G.R. No. 204117, July 1, 2015
China Banking Corporation, Petitioner, vs. City Treasurer of Manila, Respondent.
FACTS
On January 2007, petitioner China Banking Corporation (CBC) was assessed by respondent City Treasurer of Manila local business taxes and fees totaling ₱267,128.70 for taxable year 2007, which included an amount of ₱154,398.50 under Section 21 of Manila Ordinance Nos. 7988 and 8011. On January 15, 2007, CBC paid the full amount under protest, stating in a letter its objection to the Section 21 assessment on the grounds of non-liability and double taxation. The City Treasurer acknowledged the payment but awaited a formal protest. On March 27, 2007, CBC reiterated its protest and, citing the City Treasurer’s inaction, formally demanded a refund. On April 17, 2007, CBC filed a Petition for Review with the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Manila. The RTC granted the petition and ordered a refund, citing opinions on the unconstitutionality of the ordinances. The Court of Tax Appeals (CTA) Division reversed the RTC, dismissing CBC’s protest because the petition for review was filed one day beyond the reglementary period, making the assessment final. The CTA En Banc affirmed this decision.
ISSUE
Whether the CTA gravely erred in dismissing CBC’s claim for refund solely on the ground that its petition for review before the RTC was filed one day beyond the reglementary period.
RULING
The Supreme Court denied the petition and affirmed the CTA En Banc’s decision. The Court ruled that CBC’s written protest, filed on January 15, 2007, was valid as it clearly stated the grounds for objection. Under Section 195 of the Local Government Code, the City Treasurer had 60 days from receipt of the protest (until March 16, 2007) to decide. Due to the City Treasurer’s inaction, CBC had 30 days from the lapse of that period (until April 16, 2007, as April 15 was a Sunday) to appeal to the competent court. CBC filed its petition on April 17, 2007, which was one day late. Consequently, the assessment became final, conclusive, and unappealable. The Court held that the reglementary period for appeal is mandatory and jurisdictional; failure to comply deprives the court of jurisdiction. The defense of the ordinance’s invalidity could no longer be raised. The Court found no merit in CBC’s arguments for excusable negligence or for reckoning the periods from a later date (March 27, 2007).
