is respondent's Answer with Motion to Dismiss
filed on December 5, 2022 praying that the instant petition be
dismissed for lack of jurisdiction, or in the alternative be denied for
utter lack of merit, and that judgment be rendered ordering petitioner
to pay the amount of P881 ,391 .01 representing 2016 deficiency
assessment for income tax as well as surcharge, compromise
penalty, deficiency and delinquency interest pursuant to Section 248
and 249 of the NIRC of 1997 until 31 December 2017, as well as
twelve percent (12%) interest on the total unpaid amount computed
from January 1, 2018 until full payment thereof, pursuant to Section
249(C) of the National Internal Revenue Code (NIRC) of 1997, as
amended by Republic Act No. 10963 and as implemented by
Revenue Regulation (RR) No. 21-2018.

In the Resolution dated January 4, 2023, petitioner was ordered

to file its Comment on respondent's Motion to Dismiss (embodied in
the Answer) within ten (1 0) days from notice.1

A Records Verification Report dated February 6, 2023 was

issued stating that petitioner failed to file its Comment despite due

1
Docket, p. 273.
RESOLUTION
CTA Case No. 10517
Page 2 of 14

notice. 2 Thus, in the Resolution dated February 10, 20233 , the instant
Motion to Dismiss was considered submitted for resolution.

Subsequently on April 4, 2023 however, petitioner filed a

Comment to Motion to Dismiss. In the Resolution dated April 18,
2023, the Court noted said comment and submitted anew the instant
Motion to Dismiss.

Hence, this Resolution.

Respondent's Motion to Dismiss

In his Motion to Dismiss, respondent contends that the Court

has no jurisdiction over the Petition for Review as the same was filed
out of time, and therefore prays for the dismissal of the instant
Petition.

Allegedly, the one hundred eighty (180) day period under

Section 228 of the NIRC of 1997, as amended, and Section 3.1.4 of
RR No. 18-2013 should be counted from the time petitioner filed its
protest, or on August 24, 2020. From August 24, 2020, the 180-day
period ends on February 20, 2021 and petitioner had thirty (30) days
from the said date, or until March 22, 2021, to appeal to the Court.
Considering that the instant Petition for Review was filed only on May
19, 2021, which is beyond the reglementary period, thus, this court
has no jurisdiction over the instant petition for review.

Moreover, respondent avers that a motion for additional

time/extension to file a Petition for Review with the CTA Division is
not allowed by the Revised Rules of the Court of Tax Appeals
(RRCTA). Allegedly, petitioner's motion for additional time/extension
to file a petition for review before the CTA division should not have
been allowed as the law and rules do not allow for such motion to be
filed before the CTA division.

Further, respondent cites the decision of the CTA in the case of

Montalban Methane Power Corporation vs. Commissioner of Internal
Revenue 4 , wherein the CTA First Division clarified that no extension
for filing a petition for review before the CTA Division may be granted

2
Records Verification Report dated February 6, 2023 issued by Records Officer I,
Leocadia D. Victoria, Records Officer Ill, Jasmin L. Mejia and noted by Supervising
Judicial Staff Officer, Florisa L. Tagalog, Docket, p. 274.
3
Docket, p. 278.
4
CTA Case No. 10678, February 14,2022.
RESOLUTION
CTA Case No. 10517
Page 3 of 14

considering that an appeal from a final decision on disputed

assessment has a definite and distinct prescriptive period as provided
by law. Hence, an appeal before the CTA Division must be made
within thirty (30) days from receipt of the decision, and that failure to
appeal within the said period renders the assessment final, executory
and demandable.

Petitioner's Comment to
Motion to Dismiss.

In its Comment to Motion to Dismiss, petitioner alleges that it

committed a mistake in counting the one hundred eighty (180) day
period from the date of indorsement dated October 6, 2020 issued by
Atty. Jethro M. Sabariaga as the reckoning period of the one hundred
eighty (180) day period, instead of the mailing date of the Petition for
Review on August 24, 2020. Petitioner's counsel explains that he had
the wrong impression from the documents handed to him that the
Administrative Protest was first received by Atty. Sabariaga, which
was then indorsed to respondent Commissioner of Internal Revenue
(CIR) for final decision. Admittedly, petitioner failed to see the registry
receipt evidencing the separate mail sent to the CIR.

Given the foregoing, petitioner moves that the Court relax the
rules in order to serve the ends of justice and to relieve the petitioner
of an injustice not commensurate with the degree of its counsel's
thoughtlessness in not complying with the rules of procedure.

THE ISSUE

As raised in respondent's motion to dismiss, the issue for the

Court's resolution is whether or not the instant Petition for Review
should be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

THE COURT'S RULING

In resolving the jurisdictional issue raised by respondent, it

becomes necessary to look into the factual antecedents prior to the
filing of the instant Petition for Review.

Culled from the Petition For Review, 5 the antecedent factual

circumstances are as follows:

5
Petition for Review, Docket- pp. 26 to 33.
RESOLUTION
CTA Case No. 10517
Page 4 of 14

1. On March 2, 2018, petitioner received the Letter of Authority

dated February 22, 2018 to examine the books of accounts and
other accounting records for all internal revenue taxes including
documentary stamp tax, other taxes, covering taxable period
January 1, 2016 to December 31, 2016;

2. On the same date, petitioner received a request for presentation

of accounting records dated February 22, 2018, in connection
with the investigation of the company's internal revenue tax
liabilities for taxable year 2016.

3. Petitioner received through its representative, Ma. Natividad D.

Sabando, a Notice of Informal Conference dated November 26,
2018, requesting petitioner to appear for an informal conference
within thirty (30) days before the Bureau of Internal Revenue
{BIR) Revenue District Office No. 36 to present her side on the
computation/assessment of deficiency taxes. On even date, Ms
Sabando presented herself to the BIR to explain her side.

4. On October 2, 2019, petitioner received a Preliminary

Assessment Notice (PAN) stating that petitioner is liable for
deficiency taxes with details as follows:

Deficiency Income Tax f!D1, 126,301.15

Deficiency Value-Added Tax 139,314.76
Withholding Tax 14,519.99
Compromise Penalty 1,000
Total f!D1 ,281,135.90

5. On October 23, 2019, petitioner paid the amount of P19, 144.37;

6. On November 4, 2019, petitioner filed a Protest Letter on the

disputed assessment;

7. On November 14, 2019, petitioner received a Formal Letter of

Demand (FLO) stating that petitioner is liable for deficiency
taxes, to wit:

Deficiency Income Tax P1, 140,201.62

Deficiency Value-Added Tax 140,980.40
Expanded Withholding Tax 14,692.92
Compromise Penalty 1,000
Total P1 ,296,874.94

8. On December 11, 2019, petitioner filed its Protest Letter on the

FLO requesting for reconsideration on the deficiency income tax;
RESOLUTION
CTACaseNo. 10517
Page 5 of 14

9. Petitioner paid the amount of fD109,347.61 and t-140,980.40 on

December 11, 2019;

10. On July 23, 2020, petitioner received a Final Decision on

Disputed Assessment issued by Atty. Jethro M. Sabariaga,
Regional Director of Revenue Region No. 6, stating that
petitioner is liable for deficiency income tax in the total amount of
P881 ,391.01 inclusive of interest.

11. On August 24, 2020, petitioner filed via registered mailed its
Administrative Appeal/Protest Letter addressed to respondent
Commissioner of Internal Revenue (CIR).

12. On February 2, 2021, petitioner received the Letter dated

October 6, 2020 issued by Atty. Jethro M. Sabariaga informing
petitioner of the receipt of its protest letter on September 29,
2020, and that the entire tax docket together with the protest
letter will be forwarded to the Chief, Appellate Division of the BIR
National Office in Quezon City.

13. Due to alleged inaction of respondent, petitioner filed the instant

Petition on May 19, 2021 counting one hundred eighty (180)
days from the October 6, 2020 letter issued by Atty. Jethro M.
Sabariaga.

Petitioner's motion for extension was

granted pursuant to Administrative
Circulars issued by the Supreme Court
due to the then rise of Covid 19 cases
in the country.

Respondent asserts that the Court was not allowed to grant a

motion for extension under the law/rules.

We do not agree.

Records show that on May 19, 2021, the Court received

petitioner's Motion for Extension of Time to File Petition for Review
filed via private courier LBC. In the said motion, petitioner alleged that
due to respondent's inaction, petitioner was constrained to file a
Petition for Review from April 4, 2021 or on or before May 4, 2021.
However, petitioner prayed for an extension period of fifteen (15)
days from May 4, 2021 to file its Petition for Review. Allegedly, due to
the current rise of Covid-19 cases in Puerto Princesa, it has limited
petitioner's ability to consult a lawyer or certified public accountant for
the intelligent and sufficient preparation of the Petition for Review.
RESOLUTION
CTA Case No. 10517
Page 6 of 14

Notably, the Supreme Court issued various Administrative

Circulars in view of the surge of cases of Covid-19 in the National
Capital Judicial Region and nearby provinces, thereby ordering courts
to be physically closed, and the period of filing of pleadings, service
of motions, pleadings and other court submissions were suspended
until May 14, 2021, to wit:

Administrative Issued Contents

Circular (AC) No. on
Re: Extension of Filing of Periods for Pleadings/
AC No. 14- March 28, Court Submissions for Court in the National
2021 2021 Capital Judicial Region and Nearby Provinces
Placed Under Enhanced Community
Quarantine from March 29 to April4, 2021.

The filing periods of pleadings and other court

submissions that fall during the period from
March 29 to March 31, 2021 are hereby
extended for three (3) calendar days, counted
from April 5, 2021.
Re: Extension of the Physical Closure of Courts
AC No. 15-2021 April 3, and the filing periods for pleadings and other
2021 court submissions in light of the further
extension of the enhanced community
quarantine from April 5 to April 11, 2021.

The filing periods of pleadings and other court

submissions that fell due or would fall due
during the period beginning from March 29 to
April 11, 2021 are hereby EXTENDED for seven
(7) calendar days, counted from April 12, 2021.
Accordingly, Administrative Circular No. 14-
2021 is hereby modified in this respect.
Re: Extension of Physical Closure of Courts
AC No. 21-2021 April10,
2021 All the courts and the judicial offices in the
National Capital Region and the provinces of
Bulacan, Cavite, Laguna, and Rizal (NCJR+)
shall remain physically closed until April 18,
2021.

The time for filing and service of pleadings and

motions during this period is suspended and
shall resume seven (7) calendar days counted
from the first day of physical reopening of the
relevant court.

Re: Physical Closure of Courts in Enhanced

AC No. 22-2021 Apri114, Community Quarantine and Modified Enhanced
2021 Community Quarantine Areas

The physical closure of courts in the areas of

NCR among others is likewise extended to April
30, 2021.
RESOLUTION
CTA Case No. 10517
Page 7 of 14

The time for filing and service of pleadings and

motions during this period is suspended and
shall resume seven (7) calendar days counted
from the first day of physical reopening of the
relevant court.
Re: Work arrangements in Courts on May 3-14,
AC No. 29-2021 April30, 2021
2021
The time for filing and service of pleadings and
motions during this period in these areas is
suspended and shall resume after seven (7)
calendar days counted from the first day of the
physical reopening of the relevant court.
Re: Court operations starting May 17, 2021
AC No. 33-2021 May 14,
2021 All first and second level courts, and appellate
collegiate courts (except the Supreme Court),
and the judicial offices in these areas under
GCQ shall be physically opened with a skeleton
force of at least thirty percent (30%) to at most
fifty percent (50%), beginning 17 May 2021 until
further notice.

Based on the foregoing circulars, the period for filing and

service of motions, pleadings, and other court submissions were
suspended beginning March 29, 2021 until May 17, 2021 when the
courts reopened. However, the period for filing and service of motion,
pleadings, and other court submissions was extended for seven (7)
days from May 17, 2021, or until May 24, 2021.

Considering the foregoing directives of the Supreme Court and

in light of the different levels of community quarantine then imposed
within the National Capital Region and nearby provinces, the Court in
the interest of justice, considered petitioner's motion for extension of
time as deemed granted.

The Petition for Review was

prematurely filed, hence, the Court
has no jurisdiction to entertain the
instant Petition.

Jurisdiction is defined as the power and authority of a court to

hear, try, and decide a case. In order for the court or an adjudicative
body to have authority to dispose of the case on the merits, it must
acquire, among others, jurisdiction over the subject matter.
Jurisdiction over the subject matter of a case is conferred by law. 6
6
City of Iloilo vs. Philippine Ports Authority and Development Bank of the Philippines,
G.R. No. 233861, January 12,2021.
RESOLUTION
CTA Case No. 10517
Page 8 of 14

The CTA, being a court of special jurisdiction, can take

cognizance only of matters that are within its jurisdiction. Sections
7(a)(1) and (2), and 11 of RA No. 1125, as amended by RA No. 9282
expressly provides that the CTA exercises exclusive appellate
jurisdiction to review by appeal, decisions of the CIR in cases
involving disputed assessments, to wit:
"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 arising 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
relation thereto, or other matters arising under the National
Internal Revenue Code or other laws administered by the
Bureau of Internal Revenue, where the National Internal
Revenue Code provides for a specific period for action,
in which case, the inaction shall be deemed a denial."
(Emphases added)

"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, 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 Court 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."

As gleaned from the foregoing, the CTA exercises appellate

jurisdiction over decisions, rulings or inactions of respondent
Commissioner of Internal Revenue, and the same must be appealed
within thirty (30) days from receipt of such decision, ruling or after the
expiration of the period fixed by law for action.

With regard to the procedure and period fixed by law to dispute

an assessment, Section 228 of the NIRC of 1997, as amended,
specifies as follows:
RESOLUTION
CTA Case No. 10517
Page 9 of 14

"SEC. 228. Protesting of Assessment. -When the Commissioner

or his duly authorized representative finds that proper taxes should be
assessed, he shall first notify the taxpayer of his findings: Provided,
however, That a preassessment notice shall not be required in the
following cases:

XXX XXX XXX

The taxpayers shall be informed in writing of the law and the

facts on which the assessment is made; otherwise, the assessment
shall be void.

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 thirty
(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)

Relative thereto, Section 3.1.4 of RR No. 12-99,7 as amended

by RR No. 18-2013, 8 sets the procedure in filing the filing of a protest
against a disputed assessment (FLD/FAN).The pertinent provisions
are quoted below:

" SECTION 3. Due Process Requirement in the Issuance of

a Deficiency Tax Assessment. -

3.1 Mode of procedures in the issuance of a deficiency tax

assessment:

XXX XXX XXX

7
SUBJECT: Implementing the Provisions of the National Internal Revenue Code of 1997
Governing the Rules on Assessment of the National Internal Revenue Taxes, Civil
Penalties and Interest and the Extra-Judicial Settlement of a Taxpayer's Criminal
Violation of the Code Through Payment of a Suggested Compromise Penalty.
8
SUBJECT: Amending Certain Sections of Revenue Regulations No. 12-99 Relative to
the Due Process Requirement in the Issuance of a Deficiency Tax Assessment.
RESOLUTION
CTA Case No. 10517
Page 10 of 14

3.1.4 Disputed Assessment. - The taxpayer or its

authorized representative or tax agent may protest
administratively against the aforesaid FLO/FAN within thirty (30)
days from date of receipt thereof. The taxpayer protesting an
assessment may file a written request for reconsideration or
reinvestigation as follows:

XXX XXX XXX

If the protest is denied, in whole or in part, by the

Commissioner's duly authorized representative, the
taxpayer may either: (1) appeal to the Court of Tax Appeals
(CTA) within thirty (30) days from receipt of the said decision; or
(ii) elevate his protest through request for reconsideration
to the Commissioner within thirty (30) days from date of
receipt of the said decision. No request for reinvestigation
shall be allowed in administrative appeal and only issues raised
in the decision of the Commissioner's duly authorized
representative shall be entertained by the Commissioner.

If the protest is not acted upon by the Commissioner's duly

authorized representative within one hundred eighty (180) days
counted from the date of filing of the protest in case of a request
for reconsideration; xxx, the taxpayer may either: (i) appeal to
the CTA within thirty (30) days after the expiration of the one
hundred eighty (180)-day period; or (ii) await the final decision
of the Commissioner's duly authorized representative on the
disputed assessment.

If the protest or administrative appeal, as the case may be,

is denied, in whole or in part, by the Commissioner, the
taxpayer may appeal to the CTA within thirty (30) days from
date of receipt of the said decision. Otherwise, the assessment
shall become final, executory and demandable. A motion for
reconsideration of the Commissioner's denial of the protest or
administrative appeal, as the case may be, shall not toll the
thirty (30)-day period to appeal to the CTA.

If the protest or administrative appeal is not acted

upon by the Commissioner within one hundred eighty (180)
days counted from the date of filing of the protest, the
taxpayer may either: (i) appeal to the CTA within thirty (30)
days from after the expiration of the hundred eighty (180)-
day period; or (ii) await the final decision of the
Commissioner on the disputed assessment and appeal
such final decision to the CTA within thirty (30) days after
the receipt of a copy of such decision.

It must be emphasized, however, that in case of

inaction on protested assessment within 180-day period,
RESOLUTION
CTA Case No. 10517
Page II of 14

the option of the taxpayer to either: (1) file a petition for

review with the CTA within 30 days after the expiration of
the 180-day period; or (2) await the final decision of the
Commissioner or his duly authorized representative on the
disputed assessment and appeal such final decision to the
CTA within 30 days after the receipt of a copy of such
decision, are mutually exclusive and the resort to one bars
the application of the other." (Emphasis and underscoring
supplied)

In summary, the foregoing provisions present the options

available to the concerned taxpayer when the protest is denied by the
CIR himself, or by the latter's duly authorized representative, to wit:

1. If the protest is wholly or partially denied by the CIR or his duly

authorized representative, the taxpayer may immediately appeal to
the CT A within thirty (30) days from receipt of the whole or partial
denial of the protest. 9

2. If the protest in wholly or partially denied by the CIR's

authorized representative, then the taxpayer may appeal to the CIR
within thirty (30) days from receipt of the whole or partial denial of the
protest 10 (administrative appeal);

3. In case of inaction by the CIR's duly authorized representative

on the protest within one hundred eighty (180) days from submission
of the required supporting documents (in case of a request for
reinvestigation) or from the date of the filing of the protest (in case of
a request for reconsideration), the taxpayer may either appeal the
inaction to the CTA within thirty (30) days from the lapse of the 180-
day period, or await the final decision of the CIR's duly authorized
representative on the disputed assessment.

4. In case of inaction by the CIR on the protest or the

administrative appeal within one hundred eighty (180) days counted
from the date of filing of the protest, the taxpayer may either appeal
the inaction to the CTA within thirty (30) days after the expiration of
the 180-day period, or await the final decision of the CIR on the
disputed assessment and appeal such final decision to the CTA
within thirty (30) days from receipt of said final decision.

9
Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. VY. Domingo Jewellers. Inc .. G.R. No. 221780,
March 25, 2019.
10 /d.
RESOLUTION
CTA Case No. 10517
Page 12 of 14

To determine which option is available to petitioner in the instant

case, We find the following dates and circumstances relevant, to wit:

Date Action taken

November 14, 2019 Petitioner received the FLD. 11
Petitioner filed a protest letter to the FLO in the form
December 11, 2019 of a request for reconsideration. 12
Petitioner received the Final Decision on Disputed
July 23, 2020 Assessment dated June 25, 2020 issued by
respondent's authorized representative, Regional
Director, Atty. Jethro M. Sabariaga. 13
August 24, 2020 Petitioner filed a request for reconsideration or an
administrative appeal on the FDDA addressed to
respondent Commissioner. 14
February 2, 2021 Petitioner received Letter dated October 6, 2020
issued by Atty. Jethro M. Sabariaga informing
petitioner of the receipt of its protest letter on
September 29, 2020, and that the entire tax docket
together with the protest letter will be forwarded to
the Chief, Appellate Division of the BIR National
Office in Quezon City. 15
May 19, 2021 Petitioner filed the instant Petition for Review

Considering that the CIR has not acted upon petitioner's

request for reconsideration (or administrative appeal) on the FDDA 16 ,
the fourth option is applicable in the instant case.

It bears noting however that the 180-day period of inaction

under Section 228 of the NIRC of 1997, as amended, and Section
3.1.4 of RR No. 12-99, as amended by RR No. 18-2013, speaks of
only one ( 1) "180-day statutory period of inaction" counted from
the date of filing of the protest against the FLO/FAN (in case of a
request for reconsideration), or from the submission of the relevant
supporting documents (in case of a request for reinvestigation). This
means that in cases of administrative appeal, there is no fresh "180-
day period of inaction" on the part of the CIR to reckon, prior to

11
Paragraph 12, Petition for Review, Docket, pp. 26 to 33, at p. 29 vis-a-vis Paragraph 7,
Answer with Motion to Dismiss, Docket, pp. 211 to 225, at p. 212
12
Paragraph 13, Petition for Review, Docket, pp. 26 to 33, at p. 29 vis-a-vis Paragraph 7,
Answer with Motion to Dismiss, Docket, pp. 211 to 225, at p. 212.
13
Paragraph 16, Petition for Review, Docket, pp. 26 to 33, at p. 29 vis-a-vis Paragraph 8,
Answer with Motion to Dismiss, Docket, pp. 211 to 225, at p. 212
14
Paragraph 17, Petition for Review, Docket, pp. 26 to 33, at p. 29.
15
Paragraph l.b, Petition for Review, Docket, pp. 26 to 33, at p. 26.
16
Paragraph I, Petition for Review, Docket, pp. 26 to 33, at p. 26.
RESOLUTION
CTACaseNo.10517
Page 13 of 14

judicial recourse, as the only option left for the taxpayer is to await the
decision of the CIR.

Relative thereto, the pronouncement in the case of Nueva Ecija

II Electric Cooperative Inc. Area II (NEECO II) vs. Commissioner of
Internal Revenue 17(or NEECO II case), is instructive, to wit:

"As correctly ruled by the CTA EB, Section 228 of

Republic Act (RA) No. 8424, or the National Internal
Revenue Code, as amended (hereafter, Tax Code)
unmistakably provides that the one hundred eighty (180)-
day period should be reckoned from the "submission of
documents," which in this case was on 19 September
2016. Perforce, the statutory 180-day period lapsed on 18
March 2017. From such point, petitioner had thirty (30)
days, or until17 April 2017, to elevate the case to the CTA.
However, it filed its Petition only on 2 June 2017, which is
beyond the reglementary period provided by the law.
Notably, Section 3.1.4 of Revenue Regulations (RRl No.
12-99, as amended by RR No. 18-13, which implements
Section 228 of the Tax Code, provides for alternative
courses of action to the taxpayer upon its receipt of
the Final Decision on Disputed Assessment issued by
the authorized representative of respondent
Commissioner on Internal Revenue (respondent),
including the option of elevating the protest to the
respondent himself through a request for
reconsideration. However, nowhere in said provision
does it provide that a fresh 180-day period is granted
to the respondent to act on such administrative appeal.
As aptly observed by the CT A EB, upholding petitioner's
argument would run contrary to the clear language of
Section 228 and would unduly expand the period provided
by the law. Necessarily, taxpayers must exercise their
rights in the manner and within the periods provided by
statute and the pertinent regulations. "It bears to stress that
the perfection of an appeal within the statutory period is a
jurisdictional requirement and failure to do so renders the
questioned decision or decree final and executory and no
longer subject to review." (Emphases and underscoring
ours)

In the present case, an administrative appeal was filed by

petitioner before the CIR, and therefore, pursuant to the NEECO II

17
G.R. No. 258101,Aprill9, 2022.
RESOLUTION
CTA Case No. 10517
Page 14 of 14

ruling, there is no fresh "180-day statutory period" to await prior to

judicial recourse, as the only option left for the taxpayer is to wait for
the decision of the CIR, and then file an appeal with the CTA within
thirty (30) days from receipt of the decision.

It appears however that, to this date, respondent had not

rendered a decision on petitioner's administrative appeal. Hence,
considering that respondent has yet to issue a final decision on
petitioner's administrative appeal, the instant Petition for Review must
be dismissed for being filed prematurely.

It is well-settled that if the court has no jurisdiction over the

nature of an action, its only jurisdiction is to dismiss the case. The
courts could not decide the case on the merits. 18

WHEREFORE, in light of the foregoing considerations,

respondent's Answer with Motion to Dismiss is GRANTED. The
instant Petition for Review is DISMISSED for lack of jurisdiction.

SO ORDERED.

E~P.UY
Associate Justice

/nuM!h~
LANEE S. CUI-DAVID
Associate Justice

18
Nippon Express (Philippines) Corp. v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, G.R. No.
185666, February 4, 2015.