The Court of Tax Appeals (CTA) has dismissed the petition of Jollibee Foods Corporation (JFC) which sought a refund from Paranaque City of more than P1.4 million in alleged erroneously paid local business tax (LBT).

JFC applied for the renewal of its business permits for its branches in Paranaque City for 2022, and submitted various sales certificates showing its gross sales of P667,200,172.53.

Based on JFC’s submission of sales certificates, Paranaque City issued various Statements of Accounts (SOAs) amounting to P19,213,622.92

JFC paid P5,590,293.68 for LBT and local fees and charges for the first quarter of 2022.

Later, however JFC sought a refund of P1,467,404.87 representing the alleged excess LBT on the ground that the LBT assessed and paid is higher than the actual sales presented in its sales certificates.

When the refund was denied on May 27, 2022, JFC filed a complaint for refund before the metropolitan trial court (MeTC) of Paranaque City.

The MeTC dismissed the complaint on Nov. 14, 2022 with a ruling that JFC failed to exhaust administrative remedies for non-compliance with Section 196 of the Local Government Code of 1991 providing for the requirements for a tax refund or credit.

The case was subsequently elevated to the CTA in a petition for certiorari filed on Dec. 4, 2023. JFC argued that the MeTC committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction and there is no plain, speedy, and adequate remedy available to it.

The CTA dismissed the petition for lack of jurisdiction.

The tax court said that even if it would relax the rules and treat the petition as an ordinary petition for review, the petition will still be dismissed since it was filed out of time.

The court said that since JFC received the second assailed order on Oct. 4, 2023, then the firm had 30 days or until Nov. 3, 2023 to file a petition for review before the CTA as a full court.

However, it pointed out that JFC filed its petition for certiorari before the CTA’s second division only on Dec. 4, 2023. "Ultimately, the assailed Orders of the court a quo have become final and executory for failure of the petitioner to timely file the proper remedy before the appropriate court," it ruled.

"The doctrine of finality or immutability of judgment provides that, when a decision has attained finality, it may no longer be modified in any respect even if the modification is meant to correct erroneous conclusions of fact and law," it pointed out.

The 14-page decision was written by Associate Justice Corazon G. Ferrer-Flores with the concurrence of Associate Justices Ma. Belen M. Ringpis-Liban and Maria Rowena Modesto-San Pedro.