FIRST DIVISION
G.R. No. 212920, September 16, 2015
COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Petitioner, v. NIPPON EXPRESS (PHILS.) CORPORATION, Respondent.
D E C I S I O N
PERLAS-BERNABE, J.:
Assailed in this petition for review on certiorari1 are the Decision2 dated December 18, 2013 and the Resolution3 dated June 10, 2014 of the Court of Tax Appeals (CTA) En Banc in CTA EB No. 924, which affirmed the Resolution4 dated July 31, 2012 of the CTA Third Division (CTA Division) in CTA Case No. 6967, granting respondent Nippon Express (Phils.) Corporation's (Nippon) motion to withdraw petition for review5 (motion to withdraw).chanrobleslaw
Sec. 3. Applicability of the Rules of Court. - The Rules of Court in the Philippines shall apply suppletorily to these Rules.ChanRoblesVirtualawlibraryRule 50 of the Rules of Court - an adjunct rule to the appellate procedure in the CA under Rules 42, 43, 44, and 46 of the Rules of Court which are equally adopted in the RRCTA36 - states that when the case is deemed submitted for resolution, withdrawal of appeals made after the filing of the appellee's brief may still be allowed in the discretion of the court:chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary
Impelled by the BIR's supervening issuance of the July 27, 2011 Tax Credit Certificate, Nippon filed a motion to withdraw the case, proffering that:chanRoblesvirtualLawlibraryRULE 50
DISMISSAL OF APPEALx x x x
Section 3. Withdrawal of appeal. — An appeal may be withdrawn as of right at any time before the filing of the appellee's brief. Thereafter, the withdrawal may be allowed in the discretion of the court. (Emphasis supplied)ChanRoblesVirtualawlibrary
Having arrived at a reasonable settlement of the issues with the [CIR]/BIR, and to avoid incurring further legal and related costs, not to mention the time and resources of [the CTA], [Nippon] most respectfully moves for the withdrawal of its Petition for Review.37ChanRoblesVirtualawlibraryFinding the aforementioned grounds to be justified, the CTA Division allowed the withdrawal of Nippon's appeal thereby ordering the case closed and terminated, notwithstanding the fact that the said motion was filed after the promulgation of its August 10, 2011 Decision.
It may well be in order to remind petitioner that jurisdiction, once acquired, is not lost upon the instance of the parties, but continues until the case is terminated. When petitioner filed her Petition for Certiorari jurisdiction vested in the Court and, in fact, the Court exercised such jurisdiction when it acted on the petition. Such jurisdiction cannot be lost by the unilateral withdrawal of the petition by petitioner.39ChanRoblesVirtualawlibraryThe primary reason, however, that militates against the granting of the motion to withdraw is the fact that the CTA Division, in its August 10, 2011 Decision, had already determined that Nippon was only entitled to refund the reduced amount of P2,614,296.84 since it failed to prove that the recipients of its services were non-residents "doing business outside the Philippines"; hence, Nippon's purported sales therefrom could not qualify as zero-rated sales, necessitating the reduction in the amount of refund claimed. Markedly different from this is the BIR's determination that Nippon should receive P21,675,128.91 as per the July 27, 2011 Tax Credit Certificate, which is, in all, P19,060,832.07 larger than the amount found due by the CTA Division. Therefore, as aptly pointed out by Associate Justice Teresita J. Leonardo-De Castro during the deliberations on this case, the massive discrepancy alone between the administrative and judicial determinations of the amount to be refunded to Nippon should have already raised a red flag to the CTA Division. Clearly, the interest of the government, and, more significantly, the public, will be greatly prejudiced by the erroneous grant of refund - at a substantial amount at that - in favor of Nippon. Hence, under these circumstances, the CTA Division should not have granted the motion to withdraw.
Endnotes:
1Rollo, pp. 12-31.
2Id. at 39-62. Penned by Associate Justice Erlinda P. Uy with Associate Justices Juanito C. Castaneda, Jr., Lovell R. Bautista, Caesar A. Casanova, Esperanza R. Fabon-Victorino, Cielito N. Mindaro-Grulla, Amelia R. Cotangco-Manalastas, and Ma. Belen M. Ringpis-Liban concurring; and Presiding Justice Roman G. Del Rosario concurring and dissenting.
3 Id. at 83-99.
4 Id. at 228-233. Signed by Associate Justices Lovell R. Bautista, Olga Palanca-Enriquez, and Amelia R. Cotangco-Manalastas.
5 Id. at 220-222.
6 Id. at 40 and 42 (pages arc inadvertently misarranged).
7 See Certificate of Registration issued by the Large Taxpayer District Office; id at 109.
8 Id. at 40.
9 Id. at 104.
10 Id. at 124-129.
11 See id. at 40 and 140.
12 Id. at 100-106.
13 Id. at 40.
14 See Answer dated June 17,2004; id. at 130-131.
15 Id. at 167-183. Penned by Associate Justice Lovell R. Bautista with Associate Justice Amelia Cotangco-Manalastas concurring and Associate Justice Olga Palanca Enriquez dissenting.
16 Id. at 181-182.
17 Id. at 173-174.
18 See id. at 174-181.
19 Id. at 220-222.
20 Id. at 193-204.
21 Id. at 224-227.
22 See id. at 224-226.
23 Id. at 205.
24 See Motion for Reconsideration dated August 31, 2011; id. 205-218.
25 Id. at 217.
26 Id. at 228-233.
27 Id. at 233.
28 See id. at 232-233.
29 See petition for review dated August 28, 2012; id at 234-247.
30 Id. at 39-62.
31 Id. at 59.
32 See id. at 47-58.
33 See Motion for Partial Reconsideration dated February 3, 2014; id at 68-81.
34 Id. at 83-99.
35 A.M. No. 05-11-07-CTA effective December 15, 2005.
36 Section 1, Rule 7 of the RRCTA states:chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrarySECTION 1. Applicability of the Rules of the Court of Appeals, exception. - The procedure in the Court en bane or in Divisions in original and in appealed cases shall be the same as those in petitions for review and appeals before the Court of Appeals pursuant to the applicable provisions of Rules 42, 43, 44 and 46 of the Rules of Court, except as otherwise provided for in these Rules.ChanRoblesVirtualawlibrary37Rollo, p. 221.
38 G.R. No. 207264, October 22, 2013, 708 SCRA 197.
39 Id. at 233.
40 "It is a well-settled rule that the government cannot be estopped by the mistakes, errors or omissions of its agents. It has been specifically held that estoppel does not apply to the government, especially on matters of taxation. Taxes are the nation's lifeblood through which government agencies continue to operate and with which the State discharges its functions for the welfare of its constituents. Thus, the government cannot be estopped from collecting taxes by the mistake, negligence, or omission of its agents. Upon taxation depends the ability of the government to serve the people for whose benefit taxes are collected. To safeguard such interest, neglect or omission of government officials entrusted with the collection of taxes should not be allowed to bring harm or detriment to the people." (Visayas Geolhermai Power Company v. CIR, G.R. No. 197525, June 4, 2014, 725 SCRA 130, 149.)
41 "First, Section 112(A) clearly, plainly, and unequivocally provides that the taxpayer 'may, within two (2) years after the close of the taxable quarter when the sales were made, apply for the issuance of a tax credit certificate or refund of the creditable input tax due or paid to such sales.' In short, the law states that the taxpayer may apply with the Commissioner for a refund or credit 'within two (2) years, which means at anytime within two years. Thus, the application for refund or credit may be filed by the taxpayer with the Commissioner on the last day of the two-year prescriptive period and it will still strictly comply with the law. The two year prescriptive period is a grace period in favor of the taxpayer and he can avail of the full period before his right to apply for a tax refund or credit is barred by prescription." (CIR v. San Rogue Power Corporation, G.R. Nos. 187485, 196113, and 197156, February 12, 2013, 690 SCRA 336, 390-391.)
42 Section 112 (A) of the National Internal Revenue Code of 1997 reads:
Section 112. Refunds or Tax Credits of Input Tax. -
(A) Zero-rated or Effectively Zero-rated Sales. - any VAT-registered person, whose sales are zero-rated or effectively zero-rated may, within two (2) years after the close of the taxable quarter when the sales were made, apply for the issuance of a tax credit certificate or refund of creditable input tax due or paid attributable to such sales, except transitional input tax, to the extent that such input tax has not been applied against output tax: x x x.
x x x x (Emphasis and underscoring supplied)
43 See China Banking Corporation v. CIR, G.R. No. 172509, February 4, 2015.