G.R. No. 181845 ; August 4, 2009
THE CITY OF MANILA, LIBERTY M. TOLEDO, and JOSEPH SANTIAGO, petitioners, vs. COCA-COLA BOTTLERS PHILIPPINES, INC., Respondent.

FACTS

Petitioner City of Manila assessed respondent Coca-Cola Bottlers Philippines, Inc. for deficiency local business taxes under Section 21 of Manila Tax Ordinance No. 7794, as amended by Ordinances No. 7988 and 8011. Respondent protested, arguing this constituted double taxation as it was already paying under Section 14 of the same ordinance. The Regional Trial Court (RTC) initially dismissed respondent’s case but later granted reconsideration, cancelling the assessment. This aligned with the Supreme Court’s prior ruling in a separate case (the Coca-Cola case) which declared Tax Ordinances No. 7988 and 8011 null and void. The RTC denied petitioners’ motion for reconsideration on April 4, 2007.
Petitioners received notice of this denial on April 20, 2007. On May 4, 2007, they filed with the Court of Tax Appeals (CTA) a Motion for Extension of Time to File a Petition for Review, seeking a 15-day extension. They subsequently filed the Petition for Review on May 18, 2007. The CTA First Division dismissed the petition for being filed out of time, a ruling affirmed by the CTA en banc.

ISSUE

Whether the CTA correctly dismissed the Petition for Review for having been filed beyond the reglementary period.

RULING

Yes, the CTA correctly dismissed the petition. The Supreme Court affirmed that the reglementary period for appealing the RTC decision to the CTA was governed by Section 11 of Republic Act No. 9282 , which amended the CTA law. This provision explicitly states that a petition for review must be filed within fifteen (15) days from notice of the adverse decision or denial of a motion for reconsideration. The law allows only one extension of fifteen (15) days, provided a motion for extension is filed and all required fees are paid before the original period expires.
Petitioners received the RTC’s denial on April 20, 2007. The original 15-day period to file the petition thus expired on May 5, 2007. Their Motion for Extension was filed only on May 4, 2007, which was the last day of the original period. Critically, they failed to pay the required docket and other lawful fees simultaneously with the filing of this motion. The payment of these fees is a mandatory requirement for the grant of an extension. Since petitioners did not comply with this condition, the CTA did not acquire jurisdiction over the appeal. The subsequent filing of the Petition for Review on May 18, 2007, was therefore untimely. Jurisdictional rules on periods for appeal are strictly construed and cannot be relaxed.