THE Court of Tax Appeals (CTA) dismissed Jollibee Foods Corporation’s (JFC) petition, in relation to its P1.5-million refund claim, citing incorrect legal remedy in the proper forum and within the prescribed timeframe.
The tax court’s second division, in a decision penned by Associate Justice Corazon G. Ferrer-Flores, said it lacked jurisdiction over JFC’s Petition for Certiorari, noting the three requisites for certiorari to prosper, particularly focusing on the third: whether there is “no appeal or any plain, speedy, and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law.”
The CTA concluded that JFC had a plain, speedy, and adequate remedy, through the filing of a Petition for Review before the CTA. JFC’s immediate resort to certiorari was thus deemed improper.
JFC filed the Petition for Certiorari after a lower court affirmed the decision to dismiss its refund claim.
The case stemmed from the payment of its local business tax made to several cities in the first quarter of 2022, which JFC claimed to be higher than the actual sales presented per sale. This prompted JFC to request a refund worth P1.46 million.
The case was initially filed with the Metropolitan Trial Court (MeTC), which required the JFC to pay the tax and assail its assessment before the local treasurer, and bring an action in court within 30 days of decision or inaction by the local treasurer. The case was dismissed after the JFC failed to prove compliance with the second condition.
JFC then appealed to the Regional Trial Court (RTC) which issued a resolution that reversed and set aside the MeTC’s decision and order. However, the RTC issued the First Assailed Order, affirming the MeTC decision.
The company moved for reconsideration, which the RTC denied again in the Second Assailed Order.
Even if the CTA were to relax the rules and treat JFC’s petition as an ordinary petition for Review, it would still be dismissed on two additional grounds: The petition was filed out of time and should have been filed before the CTA en banc, as the RTC issued the assailed orders in the exercise of its appellate jurisdiction, it said. — Chloe Mari A. Hufana
