Republic of the Philippines SUPREME COURT Manila FIRST DIVISION G.R. No.

168498 June 16, 2006

RIZAL COMMERCIAL BAN ING CORPORATION, Petitioner, vs. COMMISSIONER O! INTERNAL RE"ENUE, Respondent. D #NARES$SANTIAGO, J.: This is a petition for revie" under Rule #$ of the Rules of !ourt assailin% the Decision& of the !ourt of Ta' (ppeals )!T(* En Banc dated +une ,, -..$ in !.T.(. / No. $. "hich affir0ed the Resolutions of the !T( Second Division dated Ma1 2, -..#- and Nove0ber $, -..#2 in !.T.(. !ase No. 3#,$ den1in% petitioner4s Petition for Relief fro0 +ud%0ent and the Motion for Reconsideration thereof, respectivel1. The undisputed facts are as follo"s5 On +ul1 $, -..&, petitioner Ri6al !o00ercial /an7in% !orporation received a For0al 8etter of De0and dated Ma1 -$, -..& fro0 the respondent !o00issioner of Internal Revenue for its ta' liabilities particularl1 for 9ross Onshore Ta' in the a0ount of P$2,::;,#-;.-: and Docu0entar1 Sta0p Ta' for its Special Savin%s Place0ents in the a0ount of P#3,,&,,:$-.,3, for the ta'able 1ear &::,.# On +ul1 -., -..&, petitioner filed a protest letter<re=uest for reconsideration<reinvesti%ation pursuant to Section --; of the National Internal Revenue !ode of &::, )NIR!*.$ (s the protest "as not acted upon b1 the respondent, petitioner filed on (pril 2., -..- a petition for revie" "ith the !T( for the cancellation of the assess0ents "hich "as doc7eted as !.T.(. !ase No. 3#,$.3 On +ul1 &$, -..2, respondent filed a 0otion to resolve first the issue of !T(4s >urisdiction,, "hich "as %ranted b1 the !T( in a Resolution dated Septe0ber &., -..2.; The petition for revie" "as dis0issed because it "as filed be1ond the 2.?da1 period follo"in% the lapse of &;. da1s fro0 petitioner4s sub0ission of docu0ents in support of its protest, as provided under Section --; of the NIR! and Section && of R.(. No. &&-$, other"ise 7no"n as theLaw Creating the Court of Tax Appeals. Petitioner did not file a 0otion for reconsideration or an appeal to the !T( En Banc fro0 the dis0issal of its petition for revie". !onse=uentl1, the Septe0ber &., -..2 Resolution beca0e final and e'ecutor1 on October &, -..2 and ntr1 of +ud%0ent "as 0ade on Dece0ber &, -..2.: Thereafter, respondent sent a De0and 8etter to petitioner for the pa10ent of the deficienc1 ta' assess0ents. !ISION

On Februar1 -., -..#, petitioner filed a Petition for Relief from Judgment&. on the %round of e'cusable ne%li%ence of its counsel4s secretar1 "ho alle%edl1 0isfiled and lost the Septe0ber &., -..2 Resolution. The !T( Second Division set the case for hearin% on (pril -, -..#&& durin% "hich petitioner4s counsel "as present.&-Respondent filed an Opposition&2 "hile petitioner sub0itted its Manifestation and !ounter?Motion.&# On Ma1 2, -..#, the !T( Second Division rendered a Resolution&$ den1in% petitioner4s Petition for Relief fro0 +ud%0ent.lawph!l.net Petitioner4s 0otion for reconsideration "as denied in a Resolution dated Nove0ber $, -..#,&3 hence it filed a petition for revie" "ith the !T( En Banc, doc7eted as !.T.(. / No. $., "hich affir0ed the assailed Resolutions of the !T( Second Division in a Decision dated +une ,, -..$. @ence, this petition for revie" based on the follo"in% %rounds5 I. T@ @ONOR(/8 !T( (ND !T( E BA C 9R(V 8A RR D IN D NAIN9 P TITION R4S P TITION FOR R 8I F, BIT@OCT FIRST (FFORDIN9 IT T@ OPPORTCNITA TO (DDC! VID N! TO ST(/8IS@ T@ F(!TC(8 (88 9(TIONS !ONSTITCTIN9 ITS (88 9 D D!CS(/8 N 98I9 N! , IN !8 (R VIO8(TION OF P TITION R4S /(SI! RI9@T TO DC PRO! SS. II. !ONSID RIN9 T@(T T@ SC/+ !T (SS SSM NT, INSOF(R (S IT INVO8V S (88 9 D D FI!I N!A DO!CM NT(RA ST(MP T(D S ON SP !I(8 S(VIN9S (!!OCNTS, IS (N ISSC (FF !TIN9 (88 M M/ RS OF T@ /(NEIN9 INDCSTRA, P TITION R, 8IE (88 OT@ R /(NES, S@OC8D / (FFORD D (N FC(8 OPPORTCNITA TO FC88A 8ITI9(T T@ ISSC , (ND @(V T@ !(S D T RMIN D /(S D ON ITS M RITS, R(T@ R T@(N ON ( M R T !@NI!(8ITA.&, Relief fro0 >ud%0ent under Rule 2; of the Rules of !ourt is a le%al re0ed1 that is allo"ed onl1 in e'ceptional cases "hereb1 a part1 see7s to set aside a >ud%0ent rendered a%ainst hi0 b1 a court "henever he "as un>ustl1 deprived of a hearin% or "as prevented fro0 ta7in% an appeal, in either case, because of fraud, accident, 0ista7e or e'cusable ne%lect.&; Petitioner ar%ues that it "as denied due process "hen it "as not %iven the opportunit1 to be heard to prove that its failure to file a 0otion for reconsideration or appeal fro0 the dis0issal of its petition for revie" "as due to the failure of its e0plo1ee to for"ard the cop1 of the Septe0ber &., -..2 Resolution "hich constitutes e'cusable ne%li%ence. Petitioner4s ar%u0ent lac7s 0erit. It is basic that as lon% as a part1 is %iven the opportunit1 to defend his interests in due course, he "ould have no reason to co0plain, for it is this opportunit1 to be heard that 0a7es up the essence of due process.&: InBatong!a"al #. $afra,-. the !ourt held that5

There is no =uestion that the Gessence of due process is a hearin% before conviction and before an i0partial and disinterested tribunalG but due process as a constitutional precept does not, al"a1s and in all situations, re=uire a trial?t1pe proceedin%. The essence of due process is to be found in the reasonable opportunit1 to be heard and sub0it an1 evidence one 0a1 have in support of one4s defense. %To &e 'e()*% *oe+ no, on-. /e(n 0e)&(- ()1u/en,+ 2n 3ou),4 one /(. &e 'e()* (-+o ,')ou1' 5-e(*2n1+. 6'e)e o55o),un2,. ,o &e 'e()*, e2,'e) ,')ou1' o)(- ()1u/en,+ o) 5-e(*2n1+, 2+ (33o)*e*, ,'e)e 2+ no *en2(- o7 5)o3e*u)(- *ue 5)o3e++. ) 0phasis supplied* (s correctl1 pointed b1 the Office of the Solicitor 9eneral )OS9*, the !T( Second Division set the case for hearin% on (pril -, -..# after the filin% b1 the petitioner of its petition for relief fro0 >ud%0ent. Petitioner4s counsel "as present on the scheduled hearin% and in fact orall1 ar%ued its petition. Moreover, after the !T( Second Division dis0issed the petition for relief fro0 >ud%0ent in a Resolution dated Ma1 2, -..#, petitioner filed a 0otion for reconsideration and the court further re=uired both parties to file their respective 0e0orandu0. Indeed, petitioner "as not denied its da1 in court considerin% the opportunities %iven to ar%ue its clai0. Relief cannot be %ranted on the fli0s1 e'cuse that the failure to appeal "as due to the ne%lect of petitioner4s counsel.-& Other"ise, all that a losin% part1 "ould do to salva%e his case "ould be to invo7e ne%lect or 0ista7e of his counsel as a %round for reversin% or settin% aside the adverse >ud%0ent, thereb1 puttin% no end to liti%ation.-Ne%li%ence to be Ge'cusableG 0ust be one "hich ordinar1 dili%ence and prudence could not have %uarded a%ainst and b1 reason of "hich the ri%hts of an a%%rieved part1 have probabl1 been i0paired.-2 Petitioner4s for0er counsel4s o0ission could hardl1 be characteri6ed as e'cusable, 0uch less unavoidable. The !ourt has repeatedl1 ad0onished la"1ers to adopt a s1ste0 "hereb1 the1 can al"a1s receive pro0ptl1 >udicial notices and pleadin%s intended for the0.-# (pparentl1, petitioner4s counsel "as not onl1 re0iss in co0pl1in% "ith this ad0onition but he also failed to chec7 periodicall1, as an act of prudence and dili%ence, the status of the pendin% case before the !T( Second Division. The fact that counsel alle%edl1 had not rene"ed the e0plo10ent of his secretar1, thereb1 0a7in% the latter no lon%er attentive or focused on her "or7, did not relieve hi0 of his responsibilities to his client. It is a proble0 personal to hi0 "hich should not in an1 0anner interfere "ith his professional co00it0ents. In e'ceptional cases, "hen the 0ista7e of counsel is so palpable that it a0ounts to %ross ne%li%ence, this !ourt affords a part1 a second opportunit1 to vindicate his ri%ht. /ut this opportunit1 is unavailin% in the case at bar, especiall1 since petitioner had s=uandered the various opportunities available to it at the different sta%es of this case. Public interest de0ands an end to ever1 liti%ation and a belated effort to reopen a case that has alread1 attained finalit1 "ill serve no purpose other than to dela1 the ad0inistration of >ustice.-$ Since petitioner4s %round for relief is not "ell?ta7en, it follo"s that the assailed >ud%0ent stands. (ssu0in% ex gratia argumenti that the ne%li%ence of petitioner4s counsel is e'cusable, still the petition 0ust fail. (s aptl1 observed b1 the OS9, even if the petition for relief fro0 >ud%0ent "ould be %ranted, petitioner "ill not fare an1 better if the case "ere to be returned to the !T(

Second Division since its action for the cancellation of its assess0ents had alread1 prescribed.-3 Petitioner protested the assess0ents pursuant to Section --; of the NIR!, "hich provides5 S !. --;. Protesting of Assessment.? ' ' '. '''' Bithin a period to be prescribed b1 i0ple0entin% rules and re%ulations, the ta'pa1er shall be re=uired to respond to said notice. If the ta'pa1er fails to respond, the !o00issioner or his dul1 authori6ed representative shall issue an assess0ent based on his findin%s. Such assess0ent 0a1 be protested ad0inistrativel1 b1 filin% a re=uest for reconsideration or reinvesti%ation "ithin thirt1 )2.* da1s fro0 receipt of the assess0ent in such for0 and 0anner as 0a1 be prescribed b1 i0ple0entin% rules and re%ulations. Bithin si't1 )3.* da1s fro0 filin% of the protest, all relevant supportin% docu0ents shall have been sub0ittedH other"ise, the assess0ent shall beco0e final. I7 ,'e 5)o,e+, 2+ *en2e* 2n 8'o-e o) 2n 5(),, o) 2+ no, (3,e* u5on 82,'2n one 'un*)e* e21',. 9180: *(.+ 7)o/ +u&/2++2on o7 *o3u/en,+, ,'e ,(;5(.e) (*0e)+e-. (77e3,e* &. ,'e *e32+2on o) 2n(3,2on /(. (55e(- ,o ,'e Cou), o7 T(; A55e(-+ 82,'2n 9<0: *(.+ 7)o/ )e3e25, o7 ,'e +(2* *e32+2on, o) 7)o/ ,'e -(5+e o7 ,'e one 'un*)e* e21',. 9180:$*(. 5e)2o*4 o,'e)82+e ,'e *e32+2on +'(-- &e3o/e 72n(-, e;e3u,o). (n* *e/(n*(&-e. ) 0phasis supplied* The !T( Second Division held5 Follo"in% the periods provided for in the afore0entioned la"s, fro0 +ul1 -., -..&, that is, the date of petitioner4s filin% of protest, it had until Septe0ber &;, -..& to sub0it relevant docu0ents and fro0 Septe0ber &;, -..&, the !o00issioner had until March &,, -..- to issue his decision. (s ad0itted b1 petitioner, the protest re0ained unacted b1 the !o00issioner of Internal Revenue. Therefore, it had until (pril &3, -..- "ithin "hich to elevate the case to this court. Thus, "hen petitioner filed its Petition for Revie" on (pril 2., -..-, the sa0e is outside the thirt1 )2.* period.-, (s provided in Section --;, the failure of a ta'pa1er to appeal fro0 an assess0ent on ti0e rendered the assess0ent final, e'ecutor1 and de0andable. !onse=uentl1, petitioner is precluded fro0 disputin% the correctness of the assess0ent. In %er & Compan'( Ltd. #. Court of Tax Appeals,-; the !ourt held that "hile the ri%ht to appeal a decision of the !o00issioner to the !ourt of Ta' (ppeals is 0erel1 a statutor1 re0ed1, nevertheless the re=uire0ent that it 0ust be brou%ht "ithin 2. da1s is >urisdictional. If a statutor1 re0ed1 provides as a condition precedent that the action to enforce it 0ust be co00enced "ithin a prescribed ti0e, such re=uire0ent is >urisdictional and failure to co0pl1 there"ith 0a1 be raised in a 0otion to dis0iss. In fine, the failure to co0pl1 "ith the 2.?da1 statutor1 period "ould bar the appeal and deprive the !ourt of Ta' (ppeals of its >urisdiction to entertain and deter0ine the correctness of the assess0ent.-:

B@ R FOR , in vie" of the fore%oin%, the Decision of the !ourt of Ta' (ppeals En Banc dated +une ,, -..$ in !.T.(. / No. $. affir0in% the Resolutions of the !ourt of Ta' (ppeals Second Division dated Ma1 2, -..# and Nove0ber $, -..# in !.T.(. !ase No. 3#,$ den1in% petitioner4s Petition for Relief fro0 +ud%0ent and Motion for Reconsideration, respectivel1, is (FFIRM D. SO ORD R D.