G.R. No. 266641 – COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, petitioner, vs. SCRIPT2010, INC., respondent.

CAGUIOA, J.

Rule Synopsis

The filing of a motion for extension of time to file petition for review does not stall the running of the reglementary period for perfecting an appeal. Meanwhile, a judgment becomes final and executory by operation of law. Finality becomes a fact when the reglementary period to appeal lapses and no appeal is perfected within such period. Once a decision becomes final, no court, not even this Court, can modify or revise the decision, no matter how erroneous it may be. The higher courts are thus divested of their appellate jurisdiction to review decisions that have already become final. Verily, once a decision becomes final, “what remains to be done is the purely ministerial enforcement or execution of the judgment.”

Facts

In 2012 to 2015, the BIR audited Script2010, Inc. (Script). The audit ultimately resulted to Script’s assessed tax liability for deficiency income tax, VAT, and EWT for the year 2011 of P45 million +. The Commissioner of Internal Revenue (CIR) demanded payment.

To challenge the assessment, Script filed a petition for review with the Court of Tax Appeals (CTA). On October 2019, the CTA Second Division partly granted Script’s petition reducing its deficiency tax liabilities. Both parties moved for partial reconsideration.

In an Amended Decision dated February 17, 2020 (Amended Decision), the CTA Second Division granted Script’s motion and cancelled and set aside the CIR’s assessments. The CIR received a copy of the Amended Decision on February 20, 2020.

On March 4, 2020, the CIR filed a motion for extension of time to file petition for review (motion for extension), which was denied by the CTA Second Division in its Resolution dated March 10, 2020. The CIR moved for reconsideration on June 23, 2020. According to the CIR, their counsel intended to file a motion for reconsideration, but due to oversight, he inadvertently filed the said motion for extension. The CTA Second Division, denied CIR’s motion for reconsideration.

On November 16, 2020, the CIR filed a petition for review before the CTA En Banc, which was denied. CIR’s motion for reconsideration was also denied.

Thus, the instant petition before the Supreme Court.

Issues

1. Was CIR’s appeal is invalid?
2. Did the CIR violate Script’s right to due process?

Ruling and Discussion

1. Yes. CIR’s appeal was invalid.
   
   CTA’s Amended Decision has already became final.
   
   A judgment becomes final and executory by operation of law. Finality becomes a fact when the reglementary period to appeal lapses and no appeal is perfected within such period. Once a decision becomes final, no court, not even this Court, can modify or revise the decision, no matter how erroneous it may be. The higher courts are thus divested of their appellate jurisdiction to review decisions that have already become final. Verily, once a decision becomes final, “what remains to be done is the purely ministerial enforcement or execution of the judgment.”
   
   Here, the CIR did not file a motion for reconsideration of the Amended Decision dated February 17, 2020, which reversed the original decision and cancelled and set aside the assessments issued against Script. The CIR received the same on February 20, 2020.
   
   CIR’s filing of a motion for extension did not stall the running of the reglementary period for perfecting an appeal. Thus, the Amended Decision became final on March 6, 2020, as far as the CIR is concerned. While the CIR claimed that the filing of the said motion is due to the inadvertence of CIR’s counsel, the rule is that the negligence of counsel binds the client.
   
   In any case, CIR was not denied due process as it was able to comprehensively present its case during trial before the CTA Second Division. In view thereof, the Court is left with no other choice but to deny the present Petition, which only seeks review of a judgment that has already attained finality.
2. Yes. CIR violated Script’s right to due process.
   
   While the instant case has already attained finality in 2020, the CIR was able to unnecessarily drag the same up to the present. Undoubtedly, the undue delay in the execution of the Amended Decision has caused injustice to Script. This practice cannot and should not be countenanced by the Court as it not only transgresses and renders futile established doctrines, it also puts to waste the scarce time and resources of the Judiciary, as well as those of the winning party.

dispositive

Petition denied. Decision and Resolution of the CTA affirmed.