G.R. No. 190680 ; September 13, 2012
COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Petitioner, vs. COURT OF TAX APPEALS and AYALA LAND, INC., Respondents.

FACTS

The Commissioner of Internal Revenue (CIR) assessed Ayala Land, Inc. (ALI) for deficiency value-added tax for 2003. ALI contested this before the Court of Tax Appeals (CTA). The CTA Second Division cancelled the assessment, a decision affirmed by the CTA en banc on February 12, 2009. The CIR filed a motion for reconsideration, which the CTA en banc denied via a Resolution dated March 25, 2009. The CIR and the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) claimed they never received a copy of this denial. On June 17, 2009, the CIR received a CTA Resolution declaring the February 12 Decision final and executory. The CIR filed a Manifestation and Motion questioning the entry of judgment, but this was denied by the CTA on July 29, 2009.
Subsequently, the CIR filed a petition for relief from judgment with the CTA en banc on October 2, 2009. He argued the 60-day period to file such a petition should run from August 3, 2009 (when he received the July 29 denial), making his October 2 filing timely. The CTA en banc dismissed the petition, finding it was filed out of time. The court’s records indicated the CIR and OSG had received the March 25, 2009 denial on March 27 and 30, 2009, respectively. Thus, the period for relief started from those dates, expiring long before October 2. The CIR then elevated the matter to the Supreme Court via a petition for certiorari.

ISSUE

Whether the CTA en banc committed grave abuse of discretion in dismissing the CIR’s petition for relief from judgment for being filed out of time.

RULING

No, the CTA en banc did not commit grave abuse of discretion. A petition for relief from judgment under Rule 38 must be filed within sixty (60) days from knowledge of the judgment, order, or proceeding, and within six (6) months from entry of such judgment or order. The CTA’s records, which enjoy the presumption of regularity, showed the CIR and the OSG received the March 25, 2009 Resolution denying reconsideration on March 27 and March 30, 2009. Therefore, the CIR’s period to file a petition for relief began from those dates in March, not from August 3, 2009. His filing on October 2, 2009 was indisputably beyond the 60-day limit.
The Supreme Court emphasized that grave abuse of discretion implies a capricious and whimsical exercise of judgment equivalent to lack of jurisdiction. The CTA’s dismissal was based squarely on the procedural timelines mandated by the Rules of Court. The CIR’s failure to timely file the petition, despite notice imputed from the official records, was a failure to exercise the required diligence. The OSG’s own correspondence to the CIR also indicated doubts about the timeliness of a relief petition. Consequently, the CTA acted within its sound discretion, and no reversible error, let alone grave abuse, attended its ruling. The petition for certiorari was dismissed.