G.R. No. 175787 February 4, 2009
PHILLIPS SEAFOOD (PHILIPPINES) CORPORATION, Petitioner, vs. THE BOARD OF INVESTMENTS, Respondent.

FACTS

Petitioner Phillips Seafood (Philippines) Corporation, originally named Phillips Seafood Masbate, Inc., is a domestic corporation engaged in exporting processed seafood. It registered with respondent Board of Investments (BOI) on January 8, 1993, as a non-pioneer producer and was granted a six-year Income Tax Holiday (ITH) from July 1993 to July 1999 for locating in a less-developed area. In October 1999, petitioner relocated its plant from Bacolod City to Roxas City and informed the BOI. The BOI, in a letter dated November 18, 1999, informed petitioner that its ITH under its original certificate would be extended until August 12, 2000. The BOI also granted petitioner new certificates of registration for its new plant in Roxas City in January and June 2000, each with a new four-year ITH. Petitioner filed applications for ITH for 1999 and 2000 under its various certificates. However, in a letter dated September 25, 2003, the BOI informed petitioner that the ITH under its original certificate would only be applicable until October 21, 1999, prior to its transfer to a “not less-developed area.” Petitioner’s motion for reconsideration was denied by the BOI on May 3, 2004. Petitioner appealed to the Office of the President, which dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction on September 22, 2004, and denied reconsideration on March 14, 2005. Petitioner received the denial order on April 1, 2005, and filed a petition for review before the Court of Appeals on April 5, 2005. The Court of Appeals dismissed the petition on May 24, 2006, finding it was filed out of time because petitioner erroneously appealed to the Office of the President instead of directly to the Court of Appeals via Rule 43. The Court of Appeals also denied petitioner’s omnibus motion to amend its petition. Petitioner’s motion for reconsideration was denied on November 24, 2006.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals correctly dismissed petitioner’s petition for review for having been filed out of time due to petitioner’s erroneous appeal to the Office of the President from the BOI’s decision.

RULING

Yes, the Court of Appeals correctly dismissed the petition. The right to appeal is statutory, not constitutional, and must be exercised in the manner prescribed by law. Executive Order No. 226 (The Omnibus Investments Code of 1987) provides the remedies from BOI decisions. Article 7(4) and Article 36 of E.O. No. 226 allow an appeal to the Office of the President specifically for controversies concerning the implementation of the Code arising between registered enterprises and government agencies. However, for other orders or decisions of the BOI, Article 82 provides that appeals shall be filed directly with the Supreme Court within thirty days. The Court clarified that with the advent of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, specifically Rule 43, appeals from quasi-judicial agencies like the BOI are now taken to the Court of Appeals, not the Supreme Court, and this rule prevails over the procedure in Article 82 of E.O. No. 226. The BOI’s decision regarding petitioner’s ITH entitlement was a regulatory function, not a controversy between a registered enterprise and a government agency under Article 7(4). Therefore, the proper remedy was a petition for review under Rule 43 filed with the Court of Appeals within fifteen days from notice of the BOI’s decision. Petitioner’s appeal to the Office of President was an incorrect mode, and its subsequent Rule 43 petition to the Court of Appeals was filed beyond the reglementary period. The President’s constitutional power of control is not illusory but is subject to procedural rules promulgated by the Supreme Court. The Court of Appeals did not err in dismissing the petition.