CTA Case No. 948 (Resolution)

IUD"'BLIC OP THE PHILIPPIN COURT OF TAX APP~ MAND..Ia PHILIPPINE PROJUCERS t COOPERA- TIVE MARKETING ASStN!\ t INCo (PHILPROCCM), . Petitioner, - versus ... CoT.A. CASE. NCo 948 HQ\J. COVll\JliSSIONER OF CUSTOv1S, Respondento X~ ~ - - ~ - ~ - - - ~ - - ~ ~ X RESOLUTION Petitioner seeks the review of respondent's deci- sion dismissing its appeal from the decision of the C�ollector of Customs of Iloilo on the ground that the appeal was filed beyond the 15-day period provided for by law. The instant petition for review has raised only the issue of whether the appeal to respondent Commis- sioner was seasonably filedo Petitioner Philippine Producers' Cooperative Mar- keting AssociationJ Inco, a corporation duly organized under the laws of the Philippines with principal office at Bacolod CitY:~ imported fertilizers in various ship- ments.~ which were discharged from ve ssels at the middle of Guimaras Strait into lighters towed on the Iloilo River and docked alongside the marginal wharf where they remained under customst J custody until examined by the customs authorities9 Af ter examinationJ the lighters were towed to the province of Negros Occidental and un- loaded on private wharves (Partial Stipulation �of Facts, Po 24, CTA recq). Wharfage fees were collected and paid under protest~~ ��"'

H.ESOLUTIQ'J - C. T.A.- CASE NO. 948 - 2- In a decision dated August 29, 1958, which was received by petitioner on September 2, 1958 1 the Col- lector of Customs of Iloilo denied petitioner's pro- tests and sustained the validity of the collection of wharfage fees on the importations in question. On September llJ 1958� petitioner, through its counsel, sent by registered mail and deposited at Bac olod City Post Off ice (Exh. A-1, p. 25, CTA rec o) a motion for reconsideration of the Collector's deci- sion (Exh. A, ibid.), which motion was actually re- ceived by the latter on September 15-" 1958 (Annex A, Petition for Review; p. 30 Customs rec.). In a decision of June 2, 1959, received by petitioner on June 5, 1959, the Collector denied the motion {Exh. B1 Po 30,. CTA rec.). bn June 6, 1959, petitioner, thru counsel1 sent to the Collector of Customs by registered mail and de- posited at the Bacolod Post Office its notice to appeal to the Commissioner of Customs (Exhs. B & B-1 1 p. 30, CTA rec.), which notice of appeal was actually received by the latter on June 101 1959o (Annex A, Petition for Review; p. 37 Customs reco) Believing the appeal to be in order, the Acting Collector of Customs forwarded the case to the Commis~ sioner of Customs, who in a decision of August 18l' 1960, denied the appeal on the ground that it was filed beyond the 15-day period The only issue raised for our consideration is whether or not petitioner's appeal from the decision

RESOLUTIGJ - CoT.A. CASE NO. 948 - 3- of the Collector of Customs of Iloilo to the Commis- sioner of Customs was made within the statutory period of fifteen dayso Petitioner contends the affirmative, arguing that the notice of appeal was filed within the fifteen- day period as the date of mailing should be deemed as the date of filing of the motion for reconsideration and the notice of appeal~ Respondent Commissioner of Customs maintains the contra~y view, alleging that the date of actual receipt should be considered as the date of filing. Section 2313 of the Tariff and Customs Code of the Philippine s, which was already in force at the time the disputed appeal arose, provides: � �'SEC. 2313. Re view by Commissioner .... 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 seizure may , within fifteen days after notification in writing by the Collector of his action or deci- sion, give written notice to the Collector of his desire to have the matter reviewed by the Commissioner. Thereupon the Collector shall forthwith transmit all the records of the pro- ceedings to the Commissioner,� who shall approve, modify or reverse the action or decision of the Collector and take such steps and make such orders as may be necessary to give effect to the decision. u In pursuance of Section 608 authorizing the Com- missioner to make, subject to the approval of the de- partment head, rules and regulations necessary to enforce the provisions of the Tariff and Customs Code, the former promulgated Customs Administrative Order No. 226, the pertinent provision of which reads: I~

RESOLUTICN - C. T. A. CASE NO. 948 -4 - 11 Par o VII . x x x Such notice of appeal must be filed in triplicate with- in fifteen (15) days , inc luding Sundays and legal holidays , from receipt by the aggrieved party or his authorized repre- sentative of written notification of the action or decision sought to be reviewed . X X Xo" It is to be noted that neither the law nor the implementing administrative order requires that the written notice to the Collector be effected in person . This being so , the giving of the written notice may be done by any of the means employed for the purpose of delivering correspondence to the addressee , one of them being the mails (~ Yangco vs . Ocampo, 57 Phil . 1) . If, as held in Caltex {Philippines) Inc . v. Katipunan Labor Union, G. R. No. L- 9496 1 January 31 , 1956 1 52 0 . G. 6209 , 6210, 11 It is the practice be� ore the c ourts of justice to consider the mails as an agent of the government - so that the date of mailing is always con� sidered the date of filing any petition, motion or papertt 1 we see no reason why the same considerations should not be accorded by administrative officials and bodies while in the exercise of their quasi- judicial functions . Con- sequently ,. we hold that since the Collector of Customs for the port of Iloilo received the motion for reconsi- deration and the notice of appeal , their dates of mailing are the dates of their filing. It appearing that from September 2, 1958 when the Collector ' s dec ision was received by petitioner to the mailing of the motion for reconsideration nine (9) days elapsed , and one (1) day passed between the receipt by

RESOLUTIO>J - C.I.A. CASE NO. 948 - 5- petitioner of the Collector's denial of the motion for reconsideration and the filing with the same offi- cial of the notice of appeal (to the Commissioner of Customs)J it is obvious that the appeal was filed well within the period provided for by Section 2313 of the Tariff and Customs Code, as implemented by par. VII of Gust~ Administrative Order No. 226. ~hile we find that petitionerts appeal to respon- dent was seasonably filed, we cannot, however, proceed to decide the case on the merits despite the parties' stipulation of facts for the reason that the question regarding the validity of the collection of wharfage fees was not disposed of in the appealed decision, and the instant appeal is limited only to the issue of whether the appeal to respondent was timely filedo Consequently1 let the records of the case be remanded to respondent Commissioner of Customs for further proceedings. 1'-J o costs. / SO ORDEKED. Manila, October 13, 1961. ~e concur: Presiding Judge