Facts: Petitioners, consisting of investors/shipping companies field on April 10, 1989 a petition for refund of the CTA for reversal of certain VAT rulings and for the refund of P15,120,000 representing erroneously paid 10% VAT on the sale thru public bidding of 5 vessels by the National Development Corp. to said group of investors. On April 27, 1992, the CTA ordered the CIR to refund the amount to petitioners.
The resolution of the CTA dated December 9, 1992, delaying its motion for reconsideration was received by respondent CIR on January 6, 1993. Upon receipt thereof, CIR, thru the office of the SOL-GEN, filed on the same date with the CA a motion for reconsideration of 30 days or until February 6, 1993, within which to file a petition for review. However, on February 5, 1993, the OSG filed on behalf of respondent CIR a second motion for extension of 30 days, or until March 8, 1993, within which to file said petition.
On February 11, 1993, the OSG received the resolution dated February 3, 1993 of respondent appellate court granting respondent CIR’S first motion for extension “with a warning that so further extension shall be entertained.” Manifestation and motion, on March 8, 1993, or within the period requested in the second motion for extension, the petition for review was filed thru registered mail.
In a resolution of May 3, 1993, respondent CA dismissed the petition for being filed out of time. Later, however, the CA reconsidered its ruling and directed herein petitioner to file its comment on the reinstated petition. Hence, petitioners filed the instant petition.
Issue: Whether or not the motion for extension to file a petition for review of CA my be permitted.
Held: The petition is devoid of merit. The petition for review pending before respondent appellate court was file din accordance with circular no. 1-91, dated January 27, 1991. While circular no. 1-91 is silent as to whether a motion for extension of time to file a petition for review with the CA may be permitted, nevertheless, the court already ruled in Liboro vs. CA, that such motion is allowed and should be granted. Parenthetically, it should be mentioned that Adm. Circular no. 1-95 which took effect on February 15, 1995 allows motion for extension of time to file petitions for review.
The resort to the filing of the first motion for extension dated January 6, 1993 was proper, and said motion validly and timely filed, pursuant to the then prevailing rules of procedure. The first motion having been granted on February 3, 1993 or well within the period of extension asked for, was no less valid and effective. Therefore, petitioner has until February 6, 1993 to file the subject petition for review.
With respect to the 2nd motion for extension filed on February 5, 1993, the court took cognizance of the fact that the intermittent and extended power failures assuming almost daily throughout 1993 rendered substantial work delays inevitable. Hence the 2nd motion for extension was justified and the grant thereof was proper under the circumstances.
While generally speaking, a review on appeal is not a matter of right but of sound judicial discretion, and may be granted only when there are special and important reasons therefore, in this instance, substantial justice would be better by allowing the appeal.
0 comments:
Post a Comment