G.R. No. 172458; December 14, 2011
PHILIPPINE NATIONAL BANK, Petitioner, vs. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent.

FACTS

Petitioner Philippine National Bank (PNB) filed an administrative claim for refund of excess income tax payments for 1998. As the Bureau of Internal Revenue did not act, PNB filed a Petition for Review with the Court of Tax Appeals (CTA) Division. The CTA Division partially granted the petition, ordering a refund of ₱1,428,661.66 but disallowing ₱445,578.92. PNB’s Motion for Partial Reconsideration was denied. PNB then filed a Petition for Review with the CTA En Banc. The CTA En Banc dismissed the petition outright for being filed four days late (received December 27, 2005, instead of the deadline of December 23, 2005), for not being accompanied by duplicate original or certified true copies of the assailed CTA Division Decision and Resolution, and for lacking an Affidavit of Service. PNB filed a Motion for Reconsideration, explaining that its counsel attempted to file personally on December 23, 2005, but was unable to enter the CTA premises as personnel had left; thus, the petition was sent via LBC on that date. PNB also submitted the missing documents and affidavit. The CTA En Banc denied the motion, ruling that the date of receipt by the court, not the date of delivery to a private courier, controls timeliness, and that the procedural lapses warranted dismissal.

ISSUE

Whether the CTA En Banc correctly dismissed PNB’s Petition for Review for being filed out of time and for procedural deficiencies.

RULING

No. The Supreme Court reversed the CTA En Banc Resolutions and reinstated PNB’s Petition for Review. The Court held that PNB’s filing via LBC on the last day of the reglementary period (December 23, 2005) constituted timely filing. Citing precedent, the Court ruled that where a party has diligently attempted to file personally within the period but is prevented by circumstances beyond its control (such as the court office being closed or inaccessible), filing through a reputable courier service on the last day is permissible. The affidavits of the security guard and the administrative assistant substantiated PNB’s claim of attempted personal filing. Furthermore, the procedural lapses—the failure to attach certified copies of the assailed judgments and the affidavit of service—were not deliberate and were subsequently cured by PNB’s compliance in its Motion for Reconsideration. The Court emphasized that rules of procedure should be liberally construed to secure substantial justice, especially where a party demonstrates a prima facie valid cause, as in PNB’s claim for a tax refund. The case was remanded to the CTA En Banc for resolution on the merits.