GR 195320; (April, 2018) (Digest)
G.R. No. 195320. April 23, 2018.
BUREAU OF INTERNAL REVENUE, REPRESENTED BY THE COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, PETITIONER, VS. HON. ERNESTO D. ACOSTA, ET AL. OF THE SPECIAL FIRST DIVISION OF THE COURT OF TAX APPEALS AND CHEVRON PHILIPPINES, INC. (FORMERLY CALTEX PHILIPPINES, INC.), RESPONDENTS.
FACTS
Respondent Chevron Philippines, Inc. filed an administrative claim for a tax refund with the Bureau of Internal Revenue (BIR). Due to the BIR’s inaction, Chevron elevated the case to the Court of Tax Appeals (CTA) Special First Division, which partially granted the petition and ordered a refund. The BIR filed a motion for reconsideration of this decision. Chevron opposed, arguing the motion was a mere scrap of paper for failure to set it for hearing as required by the Revised Rules of the CTA. The CTA Special First Division agreed with Chevron, denied the motion for reconsideration as pro forma, and subsequently declared its decision final and executory. An Entry of Judgment was issued. The BIR then filed a Petition for Certiorari under Rule 65 before the Supreme Court, alleging the CTA committed grave abuse of discretion.
ISSUE
The primary issue is whether a special civil action for certiorari under Rule 65 is an available remedy to the BIR under these circumstances.
RULING
The Supreme Court dismissed the petition. The Court held that a writ of certiorari is an extraordinary remedy available only when there is no appeal or any plain, speedy, and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law. It is not a substitute for a lost appeal. In this case, the CTA’s decision had become final and executory due to the BIR’s failure to perfect an appeal. The BIR’s procedural lapse—filing a motion for reconsideration that did not comply with the mandatory notice of hearing requirement under the CTA Rules—rendered said motion a mere scrap of paper that did not toll the reglementary period to appeal. Consequently, the decision attained finality. The availability of an appeal, which the BIR lost through its own negligence in adhering to procedural rules, precludes the resort to certiorari. The Court emphasized that certiorari cannot correct errors of judgment or be invoked to revive a lost appeal, even if the ground alleged is grave abuse of discretion. The CTA did not gravely abuse its discretion in applying its procedural rules strictly.