CASE DIGEST : SM Land, Inc. (Formerly Shoemart, Inc. and Watsons Personal Care Stores, v. City of Manila

 G.R. No. 197151               October 22, 2012

SM LAND, INC. (Formerly Shoemart, Inc.) and WATSONS PERSONAL CARE STORES, PHILS., INC., Petitioners,

vs.

CITY OF MANILA, LIBERTY TOLEDO, in her official capacity as the City Treasurer of Manila and JOSEPH SANTIAGO, in his official capacity as the Chief of License Division of the City of Manila, Respondents

FACTS: On the strength of the provisions of Tax Ordinance Nos. 7988 and 8011, which amended Ordinance No. 7794, also known as the Revenue Code of Manila, herein respondent City of Manila assessed herein petitioners, together with their other sister companies, increased rates of business taxes for the year 2003 and the first to third quarters of 2004. Petitioners and their sister companies paid the additional taxes under protest. Subsequently, petitioners and their sister companies claimed with herein respondent City Treasurer of Manila a credit or refund of the increased business taxes which they paid for the period abovementioned. However, the City Treasurer denied their claim. Aggrieved, petitioners and their sister companies filed with the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Pasay City a Complaint for Refund and/or Issuance of Tax Credit of Taxes Illegally Collected. On July 10, 2007, the RTC rendered a summary judgment in favor of herein petitioners. The CTA Second Division sustained the ruling of the RTC that Ordinance Nos. 7988 and 8011 are null and void. Petitioners filed a Motion for Partial Reconsideration. The CTA Second Division, however, denied the Motion for Partial Reconsideration in its Resolution. Aggrieved, petitioners filed a petition for review with the CTA En Banc, contending that the CTA Second Division erred in holding that the 30-day period provided by law within which to appeal decisions of the RTC to the CTA may be extended. On December 17, 2010, the CTA En Banc rendered its assailed Decision affirming in toto the judgment of the CTA Second Division. Petitioners' Motion for Reconsideration was subsequently denied by the CTA En Banc in its Resolution. Hence, the present petition.

ISSUE: WON the 30-day period provided by law within which to appeal decisions of the RTC to the CTA may be extended

HELD: The period to appeal the decision or ruling of the RTC to the CTA via a Petition for Review is specifically governed by Section 11 of Republic Act No. 9282, and Section 3 (a), Rule 8 of the Revised Rules of the CTA. The Supreme Court ruled that the provision that to appeal a decision of the RTC to the CTA the petitioner should file a petition for review with the CTA within 30 days from the receipt of the adverse decision of the RTC. Following the rules on appeal of the RTC to CTA the original period of 30 days is not extendable except only for the most compelling reasons, in which case the extended period shall not exceed 15 days. Petitioners further contend that the Order of the CTA Second Division granting petitioners' motion for extension to file their petition for review is invalid, since the case used by the Supreme court is not yet in effect. The Supreme Court does not agree. At the time that the CTA Second Division granted petitioners' motion for extension to file their petition for review, Republic Act 928215 (RA 9282), which amended certain provisions of RA 1125,16 were already in effect,