Bcda vs. Cir

BASES CONVERSION AND DEVELOPMENT ATHORITY vs.
COMMISSIONER OF
INTERNAL REVENUE
G.R. No. 205925, June 20, 2018
This is a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court which seeks
to reverse and set aside the Decision dated August 29, 2012 and Resolution dated February 12,
2013 of the Court of Tax Appeals (CTA) En Banc in CTA EB Case No. 797, which affirmed the
CTA First Division’s dismissal of the case filed by herein petitioner Bases Conversion and
Development Authority (BCDA) on the ground that the latter failed to pay docket fees as
required under Rule 141 of the Rules of Court.
Facts: On October 8, 2010, BCDA filed a petition for review with the CTA in order to preserve
its right to pursue its claim for refund of the Creditable Withholding Tax (CWT) in the amount
of PHP122,079,442.53, which was paid under protest from March 19, 2008 to October 8, 2008.
The CWT which BCDA paid under protest was in connection with its sale of the BCDA-
allocated units as its share in the Serendra Project pursuant to the Joint Development Agreement
with Ayala Land, Inc.
The petition for review was filed with a Request for Exemption from the Payment of
Filing Fees in the amount of PHP1,209,457.90.
On October 20, 2010, the CTA First Division denied BCDA’s Request for Exemption
and was order to pay its filing fees within five (5) days notice. BCDA moved for
Reconsideration which was denied and was once again ordered to pay the filing fees, otherwise
the petition for review will be dismissed.
The BCDA filed a petition for review with the CTA En Banc but was returned and
considered not filed without the correct payment of the legal fees.
The court emphasized that payment in full of docket fees within the prescribed period is
mandatory. It is an essential requirement without which the decision appealed from would
become final and executory as if no appeal had been filed. To, repeat, in both original and
appellate cases, the court acquires jurisdiction over the case only upon the payment of the
prescribed docket fees.
Here, due to BCDA’s non-payment of the prescribed legal fees within the prescribed
period, this Court has not acquired jurisdiction over the case. Consequently, it is as if no appeal
was ever filed with this court.
Undeterred, BCDA filed a Motion for Reconsideration but was likewise denied by the
CTA En Banc in the assailed Resolution dated February 12, 2013.
Issue: Whether or not BCDA is exempt from paying the prescribed docket fees.
Held: The Court ruled on the affirmative.
BCDA is a government instrumentality vested with corporate powers. As such, it is

exempt from the payment of docket fees required under Section 21, Rule 141 of the Rules of
Court, to wit:
Rule 141, Legal Fees:

Xxxx
Sec. 21. Government exempt. – The Republic of the Philippines, its agencies and
instrumentalities, are exempt from paying the legal fees provided in this rule. Local governments
and government-owned or controlled corporation with or without independent charters are not
exempt from paying such fees.
Section 2 (10) and (13) of the Introductory Provisions of the Administrative Code of
1987 provides for the definition of a government “instrumentality” and a “GOCC”, to wit:
Section 2. General Terms Defined. Xxxx
(10) Instrumentality refers to any agency of the National Government, not integrated within the
department framework, vested with special functions or jurisdiction by law, endowed with some
if not all corporate powers, administering special funds, and enjoying operational autonomy,
usually through a charter. xxxx
Xxxxx
(13) Government-owned or controlled corporation refers to any agency organized as a stock or

non-stock corporation, vested with functions relating to public needs whether governmental or
proprietary in nature, and owned by the Government directly or through its instrumentalities
wither wholly, or, where applicable as in the case of stock corporations, to the extent of at least
fifty-one (51) percent of its capital stock: xxxxx
The grant of these corporate powers is likewise stated in Section 3 of Republic Act No.
7227; also known as the Bases Conversion and Development Act of 1992 which provides for
BCDA’s manner of creation, to wit:
Section 3. Creation of the Bases Conversion and Development Authority. – There is

hereby created a body corporate to be known as the Bases Conversion and Development
Authority, which shall have the attribute of perpetual succession and shall be vested with the
powers of a corporation.
Many government instrumentalities are vested with corporate powers but they do not
become stock or non-stock corporations, which is a necessary condition before an agency or
instrumentality is deemed a GOCC.
The authority is not a GOCC but an instrumentality of the government. The Authority has
a capital stock but it is not divided into shares of stocks. Also, it has no stockholders or voting
shares hence, it is not a stock corporation. Neither is it a non-stock corporation because it has no
members.
The Authority is actually a national government instrumentality which is defined as an

agency of the national government, not integrated within the department framework, vested with
special functions or jurisdiction by law, endowed with some if not all corporate powers,
administering special funds and enjoying operational autonomy, usually through a charter. When
the law vests in a government instrumentality corporate powers, the instrumentality does not
become a corporation. Unless the government instrumentality is organized as a stock or non-
stock corporation, it remains a government instrumentality exercising not only governmental but
also corporate powers.
From the foregoing, it is clear that BCDA is neither a stock nor a non-stock corporation.
BCDA is a government instrumentality vested with corporate powers. Under Section 21, Rule
141 of the Rules of Court, agencies and instrumentalities of the Republic of the Philippines are
exempt from paying legal or docket fees. Hence, BCDA is exempt from the payment of docket
fees.
By: ERLIZA E. AVEO

Taxation Law Review
Saturday 5:00 to 8:00 p.m.s

Bcda vs. Cir

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Bcda vs. Cir

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Bcda vs. Cir

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

BASES CONVERSION AND DEVELOPMENT ATHORITY vs.

Held: The Court ruled on the affirmative.

BCDA is a government instrumentality vested with corporate powers. As such, it is

Rule 141, Legal Fees:

Section 2. General Terms Defined. Xxxx

(13) Government-owned or controlled corporation refers to any agency organized as a stock or

Section 3. Creation of the Bases Conversion and Development Authority. – There is

The Authority is actually a national government instrumentality which is defined as an

By: ERLIZA E. AVEO

You might also like