Facts: Petitioner Liboro, a practicing lawyer field his income tax return for 1980. However, on September 30 and November 30, 1985 he was notified of his tax deficiency. He responded with a letter – protest dated December 19, 1985, but this was denied by the CIR on May 11, 1988 for lack of legal basis. Petitioner filed a petition for review with the CTA which dismissed his petition on March 29, 1991. Petitioner received the decision on May 29, 1991 and, therefore, had until June 13, 1991 to file a petition for review with the CA.
However, instead of filing a petition for review, petitioner, on June 11, 1991, filed a notice of appeal with the CTA, and on June 13, 1991 field a motion for extension of 30 days to file a petition for review before the CA. The CA denied his motion on June 20, 1991 the ground that SC circular No. 1-91 then in force did not authorize and extension of the period for filing a petition for review and regarded the proceedings closed and terminated. On July 18, 1991, petitioner’s motion for reconsideration and for admission of his petition were denied.
Issue: Whether Circular No. 1-91 then in force allows the CA to grant a motion for extension to file a petition for review from the final order or decision of the CTA and other quasi-judicial agencies.
Held: The prohibition against granting an extension of time applies only in a case where ordinary appeal is perfected by a mere notice of appeal. The reason is that only the filing of the notice of appeal is required to perfect an appeal and nothing more. However, it is different in a petition for review where pleading is required to be verified. A petition for review, unlike an ordinary appeal, requires careful preparation and research in order to put up a persuasive and formidable position.
Since Circular No. 1-91 provides that an appeal from the CTA other quasi-judicial agencies to the CA is by a petition for review, and no longer by mere notice of appeal, a corresponding motion for extension of time to file a petition for review should likewise be granted.
But the extension nonetheless should be limited only to 15 days, save exceptionally meritorious cases where the CA may grant it a longer period.
0 comments:
Post a Comment