In People of the Philippines v. Mallari and Wei-Neng, the Supreme Court reiterated that failure to file a motion for reconsideration within the prescribed 15-day period results in the finality of the decision. The Court also emphasized that a counsel’s negligence binds the client, even when it concerns the State’s inherent power to tax. This ruling underscores the importance of adhering to procedural rules and the responsibility of parties to monitor their cases actively.

When Does Justice Wait? A Tax Case Dismissed Over Missed Deadlines

This case arose from a criminal complaint filed against Benedicta Mallari and Chi Wei-Neng, officers of Topsun Int’l., Inc., for failing to pay Value Added Tax (VAT). The Bureau of Internal Revenue (BIR) alleged a deficiency of P3,827,564.64 and a compromise penalty of P25,000.00 for January to June 2000. An information was filed with the Court of Tax Appeals (CTA). The CTA First Division initially directed the prosecutor to correct deficiencies in the information and submit additional documents, including the Commissioner of Internal Revenue’s (CIR) approval for filing the case. When the prosecutor failed to fully comply, the CTA dismissed the case, leading to a motion for reconsideration filed beyond the deadline. The central legal question is whether the delay in filing the motion for reconsideration can be excused, and what is the effect of counsel’s negligence on the client, especially the State?

The CTA Special First Division denied the motion for being filed out of time. The CTA En Banc affirmed this decision, leading the People of the Philippines to elevate the case to the Supreme Court. The petitioner argued that they did not receive proper notice of the CTA First Division’s resolution and that the negligence of the Assistant City Prosecutor (ACP) should not be attributed to the State, especially considering the State’s power to tax.

However, the Supreme Court was not convinced. It anchored its decision on the well-established principle of procedural rules. The court emphasized that a motion for reconsideration must be filed within 15 days from the date of receipt of the notice of the decision. In this case, the BIR Main Office and the Office of the City Prosecutor received the notice on December 17, 2009, and December 21, 2009, respectively, making the January 18, 2010 filing date well beyond the deadline.

The Court also dismissed the argument that notice was improperly served. It cited the rule that when a party is represented by counsel, service of orders and notices must be made upon that counsel. ACP Mendoza, who initiated the filing of the information, was properly served. The Supreme Court noted the lack of justification for the belated entry of appearance by the special counsels. Because of the failure to file a timely motion for reconsideration, the December 14, 2009 Resolution of the CTA First Division became final.

Building on this principle of procedural compliance, the Supreme Court addressed the claim that the ACP’s negligence should not bind the State. The Court reiterated the long-standing rule that negligence of counsel binds the client. This is because a counsel has the implied authority to act on behalf of the client in the management of the suit. The Court noted that there was also a failure of the petitioner to diligently keep track of the criminal case. To support its stance, the Court quoted Bejarasco, Jr. v. People:

a counsel, once retained, has the implied authority to do all acts necessary or, at least, incidental to the prosecution and management of the suit in behalf of his/her client, petitioner in this case. As such, any act or omission by counsel within the scope of the authority is regarded, in the eyes of the law, as the act or omission of the client himself/herself.

The ruling underscores the importance of vigilance in pursuing legal remedies, particularly in tax cases where substantial public funds are at stake. The failure to comply with procedural deadlines can have severe consequences. Even in matters concerning the State’s inherent power to tax, procedural rules must be followed. This decision reinforces the principle that justice is dispensed within the framework of established rules and that diligence is expected from all parties involved.

Moreover, the Supreme Court reiterated the doctrine of finality of judgment. Because the CTA First Division December 14, 2009 Resolution had already attained finality because of petitioner’s failure to file a Motion for Reconsideration within the 15-day reglementary period, it becomes immutable and unalterable. The Court cited Philippine Savings Bank v. Papa, explaining that:

judgments or orders become final and executory by operation of law and not by judicial declaration. The finality of a judgment becomes a fact upon the lapse of the reglementary period of appeal if no appeal is perfected or no motion for reconsideration or new trial is filed. The court need not even pronounce the finality of the order as the same becomes final by operation of law.

The Supreme Court concluded that the CTA En Banc did not err in upholding the CTA Special First Division Resolution. Due to the doctrine of immutability, the said Resolution can no longer be reviewed nor modified even if it is meant to correct an erroneous conclusion of law and facts of the said tax court.

FAQs

What was the key issue in this case?	The key issue was whether the failure to file a timely motion for reconsideration could be excused, and whether the negligence of counsel binds the State, particularly in matters concerning taxation.
What is the reglementary period for filing a motion for reconsideration in the CTA?	Under the Revised Rules of the CTA, a motion for reconsideration must be filed within 15 days from the date of receipt of the notice of the assailed decision, resolution, or order.
What happens if a motion for reconsideration is filed late?	If a motion for reconsideration is filed beyond the 15-day period, the decision becomes final and executory, and the right to appeal is lost.
Is notice to the client sufficient if they have a counsel of record?	No, when a party is represented by counsel of record, service of orders and notices must be made upon that counsel, not directly to the client.
Can the negligence of a counsel be attributed to the client?	Yes, generally, the negligence and mistakes of a counsel are binding on the client, as the counsel has the implied authority to act on behalf of the client.
What is the doctrine of immutability of judgment?	The doctrine of immutability of judgment means that a final judgment can no longer be modified or altered, even if the modification is meant to correct erroneous conclusions of fact or law.
Are there exceptions to the doctrine of immutability of judgment?	Yes, there are exceptions, such as when the court’s jurisdiction was never validly acquired, or in cases of clerical errors, but these exceptions are narrowly construed.
What was the tax deficiency involved in this case?	The case involved a Value Added Tax (VAT) deficiency of P3,827,564.64 and a compromise penalty of P25,000.00 for the months of January to June 2000.

The People v. Mallari and Wei-Neng serves as a reminder of the strict adherence to procedural rules in legal proceedings. It highlights the importance of diligence in monitoring cases and the binding effect of a counsel’s actions on their clients. The failure to comply with deadlines can lead to adverse judgments that are difficult to overturn.

For inquiries regarding the application of this ruling to specific circumstances, please contact ASG Law through contact or via email at frontdesk@asglawpartners.com.

Disclaimer: This analysis is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For specific legal guidance tailored to your situation, please consult with a qualified attorney.
Source: PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, VS. BENEDICTA MALLARI AND CHI WEI-NENG, G.R. No. 197164, December 04, 2019