PANGASINAN TRANSPORTATION CO. INC., PETITIONER AND APPELLANT, VS. SILVERIO BLAQUERA, AS ACTING COLLECTOR OF INTERNAL REVENUE, RESPONDENT AND APPELLEE.

Appeal from a resolution of the Court of Tax Appeals dismissing the
petition of Pangasinan Transportation Co. Inc.—Pantranco for short—for
the revision of a certain tax assessment by the Acting Collector of
Internal Revenue. The dismissal rested on Pantranco’s failure to file
its request within the thirty-day period prescribed by law.

According to the Tax Court, the Collector “on February 12, 1954
originally assessed and demanded from petitioner the amount of
P73,791.66 as documentary stamp from 1948 to September 30, 1953, plus
P1,000.00 as compromise penalty (Annex A, Petition for Review; p. 354
BIR records). On March 4, 1954, petitioner requested a reinvestigation
of respondent’s original assessment and demand, on the grounds that the
same was arbitrary and without legal basis, and assuming that the tax
is due, that the collection of said tax has already prescribed. * * *
Respondent, on September 16, 1954 denied this request and urged
petitioner to pay the amount of P66,959.32 (Annex D, Petition for
Review; p. 388, BIR record). ln view of the change in the amount
demanded petitioner, in a letter dated October 4, 1954, requested a
clarification thereof (Annex E, Petition for review; p. 388, BIR
record). In reply to this letter, respondent on November 15, 1954 wrote
a letter enclosing therewith his letter dated September 16, 1954 which
shows the result of the reinvestigation of the case and the consequent
modification of the assessment from the amount of P74,791.66 to
P66,959.92 * * *. The last mentioned letter of respondent with the
enclosed reduced assessment was received by petitioner, on November 20,
1954. On December 2, 1954, petitioner sought a reconsideration of the
modified assessment adopting as its own the arguments of appellant
presented before the Supreme Court in the aforesaid case of
Interprovincial Autobus Co., Inc. vs. Meer (Collector of Internal Revenue). In this letter of petitioner, which respondent received on December 3, 1954,
it also reiterated its request that the case be held in abeyance
pending the termination of the Interprovincial Autobus Co. case. In the
meantime, the City Treasurer of Dagupan demanded from petitioner, in a
letter dated January 3, 1955, the payment of the amount of P66,959.62
(p. 395, BIR record). On January 14, 1955 petitioner followed-up its
request contained in the letter dated December 2, 1954. Respondent
finding that petitioner has not yet paid the assessment in question
again demanded payment of the same in a letter dated January 21, 1955
making no reference to petitioner’s two letters. Hence, in a letter
dated January 28, 1955, petitioner called the attention of respondent,
to petitioner’s letters of December 2, 1954 and January 14, 1955
requesting that the assessment be reconsidered and that the case be
held in abeyance pending decision of the case of Interprovincial
Autobus Co. In reply to petitioner’s letter, respondent in a letter
dated May 28, 1955 (Exhibits B and 5, Motion, p. 401 BIR record) which
petitioner received on June 11, 1955 denied the former’s request. Thereafter, the present petition for review (before the Tax Court) was filed on July 2, 1955.” (Material dates italized.)

Considering that the ruling or decision of the Collector of
September 16, 1954 had been received by Pantranco on November 20, 1954,
the Court held that the 30-day period began to run on November 20,
1954; that it was interrupted by the petition for reconsideration filed
December 3, 1954; and that such interruption ended on June 11, 1955,
when denial of the reconsideration was received by Pantranco; and
finding that the petition had thus been presented on the 34th day after
receipt of the Collector’s definite assessment, (November 20 to
December 3-13 days; June 11 to July 2-21 days; total 34 days) the said
Court resolved to dismiss the petition.

After failing to obtain a reconsideration, Pantranco filed here this
petition for review (or appeal), insisting on two points:

(1) The 30-day period should start from June 11, 1955, when it
received the letter of the Collector denying its motion to reconsider;

(2) Supposing the period began on November 20, 1954, the ten days
spent by the attorneys in consulting with their client whether to
appeal or not to appeal to the Tax Court, should be deducted from the
computation.

We find these grounds to be untenable. The letter of September 16,
1954 is the decision of the Collector which the taxpayer had to contest
within thirty days; otherwise, it would have become final and
unappealable to the Court of Tax Appeals, or to any other court. It was
a definite determination of Pantranco’s tax accountability. Pantranco
could ask for reconsideration, of course; if successful, well and good.
If unsuccessful, it must appeal within thirty days, discounting the
time within which its petition to reconsider had been pending. This
computation is nothing unusual: it is the ordinary way the timeliness
of appeals is determined.

As to the ten-day period “for consultation”, we discover no
authority in support thereof. Counsel for Pantranco had all the time
from November 20, 1954 to June 1955 within which to seek advice.
Indeed, it was unnecessary to consult: an attorney is ipso facto
authorized to.appeal for his client.

The appellant-petitioner urges liberality in the computation of the
period, to enable it to have its day in court. It is, however, apparent
that the period of thirty days is jurisdictional^[1]
and non-extensible. Anyway, even if the courts had discretion in the
matter, the appellant failed to show any valid defenses against this
assessment. In fact, it pleaded for time expecting to bolster its
position with the forthcoming decision by this Court in the case of
Inter-Provincial Autobus Co. Inc. Yet that case, decided January 31,
1956, ruled that, (contrary to herein petitioner’s contention), the
freight receipts issued by land transportation carriers for goods
transported by them, are subject to the documentary stamp tax as bills
of lading.

The resolution is affirmed, with costs against appellant. So ordered.

Paras, C. J., Montemayor, Bautista Angelo, Labrador, Concepcion, Endencia, Barrera, and Gutierrez David, JJ., concur.

---

^[1] Lim Tio vs. Collector, G. R. No. L-10681, promulgated March 29, 1958.