CHINA SOUTHERN AIRLINES COMPANY LIMITED v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE and ATTY. DANTE E. TAN, in his official capacity as Revenue Regional Director, BIR Revenue Region No. 8B - South NCR

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES COURT OF TAX APPEALS Quezon City THIRD DIVISION CHINA SOUTHERN CTA CASE NO. 12491 AIRLINES COMPANY LIMITED, Members: Petitioner, MODESTO-SAN PEDRO, Chairperson, -versus- FERRER-FLORES, and CENTENO-DIJAMCO, JJ. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE and ATTY. DANTE E. TAN, in his official capacity as Promulgated: Revenue Regional Director, BIR Revenue Region No. 8B- South NCR, Respondents. X--------------------------------------------------X RESOLUTION On July 30, 2026, China Southern Airlines Company Limited (petitioner) filed a Petition for Review with UrgentApplicationfor Temporwy Restraining Order, Writ of Preliminary Injun ction, and Suspension of Collection Under Section 11 of Republic Act No. 1125, As Amended. At the outset, the Court the NOTES that: 1. Per Records Verification dated August 4 , 2026, petitioner failed to submit the soft copy of its P etition for R eview within 24-hours from personal filing , as required under CTA En Bane Resolution No.8- 2004; 2. The P etition for R eview does not state the names of petitioner 's witnesses and summary of their intended testimonies and documentary or object evidence in support of the allegations in the Petition , as required under Sections 6(a), (b), and (c) of Rule 7 of

RESOLUTION CTA CASE NO. 12491 the Rules of Court. In addition, the judicial affidavits of petitioner's intended witnesses are not attached to the Petition for Review; 3. The attached Verification and Certification Against Fon~m Shopping does not comply with Section 4 , Rule 7 of the Rules of Court as it failed to contain the following avem1ents: 1. That the pleading is not filed to harass, cause unnecessaty delay, or needlessly increase the cost of litigation ; and 11. The factual allegations therein have evidentiary support or if so identified, will likewise have evidentiary support after a reasonable opportunity for discovery; and, 4. The proof of authority of the signatory of the Verification and Certification Against Forum Shopping is not attached to the Petition for Review as required under Sections 4 and 5, Rule 7 of the Rules of Court. Under CTA En Bane Resolution No. 8-2024, the failure to transmit the soft copy of a court submission shall be deemed as not filed. That is, as if no document reached the Court for its consideration . While the Court, in the interest of justice, may direct petitioner to address the observed deficiencies, doing so would be rendered meaningless in this case. Petitioner invokes the Court's "other matters" jurisdiction under Section 7(a)(l) of Republic Act No. 1125, as amended. The Petition for Review alleges: I. PREFATORY STATEMENT 1. This Petition for Review assails the Warrant of Distraint and/or Levy dated 28 May 2026 and all related surnrna1y collection remedies issued or threatened by Respondents for the alleged deficiency final withholding/fmal tax on Branch Profit Remittance for taxable year 20 I 0 in the amount stated in the Final Decision on Disputed Assessment (FDDA) of Php 68,3 13,355 .89, exclusive offurther interest and charges. 4. The present recourse is not a prohibited appeal from the merits of the assessment. It is an appeal from a distinct and adverse BIR collectio n action and raises the separate issue of whether the Govemment's right to collect has already prescribed. The CoUI1 of Tax Appeals has jurisdiction over the issue of prescription of the BIR 's right to collect, even where the underlying assessment is alleged to have become final and executory, because prescription is an "other matter" atising under the N a tiona! Intema I Revenue Code (NIRC) within the meaning of Republic Act No. 1125, as amended. ill. JURISDICTION AND TIMELINESS

RESOLUTION CTACASE NO. 1249 1 11. This Honorable Court has jurisdiction under Section 7(a)( l ) of Republic Act N O , 1125, as amended, over decisions of the Commissione r o f Internal Revenue in cases involving disputed assessments, refunds of internal revenue taxes, fees or other charges, penalties imposed in relatio n thereto, or other matters arising under the N IRC or other laws administered by the BIR. 12. The issue in this Petition w hich is whether Respondents may still collect an assessed tax by distraint, levy, gamishment, or other summary remedies after the expiration of the statutory period is a matter arising under the N IRC. It is therefore w ithin the exclusive appellate j misd iction of this Honorable Com1. 13. Petitioner received and/or was served w ith the assailed Warrant of Distraint and/or Levy and related transmittal/collection papers on or about 3 June 2026. Copies of the Warrant should be attached as Atmexes "B ", and "B - 1", respectively. The allegations in the P etition fo r R eview show that its dismissal is in order for being filed beyond the prescribed period to file an appeal with the Court ofTax Appeals (CTA). Sections 7 (a)(l) and 11 ofRANo. 1125, 1 as amended, provide: SEC. ? .Jurisdiction. - The CTA shall exercise: (a) Exc lusive appellate jurisdiction to review by appeal, as herein prov ided: (1) Decisions of the Commissioner ofl ntema l Revenue in cases involving disputed assessments, refunds of internal revenue taxes, fees or oth er c harges, pe na lties in re la tio n thereto , or othe t· matters a ris ing under the National Internal Revenu e Code or other laws administered by the Bureau o f Intern al Revenue[.] SEC. 11 . W ho May Appeal; Mode of Appeal; Effect of Appeal. - Any party adversely affected by a decision, ruling or inaction of the Commissioner of Internal Revenue, the Commissioner of C ustoms, the Secretary of Finance, the Secretary of Trade and Industry or the Secretary of Agriculture or the Central Board of Assessment A ppeals or the Regional Ttial Cow1s may file an appeal with the CTA within thirty (30) days after the receipt of such decision or ruling or after the expiration of the period fixed by law for action as referred to in Section 7(a)(2) herein. A ppeal shall be made by filing a petition for review under a procedure analogous to that provided for under Rule 4 2 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure w ith the CTA w ithin thirty (30) days from the receipt of the decision or mling or in the case of inaction as herein provided, from the expiration ofthe pe1iod fixed by law to act thereon [.] (Emphasis supplied) AN ACT C REATI NG TH E COURT OF TAX APPEALS.

RESOLUTION CTA CASE NO. 1249 1 In Philippine Journalists, Inc. v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, 2 the Supreme Court reconfirmed that the appellate jurisdiction of the CTA is not limited to cases involving decisions of the Commissioner of Intemal Revenue (CIR) on matters relating to assessments or refunds and may include a Warrants of Distraint and/or Levy (WDL) issued by the Bureau of Intemal Revenue: The appellate jurisdiction of the CTA is not limited to cases which invo lve decisions of the Commissioner oflnternal Revenue on matters relating to assessments or refunds. The second part of the provision covers other cases that arise out of the NIRC or related laws administered by the Bureau of Internal Revenue. The wording of the provision is clear and simple. It gives the CTA the jurisdiction to determine if the warrant of distraint and levy issued by the BIR is valid and to rule if the Waiver of Statute of Limitations was validly effected. This is not the first case where the CTA validly ruled on issues that did not relate directly to a disputed assessment or a claim for refund. In Pantoja v. David, we upheld the jurisdiction of the CTA to act on a petition to invalidate and annul the distraint orders of the Commissioner of Internal Revenue. Also , in Commissioner of Internal Revenue \l. Court of Appeals, the decision of the CTA declaring several waivers executed by the taxpayer as null and void, thus invalidating the assessments issued by the BIR, was upheld by this Court. (Emphasis supplied; citations omitted) Thus, there is no question that the CTA has subject matter jurisdiction on the challenged WDL dated May 28, 2026 and all related summmy collection remedies issued or threatened by respondents for the alleged deficiency fmal withholding/final tax on Branch Profit Remittance for taxable year 20 10 in the amount stated in the Final Decision on Disputed Assessment (FDDA) ofPhp 68,313,355.89, exclusive of further interest and charges. Nevertheless, petitioner failed to invoke the CTA's jurisdiction in the manner and within the prescribed period to appeal, which deprives this Court of jurisdiction over the present Petition for Review. As admitted, petitioner received the assailed WDL on June 3, 2026. Thus, pursuant to Section 11 ofRA No. 1125, as amended, petitioner had 30 days from receipt of the WDL or until July 3, 2026 to lodge an appeal. However, petitioner filed the present Petition for Review only on July 30, 2026 or 27 days late. In Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Fort Bonifacio Developm ent Corporation, 3 the Supreme Comt emphasized that the perfection of an appeal G.R. No. 162852, December 16, 2004 [Per J. Yna res-Santiago, First Division]. G.R. No. 16760 6, August 11 , 2010 [Per J. Mendoza , Second Div isio n).

RESOLUTION CTA CASE NO. 1249 1 in the manner and within the period laid down by law is not only mandatory but also jurisdictional: It has been tuled that perfection of an appeal in the manner and within the period laid down by law is not only mandatory but also jurisdictional. The failure to perfect an appeal as required by the mles has the effect of defeating the right to appeal of a party and precluding the appellate cout1 from acquiring jurisdiction over the case. At the risk of being repetitious, We declare that the right to appeal is not a n atural right nor a part of due process. It is merely a statutory privilege, and may be exercised only in the manner and in accordance with the provisions of the law. It need not be overemphasized that it is the responsibility of the counse l to check and keep track of th e period of time left to fil e an appea l. He cannot escape from the inflex ible observance of this rul e which is jurisdictional. The rules, particularly on the statutory requirement for perfecting an appeal within the reglementary period provided, must be strictly followed. If an appeal is not taken within the period prescribed therefor, the judgment becomes final and the court loses all jurisdiction over the case. (Emphasis supplied) In fine, for petitioner's failure to conform to the manner and prescribed time to appeal, the Court has no other recourse but to dismiss the present Petition for Review. WHEREFORE, premises considered, China Southern Airlines Company Limited 's Petition for Review with Urgent Application fo r Temporary R estraining Order, Writ ofPreliminary InJun ction, and Suspension of Collection Under Section 11 of R epublic Act No. 11 25, As Amended is DISMISSED for hav ing been filed out of time. SO ORDERED. c~~.. ~~s Associate Justi~; ... ~ DEBBIE J Associate Justice