~ I / MIGUEL O. CABARLES vs. Leonardo s. Villa and The Court OF TAX Appeals, et al.

DECISION -

CTA CASE N08 3385

- 2 - In t he case at bar, the lack of juris- diction of this Court , as invoked by respondent Commissioner of Customs in his answe r to peti- tioner's petition for review and in his motion to dis.mi s.s, appe~ars evident. For indeed the uncontroverted facts s how that petitioner Miguel Cabarles has failed to. perfect his appeal within the 15-day period prescribed in Section 2313 of the Tar iff and Customs Code and thus the· decision of the Collector of Customs in t he seizure case has already become final and executorye

The District Collector of Customs of Iloilo

rendered a decision in Seizur e I dent ification No. 3-80 on November 27, 1980, ordering the return to peti tione·r Miguel Cabar l es of 24, GOO bags of imported fert1.lizer seized by the Bureau of Cus t oms and the forfeiture of 10,622 bags in. favor of the Government. Thereafter, in his order dated May 7, 1981, said Collector modified his decision decree- ing that the 25 , 000 bags of fertilizer earli~r order ed r e·turned to Cabarles he likewis.e deelared forfei ted in favor of the Government. From receipt of this order on May 25, 1981 , petitioner 's counsel f iled a motion for reconsideration on June 6, 1981 70

DECISIO

CTA CASE NO . 3385 - 3 - but said motion was denied by the Collector in his , order of August 18, 198le Subsequently, petitioner's counse·l who received said order of denial on August 26, 1981, filed a notice of appeal on Sep- tembe 3, 1981 to have the case reviewed by the Commissioner of Customs.

However , on October 2 , 1981, r esponde·nt Commis.s ioner of Cust oms dismissed said appeal on t he ground that it "was made beyond the reglementary per i od of fif teen days as requ ired by law 11 and that "the orders of the Collector of Customs of May 7, 1981 and August 18, 1981 sought to be reviNed have already become final and execu- tory...

On October 28 , 1981, petitioner appealed to th i s Court contesting the· l e9ality of respon- dent 's order of dismissal and the validity of forfeiture .

Clearly , petiti oner consumed a .period of twenty (20) .days in filing his appeal from the orde·r of the· Collector of Customs of Hay 7, 1981 be'cause fr om re·ceipt by hi s counsel on .Lvlay 25, 1981 of said order to June G, 1981 when he f iled his motion for reconsideration , a period of 12 days ad already bee·n consumed, and f rom receipt by 71

DECISION -

CTA CASE NO . 33'85 _, .4 - petitioner'~ counsel on August 2G, 1981 of the Collector ' s order of denial of said motion for reconsideration t o the fili ng of petitioner ' s notice of appeal on September 3, 1981, another period of 8 days had elapsed, thus making a total of 20 days .

We quote with approval , for further illucida tion , .responden ~ s . observation in his answer with a motion to dismiss on this point:

14.

This Honorable Court has no more jurisdiction to entertain the instant petition.

The order of the .

Colle·ctor: of Customs dated May 7, 1981 has already become final and executory. There had been a failu re on the part of petitioner to appeal said ox:der within fifteen (15) days from rece ipt thereof, in contravention of Section 2313 of the Tar iff and Customs Code, as amended.

x x x.

15.

Section 2313 of the Tariff

and Customs Code, a s amended, allpws appeal within fifteen (15) days from receipt of the May 7, 1981 · orde~r to the Commis:sioner of Customs.

Since

the order was received by the pet i - tioner , thr u counsel, on May 25, 1981 , the 15-day period would have expired on June 9, 1981.

However, the running of the period was interrupted when, on June 6, 1981, petitioner filed a motion for reconsiderat i on of the order i n question.

On that date, June 6, 1981, petitione r had already consumed 12 days of the 15 days and, ther efore, had only three (3) ftays more left. 7 1) ,.....

DECISION -

CTA CASE NO . 3385 - .5 _, Since, also , a copy of the order denyi~9 the mot i on for reconsideration was received by petitioner'~ counsel on August 26, 1981, petitioner had only three (3) days or up to August 29, 1981 within whfch to pursue further action8 But the notice of appeal was actually filed on September 3 , 1981, 8 days, not 3 days, from August 26 ,

1981 .

Adding these 8 days to the 12 days alr eady consumed by petitioner b~fore the motion for reconsideration was filed , a tot~l of 20 days had already elapsed before the appeal wa s t aken .

16.

Considering that the notice of appeal was filed beyond the regle- mentary period of 15 days as mandated by Section 2313 of the •rar iff and Cus- toms Code, as amended, the order of the Collector of Customs s.ought to be reviewed has, indeed, already bec ome final and ex.ecu tory .

The Commissioner

of Customs, therefore , was correct in dismiss·.ing the appeal for l ack of juris diction .

Likewise , this Honorable Court has no more jurisdiction to entertain · the present appeal, by way of a petition, as the order in question has become final and executory.

Section 2313 of the Tariff and Customs Code

.

provides t hat "the person aggrieved by the decision or action of the Collector in any matter presented upon protest or by his action in any case of a seizure may, within fifteen (-1 5,) _dc:tys after noti- fication i n writing by the Collector of his action or decision, give wr itten not i ce to the Collector and one copy furnished to the Commissioner of his 73

DECIS ION -

CTA CASE NO. 3385 - .6 - desire t o have t he matter r evi ewed by the Com- mis.sioner ." Said l egal requ ix:ement for appeal, which was then simil arly embodied in Section 1380 of the Rev i s ed Administrative Code, has been construed as mandatory and the· failure of peti- t ioner to comply therewith renders the decision or action of ilie Collector f i nal and conclusive and beyond the jur isdiction of the Commissioner of Customs or of thi s Court to review, revise or modify.

(See ~y Man vs . J acinto and Fabros, G.R. No.

L-~612, October 31, 1953; Pascua l vs. David, CTA Case No. 95 LRes./ Apri l 21, 1956; F. Caballero Trading vs . Comm. of Customs , CTA Case No. 1672, August 21, 1967; La Union Electric Co., Inc. vs. Comm . of Customs , CTA Case No. 1957 LRes.7 February 28 , 1969 ; Jos.e Lagon vs. The Commissioner of Customs and The Collector of Customs , CTA Case No. 2810, November 11, 1977). The rationale of such principle was mor e emphatically enunciated by the Supreme Court in the case of Chan Kian vs. The Court of Tax Appeals and .The Collector of Customs, G.R. No. L-12184 , May 29, 1959, 105 Phil. 904 , thus:

"xxx.

The per iod ot lS da y:;

prescribed by l aw for an appea l i n 74

DECISION -

CTA CASE NO. 33;85 7 - case·s of forfeiture is not a matter of procedure which courts may ignore. The provisions of the Customs law, like those of the internal revenue· code , are not directory merely but mandatory.

The period f or an appeal is fixed by l aw at 15 days in order that penalties for violation of the laws or rules on i mportation may be decided promptly and expeditiously , as delays therein may result i n the clogging of cu s tom~ warehouses wi t h merchandise· i llegally imported. I t is beyond the power of the courts to extend the period for appeal .

The Commissioner of Customs and t he Cour t of Tax Appeals ac:t ed correctly in dismissing the· appeal of petitioner, as it was not filed wi thin t he period of 15 days prescribed by ~aw."

We find untenable pet iti on e r'~ contention that although the 15-~ay period had expi r ed when he filed his notice of appeal from the order of the Coll ector of May 7, 1981, hi s appeal was s t i ll seasonably fil ed insofar as the Collector's order of denial of Augus t 18, 1981 is concefned because his motion for reconsideration r a ised new and substanti al grounds .

It should be noted that the order of the Collector dated May 7, 1981 wh1ch modified his previous decision involved the same seizure proceedings and same was rendered after a r e examination of the facts , the ev i dence· and ar- guments presented by t he parties therein.

Said

75

DECISION -

CTA CASE NO& 3385 -

- 8 - order, which subsequently decreed the forfeiture in favor of the government of the entire shipment of fertilizers, disposed of the case adverse to petitioner's claim and thus constitutes an appealable dec ision. Petitioner's motion for reconsideration the'reof, filed on June 6, 1981, wherein new and addit~onal grounds were rai~ed, merely s uspended the running of the period for appeal and the order of the Collector of August 18, 1981 denying the same simply sustains and reaffirms his order of May 7, 1981 an~ therefore, cannot be treated as separate and distinct for purposes of appeal.

Certainly, petitioner's motion for reconsideration, which purpose is to convince the Collector of Customs that his decision of May 7, 1981 is erroneous and improper or con- trary to law or the evidence, must raise additional and substantive grounds; otherwise, it would be considered pro-forma and would not toll the running of the period for appe~l.

{See Dacanay vs. Alvend ia, L-226·33, October :n, 1969, 30 SCRA J::.. .

Dauden-

Hernaez vs. De los Angeles , L-27010, April 30, 1961, 27 SCRA 1276,) Neither do we subscribe to petitioner's pos-

7G

DECISION -

CTA CASE NO . l 3 85 - .9 - tulation that his appeal should be entertained becaus.e "no less than the property rights of peti- tioner over property worth approximately P2,aoo,ooo .oo is i volved in thi s case" and that "the technical i t y presented by the respondent should not stand in the way towards the review of whether th~ order of August 26, 1981 which denied peti- tioner 's plea to se t aisde· the order of forfe i tu re i s consistent with the facts and the law." The facts and the l aw i ndubitably speak agains t taking cogn i zance of petitioner ' s appeal and the Cour t cannot do otherwise.

Thus i n the c~se of Lagon vs. Commissioner of Customs , supra , where a similar jurisdictional question calling for the appli- cation of Section 2313 of t he Tariff and Customs Code was raised, this Court, citing the case of .

Sampaguita Shoe & Slipper Factory vs. Commissioner of Customs, L-10285 , January 14, 1958, 102 Phil. 850 , said:

"Ver ily, we noted peti t i o~ er's invocation of the i nterest of j uat1ce to disregard technicalities in this case, but we feel, nonetheless, that t his is not sufficient to overthrow the law and settled jurisprudence . 7 11 0

DECISION -

CTA CAS~ NO.

3~85 - 10 - Expressing the s.oundness and justifi- cation for the application of the princ iple of exhaustion of adminis- trative remedies, the Supreme Court said:

In the case at bar, it appears that the importer failed to observe the pro- cedure l a id down by Section 13-80 of the Revis·ed Adminis- trati ve Code aforementioned , thus, the lower Court acted properly in dismiss i ng the petition filed therein in view of petitioner's failure to exhaust administrative re·med ies·.

This doctrine of exhaus tion of administrative reliefs is indeed a sound rule for it provides fo~ a policy of orderly procedure which favors a preliminary adminis- trative sifting process, and serv·es to prevent attempt s to swamp the Courts by resort to them in the first instance (United States vso Sing Tuck, 1 04 US 161, 48 L ed 917, 24 S Ct 621; Ok- lahoma Pub. Welfare Com- mission vs . State, 186 Okla 654, 105 p (d ) 547, 130 ALR 873).

As already ruled in the atorementioned case of Rufino Lop~~ - & Sons, Inc. vs. The Court of Tax Appeals, supra, "it is a sound rule that before one re·sorts to the Courts , the administrative remedy pro- vided by law should first be exhausted."

I N VIEW OF THE FOREGOING, the petition for review of peti t ioner is. hereby dismissed fo r l ack 78 -

DECISION -

CTA CASE NO. 33:85 - 11 - of jurisdict i on, with costs.

WE CONCUR:

aw .. ~a . /

Ar-IANTE~

Presidi

Judge

• ROAQUIN

Judge