Commisssioner of Internal Revenue vs Josefinal Leal
G.R. No. 113459, November 18, 2002
392 SCRA 9
FACTS: Respondent Josefina Leal, a pawnshop owner assailed Revenue Memorandum Order (RMO) No. 15-91 and Revenue Memorandum Circular (RMC) No. 43-91 issued pursuant to Sec. 116 of the Tax Code by petitioner Commissioner of Internal Revenue (CIR). RMO No. 15-91 imposed 5% lending investor’s tax on pawnshops based on their gross income and required all investigating units of the Bureau of Internal Revenue (BIR) to investigate and assess the lending investor’s tax due from them while RMC No. 43-91 subjected the pawn ticket to the documentary stamp tax. Adversely affected by these revenue orders, she filed a petition for prohibition with the Regional Trial Court (RTC) Rizal after her request for reconsideration had been denied by the CIR. Petitioner filed a motion to dismiss the petition on the ground that the RTC had no jurisdiction to review the questioned revenue orders and to enjoin their implementation , however, the RTC denied the motion to dismiss. Petitioner then filed with the Court of Appeals a petition for certiorari and prohibition under Rule 65 of the Revised Rules of Court on the ground that the RTC acted without or in excess of his jurisdiction, or with grave abuse of discretion. The Court of Appeals dismissed the petition “for lack of legal basis” and ruled that the RTC’s order denying the motion to dismiss is subject to immediate challenge before the Supreme Court and not with them.
ISSUES:
1. Does the Court of Appeals have jurisdiction over a petition for Certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court questioning the authority of the RTC to review Revenue Orders issued by the CIR?
2. Is it the RTC or the Court of Tax Appeals which has the appellate jurisdiction to review the rulings or orders of the CIR?
RULING:
1. The Court ruled that the CA erred in holding that it had no jurisdiction over petitioner’s special civil action for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules. While the Supreme Court exercises original jurisdiction to issue the extraordinary writ of certiorari (as well as the writs of prohibition, mandamus, quo warranto, and habeas corpus), such power is not exclusive to this Court but is concurrent with the Court of Appeals and the Regional Trial Court. Such concurrence of original jurisdiction among the Regional Trial Court, the Court of Appeals and the Supreme Court, however, does not mean that the party seeking any of the extraordinary writs has the absolute freedom to file his petition in the court of his choice. The hierarchy of courts determines the appropriate forum for these petitions. Thus, petitions for the issuance of the said writs against the first level (inferior) courts must be filed with the Regional Trial Court and those against the latter, with the Court of Appeals. A direct invocation of the Supreme Court’s original jurisdiction to issue these writs should be allowed only where there are special and important reasons therefor, specifically and sufficiently set forth in the petition. This is the established policy to prevent inordinate demands upon the Court’s time and attention, which are better devoted to matters within its exclusive jurisdiction, and to prevent further over-crowding of the Court’s docket. Thus, it was proper for petitioner to institute the special civil action for certiorari with the Court of Appeals assailing the RTC’s order denying his motion to dismiss based on lack of jurisdiction.
2. The jurisdiction to review the rulings of the Commissioner of Internal Revenue pertains to the Court of Tax Appeals, not to the RTC. Under Republic Act No. 1125 (An Act Creating the Court of Tax Appeals), the CTA shall exercise exclusive appellate jurisdiction to review by appeal, the decisions of the Commissioner of Internal Revenue in cases involving disputed assessments, refunds of internal revenue taxes, fees or other charges, penalties imposed in relation thereto, or other matters arising under the National Internal Revenue Code or other laws or part of law administered by the Bureau of Internal Revenue.
Myline Cordial 
Leave a comment