I I I I I I Repurlic of the Piiiuppi~Es Court 01 TAX.APPEALS Qurzon City Khingsley Paul N. Koh vs. Vicente D. Yutangco, et al.

DECISION -

C~A CASE NO . 2874 - 3 - to this order, the apprehending agencies composed of the joint team of the RASAC (Regional Anti-Smuggling Action Center), Bureau of Customs, Philippine Coast Guard, National Bureau of I nvestigation, Bureau of Forest Development, and Philippine Constabulary, released to Mrs. Maulay Ahmad Apik the tan bark and assorted dry goods.

The criminal action for violation of Section. 3601 of the Tariff and Customs Code ins- tituted against petitioner in the Court of First Instance of Tacloban City was likewise dismissed pro- visionally by the Court.

Respondent Commissioner of

' Customs , however, proceeded with the consideration and adjudication of the appeal interposed by peti- tioner, and accordingly promulgated a decision dec- reeing the forfeiture o f the motor launch M/L

~Mer-

chant King'' in favor of the government to be disposed of in accordance with law.

From this decision of respondent Commissioner of Customs , · petitioner alleged under paragraph 12 of h1s petition that he is interposing " the timely i appea l " to this Court.

Because it may have a decisive effect on the disposition of the case at bar, the notice of appeal dated November 17, 1976 filed by petitioner with the Bureau of Customs, Port of Tacloban, attached as Annex "G" and made as an in- 2G t

DECISION -

CTA CASE NO.

2~74 - 4 - tegral part of the petition, is reproduced hereunder as follows:

"NOTICE OF APPEAL COME NOW, the Respondents-Claimant, unto

the Honorable Commissione

of Customs, most respectfully takes exception to the decision rendered by the Honorable Commissioner of Cus- toms in the above-entitled case, and serves notice of their intention to appeal the said decision which was received by Respondent- Claimants on November 14, 1976, a s they hereby appeal said decision to the Honorable Court of Tax Appeals •.

Tacloban City, November 17, 1976." 'rhe "Petition" captioned PROHIBITION ~HTH PH.ELH1INARY INJUNCTION was filed with this Court on May 20, 1977. Instead of filing their answer to the pe t ition, respond~nts Vicente D. Yutangco, as Collector of Customs for the Port of Tacloban and Commissioner of Customs filed a "I·1otion To Dismiss Petition " on June 9, 19 7 7 on the ground that "the Court has no -juri s - diction to entertain the Petition, it appearing that the same is filed without legal basis, hence, peti- tioner has no cause of action.

11 According to res- pondents, the decision in Customs Case No. 75-177 (Tacloban s.r. No.

7~- 20 - 75 ) ent.:_tled "Republic of the Philippines versus 29,6 70 kilos of Tan bark, Assorted Dry Goods and M/L "Merchant King'', Mrs. Il1aulay Apik and Ki~gsley Paul N. Koh, Claiman ts", decreeing the forfeiture in favor of the Government of the - 5 - motor launc h, was rendered on October 29, 1976 by respondent Commissioner of Customs. 'i,he copy of sai.d decision was received by petitioner thru counsel, Atty. Jose M. Maderazo, on November 9, 1976, as evidenced by a xerox copy of the Return Card as to Notice of decision attached thereto as Annex "1" (although pe- titioner's counsel in his notice of appeal, quoted above, states that " the said decision was received by respondent-claimants on November 14, 1976").

Con·

sidering that no motion for reconsideration of, or appeal from, said decision was seasonably made by petitioner, and the instant petition was filed with this Court on May 20, 1977, respondents now argue that this Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the petition since the decision appealed from had already become final and executory.

The issue posed is, of course , whether this Court has iurisdiction to entertain the present proceeding. When respondents' motion to dismiss was hea r d on / August 30, 1977, petitioner's counsel opposed said motion on the ground that he allegedly filed with the Bureau of Customs a motion for reconsideration of the decision of the Commissioner of Customs.

Respondents'

counsel was therefore directed to forward the records of rhe Bureau of Customs pertaining to this case to I i

I

I I

I

I

I

I

I

i I

I

I !

I

I

I

i i

I

I

I

I

I

I :

t

- 6 - the Court for petitioner to show, .rom the said records, that a motion for reconsideration was duly filed by him. Norwithstandinq several postponements of the hearing, no customs records were forwarded to the Court a legedl~ because the same had already been returned to the Col- lector of Customs for the Port of Tacloban for exec ution as the decision of the Commissioner had already become final and executory.

Upon request~ petitioner's counsel, subpoena duces tecum was issued to the Col- lector of Customs for the Port of Tacloban for him to bring the customs records of the case to this Court. However, in the hearing on May 24 and 25, 1978, wherein lr·.

V1cente D. Yutangco, Collector of Customs for the Port of Tacloban, was present as subpoened by the Court , petitioner's counsel was absent in spite of the fact that notice of hearing was duly sent to, and received by , him.

During the scheduled hearing of this case on March 28, 1979, wherein counsel for petitioner was again absept al~hough he wns duly notified, the Court, upon manifestation of counsel for respondents, consid 2red submitted for resolution, his motion to dismiss. In the instant proceeding, the lack of jurisdiction over the subject matter is evident from the facm as alleged in the pleadings.

Petitioner received the decision of the Commissioner of Customs on November 9,

I

I I

I ;

- 7 - 1976 as reflecred on the registry return receipt (Annex "1", supra), or on " ~ovember 14, 1 976 " as stated by him in his notice of appeal (Annex "G", supra). rnhe instant Perition for Prohibit i on with Preliminary Injunction was · filed with this Court on May 20, 1977 or more six (~} months from November 9, 1976 or November 14, 1976.

Tinder

the law, a party adversely affected by the decision or r uling of the Commissioner of Customs has only thirty .

(30) days after receipt thereof within which to appeal to this Court.

This is clear from the provisions of Section ll of Republ ic Act No. 1125 , the pertinent part o ~ which reads as f ollows:

Any person, association or corporation adversely affected by a decision or ruling of the Commissioner of Internal Revenue, the CollPcror of Customsl or any provincial or city Board of Assessmen t Appeals may file _9n appea~ in the Court of Tax Appeals-wrfhin rhirty day_s afrer the rece~t of such de~isiol! or ruling.

(Emphasis supplied) Such statutory requirement is jurisdictional and non-extendib.·le, and non-compliance therewith bars the aopeal.

(S~e Acting Commissioner of Internal Revenue vs. Joseph, et al., L-14034, August 30, 1962, 5 SCRA 895; Republic vs. Lim Tian Teng Sons and Co., Inc., lThe words Collector of Customs should be read Commissioner of Customs.

(Rufino & Sons, Inc. v.

Court of Tax Appeals, G.R. No. L-9274, Feb. 1, 1957, 51 O.G. 3065.

265

- 8 - r.-21731, March 31, 1966, 16 SCRA 584; Filipinas In- vestment an Finance Corp. vs. Commissione

of Internal

Revenue, L-23501, May 16, 1967 , 20 SCRA 50; Surigao Electric Co., Inc. vs. Court of Tax Appeals, L-25289, J"ne 28, 1974, 57 SCRA 253, 528.)

Consequently, si!"lce the petition of petitioner was file d beyond the 30-day period required under Section 11 of Republic Act No. 1125, thi s Court has acouired no jurisdiction to enter- tain said petition and the same must be dismissed.

(La- zaro vs. Commissioner of Customs, CTA Case No . 1154, SPptember 13, 1966; Sales vs. Commissioner of Customs, CTA Case No. 1607, February 28, 1967; Leonora and Co. vs . Commissioner of Customs, CTA Case No. 1615, February 20, 1967, United Artists of the Philippines, Inc. vs. i.

Commissioner of Customs, CTA Case No. 1961, Auqust 13, 1969; Far East Management Corporation vs. Commissioner of Customs, CTA Case No. 1466, J11ne 3, 1967; Campania Maritima vs·. Actg. Commissioner of Customs, CTA Case No. 2492, October 14, 1975.)

Assuming arguendo that a motion for reconsideration of the decision of respondent Commissioner of Customs was filed by petitioner, as alleged by him although no evidence was presented to this effect by petitioner, still this Court has no authority to exercise its appellate jurisdiction over the instant petition. There is no

2GG

- 9 - showinq that responden t Commissioner of Customs has acted or resolved petitioner's motion for reconsideration. There is, therefore, no decision o f the Commissioner of Customs that may be appealed to or reviewed by this Court.

Consequently, since in the case at bar peti- tioner appealed from the decision of respondent Commis- sioner of Customs without waiting for his decision or action on his motion for reconsideration, the petition or appeal was premature and this Court has no jurisdiction to entertain said petition or appeal. Moreover, granting that the present proceeding is in reality a petition for prohibition with preliminary injunction as stated in t he caption, and not an appeal trom ~he decision of respondent Commissioner of Customs, the same is still not cognizable by this Court. The Cnurt of ~a~ Appeals is authorizen to issue writs of pro- hibition or injunction , but it may do so only in aid of . its appellate iurisdiction in cases properly appealed tn it.

A taxpayer (or any person for that matter) is not entitled to seek the aid of the Court of Tax Appeals for the issuance of writs of prohibition or ini unction if he has not duly appealed from the decision of the Commis- sioner.

(Collector of Inter nal Revenue vs. Yuseco, L- 12518, October 28, 1961, 3 SCRA 313

~ Austin & Company

vs. Commissioner, CTA Case No. 1400, October ~1, 1963.)

2G7

I

I •

I

1 j

I

DECISION -

CTA CASE NO.

287~

Thus:

- 10 - Nowhere does the law expressly vest in the Court of Tax Appeals original jurisdiction to issue writs of prohibition arid injunction independen ly of, and apart from, an appealed case.

The writ of prohibition or iniunction that it ~ay issue 1nder the provisions of Sec- tion 11, Republic Act No. 1125, to suspend the r.ollecrion of taxes, is merely ancillary to and in furtherance of its appellate jurisdiction in rhe cases mentioned in Section 7 of the Act. The power to issue rhe writ exists only in cases appealed to it.

In other words the inrention of Conqress to ve~t the Court of Tax Appeals with jurisdiction to issue writs of prohibition and injuriction · only in aid of its appellate iurisdiction in cases appealed r o it and not to clothe it with oriqinal jurisidction to issue them.

This is reflected in the explanatory note of the bill (House No. 175), creating the Court of Tax Appeals.

(Collector of Internal Revenue

vs. Yuseco, No. L-12518, October 28, 1961, 3

SCRA 313)

ACCORDINGLY, petitioner's petition filed with this Court on May 20, 1977 is hereby dismissed for lack of jurisdiction at petitioner's costs.

T CONCUR:

l '--/)~_ Ct.., ' . LC..:

/.-........._ CON'STANTE C/. ROAQUIN

/ Associate Judge

~C~4-;;;/;_b_:_~ AHAN;~-lrLLER

Actina Presidinq Judge

2G8