CIR vs. CTA and CBK Power Company

 G.R. Nos. 203054-55               July 29, 2015

COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Petitioner,

vs.

COURT OF TAX APPEALS and CBK POWER COMPANY LIMITED, Respondents.

FACTS:

CBK Power Company Limited filed a CTA Case Nos. 8246 and 8302 on different dates and were handled by different lawyers, i.e., Atty. Sandico and Atty. Mauricio, respectively. The cases were later on consolidated and the pre-trial was set on November 3, 2011 but, Atty. Mauricio, was not able to attend for health reasons; and Atty. Sandico to whom the consolidated cases were later on assigned was not able to attend the pre-trial on time on December 1, 2011 as he was attending another case in another division of the CTA. 

Hence, CBK moved that CIR be declared in default.

However, CIR filed a Motion to Lift Order of Default alleging that the failure to attend the pre-trial conference on November 3, 2011 was due to confusion in office procedure in relation to the consolidation of CTA Case No. 8246 with CTA Case No. 8302 since the latter was being handled by a different lawyer; that when the pre-trial conference was reset to December 1, 2011, petitioner's counsel, Atty. Sandico, had to attend the hearing of another case in the CTA's First Division, he unintentionally missed the pre-trial conference of the consolidated cases. CTA denied the motion to lift order of default, CTA denied as well the motion for reconsideration.

CIR files the instant petition for certiorari raising among others that THERE IS NO PLAIN, SPEEDY AND ADEQUATE REMEDY IN THE ORDINARY COURSE OF LAW BUT THE FILING OF A PETITION FOR CERTIORARI UNDER RULE 65.

CBK claims that CIR chose an erroneous remedy when it filed a petition for certiorari with SC since the proper remedy on any adverse resolution of any division of the CTA is an appeal by way of a petition for review with the CTA en banc.

ISSUE:

Whether CBK is correct.

RULING:

No, CTA en banc has jurisdiction over final order or judgment but not over interlocutory orders issued by the CTA in division. 

Given the differences between a final judgment and an interlocutory order, there is no doubt that the CTA Order dated December 23, 2011 granting CBK motion to declare CIR as in default and allowing CBK to present its evidence ex parte, is an interlocutory order as it did not finally dispose of the case on the merits but will proceed for the reception of the former's evidence to determine its entitlement to its judicial claim for tax credit certificates. Even the CTA's subsequent orders denying CIR's motion to lift order of default and denying reconsideration thereof are all interlocutory orders since they pertain to the order of default.

Since the CTA Orders are merely interlocutory, no appeal can be taken therefrom.

Thus, the consolidated cases are hereby REMANDED to the CTA Third Division to give CIR the chance to present evidence, rebuttal and sur rebuttal evidence, if needed.