G.R. No. 271701 - Concurring and Dissenting Opinion

G.R. No. 271701, May 6, 2025,
♦ Decision, Zalameda, [J]
♦ Concurring and Dissenting Opinion, Leonen, [J]
♦ Separate Concurring Opinion, Caguioa, [J]
♦ Dissenting Opinion, Lazaro-Javier, [J]
♦ Concurring and Dissenting Opinion, Inting, [J]
♦ Dissenting Opinion, Lopez, [J]

COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, PETITIONER,
vs.
NIPPON EXPRESS PHILIPPINES CORPORATION, RESPONDENT.

I concur with the majority that the Petition for Review on Certiorari should be denied since its subject matter has already become moot. However, I maintain that a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court, challenging an interlocutory order of a Court of Tax Appeals (CTA) division, falls under the jurisdiction of the CTA En Banc.

The CTA, which was created through the enactment of Republic Act No. 1125, is the tribunal with specialized competence over tax and tariff matters.1

Republic Act No. 9282 then enlarged the CTA's membership, expanded its jurisdiction, and elevated its level to a collegiate court with special jurisdiction. Section 11 states that "[a] party adversely affected by a resolution of a Division of the CTA on a motion for reconsideration or new trial may file a petition for review with the CTA en banc."2

Republic Act No. 9503 further enlarged the organizational structure of the CTA, increasing its membership to a Presiding Justice and eight Associate Justices.3 Now, the CTA may sit in three divisions.4

The following are the cases within the exclusive appellate jurisdiction of the CTA En Banc. Among these are decisions, resolutions or orders of the CTA division in the enumerated cases:5

Notably, the law neither expressly grants nor prohibits the CTA En Banc from issuing writs of certiorari over cases that it has exclusive appellate jurisdiction over.

In collegiate courts, such as in the Supreme Court or the Court of Appeals, the adjudication of its division is regarded as the decision of the Court itself. The Supreme Court and the Court of Appeals sitting En Banc have no appellate jurisdiction over their respective divisions and there is no hierarchy of courts within them:7

It is the same situation among other collegial courts. To illustrate, the Supreme Court or the Court of Appeals may sit and [adjudicate] cases in divisions consisting of only a number of members, and such adjudication is already regarded as the decision of the Court itself. It is provided for in the Constitution, Article VIII, Section 4(1) and BP Blg. 129, Section 4, respectively. The divisions are not considered separate and distinct courts but are divisions of one and the same court; there is no hierarchy of courts within the Supreme Court and the Court of Appeals, for they each remain as one court notwithstanding that they also work in divisions. The Supreme Court sitting en banc is not an appellate court vis-a-vis its divisions, and it exercises no appellate jurisdiction over the latter. As for the Court of Appeals en banc, it sits as such only for the purpose of exercising administrative, ceremonial, or other non-adjudicator/functions.8 (Citations omitted)

However, this is not the case with the Court of Tax Appeals. As pointed out by the majority, it is the only collegial court that sits en banc to review the decisions, resolutions, or orders on motions for reconsideration or new trial of its own divisions.9 Although the explicit grant of exclusive appellate jurisdiction to the CTA. En Banc does not make it a separate and superior court, it creates a semblance of hierarchy that enables it to take cognizance of a petition for certiorari challenging the interlocutory orders of the CTA divisions.

Rule 65, Section 1 of the Rules of Court regulates the exercise of the power to issue the writ of certiorari:

Section 1. Petition for certiorari. — When any tribunal, board or officer exercising judicial or quasi-judicial functions has acted without or in excess its or his jurisdiction, or with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction, and there is no appeal, or any plain, speedy, and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law, a person aggrieved thereby may file a verified petition in the proper court, alleging the facts with certainty and praying that judgment be rendered annulling or modifying the proceedings of such tribunal, board or officer, and granting such incidental reliefs as law and justice may require.

The petition shall be accompanied by a certified true copy of the judgment, order or resolution subject thereof, copies of all pleadings and documents relevant and pertinent thereto, and a sworn certification of non-forum shopping as provided in the third paragraph of section 3, Rule 46.10

Being an extraordinary writ, it should only be issued when a tribunal acted with grave abuse of discretion amounting to a lack or excess of jurisdiction. It is a remedy to ensure that the lower courts and tribunals stay within the bounds of their jurisdiction. Grave abuse of discretion is the "capricious or whimsical exercise of judgment that is patent and gross as to amount to an evasion of positive duty or a virtual refusal to perform a duty enjoined by law:"11

The origins of the writ of certiorari from common law jurisdiction and its evolution and application in our jurisdiction are expounded in Spouses Delos Santos v. Metropolitan Bank and Trust Company:13

In City of Manila v. Grecia-Cuerdo,15 petitioners filed a petition for certiorari before the Court of Appeals assailing the orders of the Regional Trial Court (RTC), which granted respondent's application for a writ of preliminary injunction in a local tax case. The Court ruled that the CTA's authority to take cognizance of petitions for certiorari questioning interlocutory orders issued by the RTC in a local tax case is included in the powers granted by the Constitution and is inherent in the exercise of its appellate jurisdiction.16

In ruling as such, this Court explained that the exercise of a court's appellate jurisdiction should include the authority to control all auxiliary and incidental matters necessary to the efficient and proper exercise of that jurisdiction. When needed, it should be able to prohibit or restrain any acts that might hinder the proper exercise of its jurisdiction in ongoing cases. Thus, the power to issue writs of certiorari complements the exercise of a court's appellate jurisdiction.17 It further discussed:

The ruling in City of Manila is subsequently applied in CE Casecnan Water and Energy Company, Inc. v. Province of Nueva Ecija19 and Republic v. City of Surigao.20

In CE Casecnan, the Court affirmed the CTA's authority to issue a writ of certiorari and reiterated that "if a case may be appealed to a particular court or judicial tribunal or body, then said court or judicial tribunal or body has jurisdiction to issue the extraordinary writ of certiorari, in aid of its appellate jurisdiction."21

In City of Surigao, a case involving local taxation, this Court affirmed that the CTA's exclusive appellate jurisdiction over a decision of the RTC necessarily includes the authority to determine whether the RTC acted with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction in issuing an interlocutory order relative to the main action.22

Meanwhile, the power of the CTA En Banc to issue a petition for certiorari over cases resolved by its division in criminal cases was settled by this Court in People v. Court of Tax Appeals.23

In People v. Court of Tax Appeals, the CTA Third Division acquitted the accused of several criminal charges of failure to supply correct and accurate information in their joint Income Tax Return (ITR) for taxable year 2001 and failure to report their income in their ITRs for taxable years 2002, 2003, and 2004. The petitioners in this case filed a petition for certiorari before this Court, alleging that the acquittal is tainted with grave abuse of discretion amounting to a lack or excess of jurisdiction.24

The Court applied the ruling in City of Manila by analogy and made a pronouncement that "the CTA En Banc's exclusive appellate jurisdiction over decisions, resolutions, or orders of a division of the CTA under Section 2(f) of the CTA Rules includes the authority to resolve petitions for certiorari assailing the decision, resolution, or order of a CTA division."25

This Court also declared that a petition for certiorari should be filed first with the CTA En Banc in line with the doctrine of hierarchy of courts. Only after the CTA En Banc renders its decision or resolution that the party adversely affected may appeal by filing a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court before this Court.27

A deviation from the ruling in City of Manila and People v. Court of Tax Appeals is not warranted. Since the power to issue a writ of certiorari is not only necessary but is indispensable in the effective and efficient exercise of appellate jurisdiction, the CTA En Banc should also have the authority to take cognizance of a petition for certiorari challenging an interlocutory order of a Court of Tax Appeals division.

Aside from this, the rule that the authority to issue writs of certiorari must be expressly conferred by the Constitution or by law and cannot be implied from the grant of appellate jurisdiction only applies to quasi-judicial tribunals or bodies:28

The prevailing doctrine is that the authority to issue writs of certiorari involves the exercise of original jurisdiction which must be expressly conferred by the Constitution or by law and cannot be implied from the mere existence of appellate jurisdiction. Thus, in the cases of Pimentel v. COMELEC, Garcia v. De Jesus, Veloria v. COMELEC, Department of Agrarian Reform Adjudication Board v. Lubrica, and Garcia v. Sandiganbayan, this Court has ruled against the jurisdiction of courts or tribunals over petitions for certiorari on the ground that there is no law which expressly gives these tribunals such power. It must be observed, however, that with the exception of Garcia v. Sandiganbayan, these rulings pertain not to regular courts but to tribunals exercising quasi-judicial powers. With respect to the Sandiganbayan, Republic Act No. 8249 now provides that the special criminal court has exclusive original jurisdiction over petitions for the issuance of the writs of mandamus, prohibition, certiorari, habeas corpus, injunctions, and other ancillary writs and processes in aid of its appellate jurisdiction.

In the same manner, Section 5 (1), Article VIII of the 1987 Constitution grants power to the Supreme Court, in the exercise of its original jurisdiction, to issue writs of certiorari, prohibition and mandamus. With respect to the Court of Appeals, Section 9 (1) of Batas Pambansa Blg. 129 (BP 129) gives the appellate court, also in the exercise of its original jurisdiction, the power to issue, among others, a writ of certiorari, whether or not in aid of its appellate jurisdiction. As to Regional Trial Courts, the power to issue a writ of certiorari, in the exercise of their original jurisdiction, is provided under Section 21 of BP 129.

The foregoing notwithstanding, while there is no express grant of such power, with respect to the CTA, Section 1, Article VIII of the 1987 Constitution provides, nonetheless, that judicial power shall be vested in one Supreme Court and in such lower courts as may be established by law and that judicial power includes the duty of the courts of justice to settle actual controversies involving rights which are legally demandable and enforceable, and to determine whether or not there has been a grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction on the part of any branch or instrumentality of the Government.

On the strength of the above constitutional provisions, it can be fairly interpreted that the power of the CTA includes that of determining whether or not there has been grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction on the part of the RTC in issuing an interlocutory order in cases falling within the exclusive appellate jurisdiction of the tax court. It, thus, follows that the CTA, by constitutional mandate, is vested with jurisdiction to issue writs of certiorari in these cases.29 (Emphasis supplied, citations omitted)

Considering that the CTA En Banc is not a quasi-judicial tribunal but a collegiate court, the lack of express grant of the power to issue writs of certiorari over the acts of the CTA division should not preclude it from exercising such authority.

Lastly, just as the grant of the exclusive appellate jurisdiction to the CTA En Banc did not make it a separate and superior court to its divisions, the grant of the authority to take cognizance of a petition for certiorari will not cause this perceived effect. If the CTA En Banc is given the authority to review the decisions or resolutions of its divisions and reverse them on appeal, there is no reason to say that they lack the authority to determine whether any of its divisions exceeded their jurisdiction in issuing interlocutory orders.