CTA Case No. 92 (Resolution)

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES COURT OF. TAX APPEALS MANILA h~ti tione:r p - versu s - THE ~JU\,:.:::;.:;..!.(:l'J .-1. Uf CG0T0�v,0 , .dJJ f1 , .. .~cLJ; d-.;I~.1 CF CLJ..>Tl-..J FG. T1U.: fv.> f v:: JvLL , .' e spondent s a x- - - - - - ~ - - - - - - - x . . . ._,c~Lur r� This is �n ippe 1 from the d~ c ision of the ,.:;o.u.1.:. s sioncr of ,;usto 1S dated ft;:,Jr'-lar' 2" , 1)5 , sust--;ining ~n order of the Collec tor of Cu s to.ns f o the 'ort of Jolo c.2c reeins tl1c sci zure ..nd for - - f~~ture of 6Y c2s~s of 1 e .:; 1!11 11 ci riii.rE:ttcs Jelon - ~ ing to pGtitioner . fhe de c ision of the .:;ommis - of �- ... x Appo;als, whi c h <>.�firmed in toto the de c ision of he Couu.1issioner . .Jec !J . T . t . Ce~.se lw . 101 , d c ided .ay 2 7 P 1:15 � ) The c ::1 se \J s ppenleJ to tl1~;.: :.)uprer1t Court .out the iii.ppe�l w'"' s dis..1issecl witi1 - out i rejuc.i.c c b)' rosolution of s2id -.;curt on 1uarc h 3u , 1 )54 . fhc resolution of t:1e ..:>upr~::il.C Court dis - Illisstns tr.e "P- e~.l .vec au1e fin 1 and exec utory on .P.rri l 29 , 19~14 . � 'u s t o1.1s , t 1 . , ~ � �t_ .:o . L~ ~72r:.' , /,:)ril 2) , 1'.154 . ) Ti1 ~p e""l from the de c ision of the f OrulCr Bo�.rd of T"""v .ppe�l s 1--.ving ;.) ""n di S�!li s s eJ :0 tLe :::iu:':r'LlC Co....trt in line v,i th the d"' c is ion i.n Uni vcr - .. o . L!. ..J7(.�1 , June 2 , 1�)5 , wherein it w'1s held tha t'1J provisions of 2xec utive rder lJO . 4(..1 - . rclatinJ to circc t � p,leills fro111 d.;cisions of the said Jo~rd to t;le vUpre,:J.e ~Ourt \'J.._.re invalid ~ rcti.tione- f:i_lcc~

.1.2S '"'LUT:O. - c. r ') 2 e ~ � ~~ \....;- l.~0 . - 2- with the r of ...,u sto.JS 0. notic e 01,:.. 0. pe~l Com,ni ssioner 0 :.:)ril 1} 9 1954 , be ore the cr atio of this Court , in ord r to h~VI} the r c ~se view-Jd Dy the ,._,ourt of .i.rst ...:.n to:1nce of 1 �.--.nil-. . IJo ~ c tion was t Jcen on t1e not" c e of app�~l for failure of ~eti ion � o p~ th c orrespondin; fili s f e of the ~ourt o ~i st .... nst":l.nc"" . sent ._,ti ion o , review w s f �led wit'1 t;y:_s ..:;ou t . Eowever , on llOVC.Jbe:r : 26 , 1954 , petition r filed a ,,,ot." on wi tL the Suprerw Court to i1�vc th '"'.se rc - � instated t:1 rein und in ord r ti1 t the s~.11e c ould be d id d pursuant to ..;ect �on 21 of .-iepublic ��ct 1 o . 1125 . ..ccordingly , upon uotio of p titio1 er , th petition fo revim.; fil d v�i th this Court w- s dis.nissed "'INithout prejudi_c e to whatever &tct ion the / Jupret e '"'ourt . ay t e in the endins pe� i tion filed y t~tioner before the s~id ~ourt �or th rein - st te!11 nt il.nd fin�l 6dj ud~.c- tion on the ll1eri ts 0 t:1 t .vody of G. . . 110 . L- 6785 entitled 1, �.-::pang r-n vs . lle ...:o.a;nissiOier of Custo:ts t ct 1 . 111 tio n for rcinstlte.1cnt \JtlS d n.:.. d 0y th Jupre. e ~ourt ~y resolu ion dated February 11 , lJ55 . 13 resol�ttion of ;1is .::ourt ct~ted 1.<'lrc h 2 , 19~5 1 the etition for rev: w �il d on Lct ober 26 , 1954 w- s r in st � ed 11 on c 011d.:. tion th -t tiw iJe:_ti tioner first p:y the n c ss~r fees for th~ do c ketins of ~is ori~inal petition for r v"ew . " doc ketinc; fee �as p<.d.d on J.�arc h 8 , l955o t espondents in ;lCir answer cl .ia th~t the ris '1t of ~ c tion of peti ioner h ~ s ~Jrcs cr i~eJ .and P therefor , the sa,ne s.1ould be dis~.1issed o ;t/1

~;:;oLUT.LOiJ - C" T. F> . Ch.J:: U(J . 92 a ,..., - 0- .Jhen the appe~l of pe titioner in G. 1 � No . L- 705 w~s di smis sed without prejudi c e by the 3up- rei e Cou rt ...:;ourt on .-.pril 29 ~ 1954v hi s remedy t he n was to ~pp eal the dec ision of the Comni ssioner of Custo1r.s to t he Court of First i.nst <mc e of J'lflnil .:A o J ~ noti ce of appe~ l w~s in f ~ ct filed with t he Com- mi ss ioner of ~ustom s , Dut he faile to pay the co r - responding filing fee o The ~pp e a l was not 9 there - fore , perfect ed , and the Court of First ~nst anc e of A~ nil ~ n ver ~ c quire d jurisdict i on over the c a se. Had t he f'lins fee oeen paid wi t hin the period pro- vided by 1 v1 , t h e Court of First ~nst an c e of ~v.;ani l o:. woulrJ h.~ve ac quired jurisdiction over the C-" Se $ and , upon the organization of this Court , t he s aid Cc se would have been remanded here p pursu ant to .Section 22 of epubli c /;,ct No. 1125 . The pay,nent of the full an10unt of t~1e docket fee i s ;:n indispensable st ep in t he perfect ion of oan a� pea l (La z<il. ro v . En - denc ia � ~ 7 l"hil . 552) , and upon failure of t he 2.p - pellant in ~ civil c a s e to pay t he s aid fee , t he ap - pea l is dee,ned 2bomdoned 0al<averi- v . hlbindo , 39 ' l-'hi l . 922� 1.1vero v . De 1� 1 os~ , 76 ,)hi l . 428) . f'etitioner atte11pted to prove t h� t pay111ent of t he filiny fee wa s tendered and wa s rejected . Jesus cialvador , a l aw-c lerk in t he offi c e of c ounsel for peti tioner , testifie d t h~t he offered to pay t he filins fee to the adQini strative officer of t l1e Bureau of Customs on he da te he filed t he notic e of a pea l on /.pril 19 j 1954 .and t ha t t he l;;.tter refuse d to ac- Jt/2..

.. ci.:iC LUT 101~ - C � f. '"' � v;....;3 ! ,C o ) ~ -4- c ept it on the �;round th J.t the records of t:,e c ase were still in t:1e 0Ui)re�.w .....;ourt . fh.c rt.ii.1. fter , �. c- cordins to t:1e s-.,1e witness 1 110 v-:cnt to t: .. e CL.,r:c of ..::o rt of t:.c ..:;o'Jrt of First ... nst<i c e of ..... -..nil'"' ~ \Jho -~lso refuse- to ?ccept P'l:lent on tLe s~ne sround e ...)Q silio T~nju<"ln , .� c ting 'hief of the 1 .d. - Hlini str~ti ve Division of tne .Jure au of .=:u storns , tc s t i i ied th >.t no suc.1 te 1c:er of p< ..lC!lt \r s .11~de person "'.ll / receive ' the notice of vppe<:l fro:.l Je s s 32<lv�6or; t!Jt no tender of P""fdlent of tne filin~ fee vr s ...ao.e; and th-.t upon re c ei~Jt by him of the n o t~ c e of �ppe .1, he de l i v ered it to his s uperior offi c er ; 2,;J s :."_ l 5_ o Tanju1n . The " c lerk of c ourt" of _ t;1e Court of First J.nst ':"ln c o of . :.:mil<~ ~ to v1hom tcncL:r o- pa� ment of the filing fee vr s likev1� s ..Pde, \lt:ls not presented 2s J. wit ness. ~rbm the evidence rresentcd in rcs1rd to the fi l i; g of the notice of appeal ~nd the alle9ed tender o f pn yme nt of tho filL 9 fee 9 we u.re convinc ed thc:t :::>PN\1 is deeued to h'"'ve been '"'~J::-.r.r:l.onec: . vn t:.i � t"'Oint , W0 2~rce Vli. th tnc 0 )SGrV<'tionS of C OU:JSCl for res)ondents , to wit~ '.'.p .rt fro .. t:1c si .., .lific o:.nt f--. c t th,..,t the tcsti~ony of t~is witnes s w~s not cor - ro;Jor~tod , S "''.<::? suffc:..'s from s ever;"'l in - fi..rll:J.tie s " ~ounscl for petitionc::':'s is~ v0ter<?n 12\ife:L~ f'nd. re;Y'teJ to b8 :--n ;utho - rit / on c usto... s c~scs, Juc:1 .Jein; the c � s e , it i s quit e odd that when hi s l�w J 1/J

1 E..:iC UTl0i"< - - :~ - . cl.:):r,: :rc,'ortcr1 to :1.:.., t:1 t tl:e c -r.c of the Court of first ..:nstmce of , :-..1il:, refused to - cc c:��t -:: ..:) tender of ;: '"';.nc!�lt :,c. o_-~ t,.l . . ~.lc.~ll.l"~,.."..~.. r ~t,J~c ' S. ,-..'.-c-':-1o-u!.~.-.c 1 " 1 .. ,�,.~.,_-.., -� ' ~cction 1 385 of the dcv:sed ~d ,inis-tra - t i v '"' ode ~ not~.:'.n �. �~ d ~Jeen dune �:.;out t:1c _,., tter . ..:~u:r~;.;l ~- ~ t:.c v;:;:rs.io,1 c;_.;;_ ven Jy ~.~ 1 v- .or l. S no t no . t' ~~ ~ 1 ee~l� ns W�lC" D, well - kno\\T1 r sourc o�1..1L1css �.;,C. dil:Lson c c of c ounsel. 11 .3inc :,} the v.., lue of the c i ~ret to s .:.n t:1c . .tJ~uJ f:--n c -se is ~l;; 2 52L . Ll-.... ..,nc1� the -~ 1 .t:i..;s . .':'. t ;.c:.s involvec~ in tll0 .~..,_,on ::oc cs c se ..,:,ouirt to :.J. , c.:::c . y�) on 1 / , tl-: 0 :C' i.l in:_ f 2.:: s for t h c tv1o c -. s e s coulJ. 1.:-vc ,Jeen _4-:: . Odly . ::vnc~ , it is cuit-:: Ut1. -tur"'l tl1-.t wit~l ss v.oJJ.., h -vc' :Jeen siv~n JJ1ore tL1n;, l5L , for tLe fili 1:} fc..;s , :- s Le �:;oul~ vr 11t 'JS to .J::- - li~v~ . ~~~cover , i t is 60vious � h-t ..:~C~lv-dor is ; ::::>i"'sed \:��.t. 2s.:> . i.J"'.silio T;--nju"'n , the ctin:; chief of th2 c~.mi~ nistr"'tivo divi~3on , tc..stif::.e:l t:,�t L .o.'1 h;s �.csson:_or :.e rE. c cive ... o(~nxh,i.1.Yri.:..tl 11 , 1:)~4 the .otico of _',~'pe;<l ' 1-:.� ) ~ n,.J t: - t '1.:? \''r0t tL"' .Ju::. _, e s:-:c.:t 0t - t ..., C 'uCCI ' ' t l.u2l~... �o~ \,,L' ~-c' l� i,- '"t.l�-re '.JC:i.' C - .�1y of .:?r to X 1 tLC; f~lin_ fe- ~ he could not h -vc refused tr c tenc:0r of :-- � y .,c.rt for he lvr/S :rof rrcrl SU C ;I .1~ttcns of r~~- �""-'11 to t:.~ c ~ s;, -:.or of t:H; Jure ~u of ,;usto1s . i.e tc..sti fied furtl1cr t;~--t 1� ~ c .. m,ot rec~11 d-vin_ c:~~lc \lit �. -c::.a .- ... r - son ~,i1o <leliv.:;rec~ th..: LOt~_ce of ~)~;2<:'1 to llis ,esscn_,cr , Jo~\\;uin inoy . '1Jo�-�pin Vlino J, the .: ss~il.Jcr in t:.e -~~Jr.:.;--u of -...:usto11s , test5.fied t;~.-:t ...:.; v-r s �tr-,::; one w;1o person.., 11 y r~ c i veJ b,c ..oticc of . ~)e-1 �' --r~c c~ ~xLi:)i t � 1 -..� 1 c: th;;-.t no off r to ;Y y t:1e feos l)- s J3 n r,l<.'.Je; ii1nd tha ~10 deli ver0J t:1_ �1ot:'. c c of appc~l to t.r . �l~<Anju-n . 11 .;.dcod==lto iJuc.ue , 1-.w ler:( in the ..5ure..,'.1 of ...:usto 1S P testified th� t the .. otl c of �:)pe-1 1 ru~r:.:cd ~xhibi t 1 1 - .. � w~s ~iven to h:11 ~y T~nju~n , t~ru t~e .ues e cn:er j-o~,..~uin ...inon th1t :~.e did not siv12 tLe "'PP --1 due c ourse .-Je c ~usc it -;pe-.rs tll--t t: .e:::-e '.r.s no :)ay..:ont of t;18 filins fcc ;:,nv. nei tLc did ,e re c eive -n/ tend.:?r to p?y the fees . 11 Thus 9 i t .is .l~nifested �h t ~ ~.o ti c of J rpc1l \';' . s filed but t l:.e filinc fees \'ere not p1id . Nci tiler , \'J s t here Jt/1/

� 2.->0LUTivN - - 6- "ny atteu1pt or tender to p~y the same . t:vidently 9 the petitioners .w.re 9uilty of la c hes and they have only the~selves to ol,.l;le for their f~ilure to e xerc ise the dil~;en c e ne c ess~ry in order to perfect their appeal. 1' Peti�tioner clai~s thvt this Court has juris - di ction to entertain his appeal on the sround that when the 3upreme Court dismissed without prejudic e his appe~l in G. d . ~o . L- 6785 , the c ase was auto - ,aatic e:lly rera<.mded to the Joard of Tax 1: ppe<,ls wh re it was left pendins until the ors~nization of this ;.;curt . .Jec tion 21 of .i.epuolic /.ct 1\o . 1125 provides that all c ~ses pending in the Joard of Tax Appe2ls on the date of c:.ppr ov�l of said o Ct on June 16 , 19::4 , sh~ ll oe tran s ferred to this Court and shall be he~ rd by it to all intents and purposes as if they h~d been or iginally filed therein . Je c an not suosc ribe to the view th~t the ef - feet of the dismissal without prejudice by the 3up- r eGe Court of the appeal of petitioner from the de - c ision of the forwer 3oi::1.rd of T.. x lppcals vJ;;.s to r cm~nd the case to said Joard and th1t the c ase was then pe~ding before it when t~is Court was or ~a hi2e d . The c ase wa s finally de c ided by s~id Joardo The subsequent appeal of the de c ision of the doar~ to the Jupreme Court and t he dismissal of the appe~l without prejudice by the latter did not h�ve the effect of reinstating the case in the Joard o There w-.s nothins; thc..J.t the Jo01rd could do abou t the c ase . if ~etitioner wanted to contest further the de c i -

J0~LUT lG1 ~ - C. T.1 �� C/.0S liC . 92 ~ 7- sion of the Commissioner of Custo.�1 s , he should have appe~led to the roper c ourto In ~ simil~r c ~SC 1 � this Court held: 11 x x x it c an reudily 02 seen th..,t the consequenc e of the resolution of the wuDreme Court in dis1.1issin( th�:: ;lppe�l of. pe�ti tioner �irelcdj io.n , ..:;rc han - disins Coo , Inco w~s not tor fer th c ~se b"ck to the Jo"'rd of T:~x dppeals ~ ~s t~r ~s the said Jo~rd w- s concerne d 9 the c .se of the petitioner w� s alre�dy closed nd tcr,nin�>ted in C! snu c h ~.s it h~d ciecided the s a1.10 ne;.Ar l y three ye c;. rs aso $ or ,,lore particul"'rl y on ~>.;;.J 6 , 1)52. 1he vupre.ne Court , tLerefore p in its re= solution of,. arc h 30 , 1954 , in effect , ruled thJ.t tt did not h~ve jurisdiction over the ~ppe~l - of tLe petitioner , <:nd ~ ccor c:insli disl11issed it vJitl10ut depriv- in.J petitioner ..:pekc\j i<m , .erc handisi.1c; Co ., J.nc . of its risht , iit t hat ti,ae , to bring its c"' se t:o the proper ...;ourt of First _nst QnCeo 11 (..~.. pe'�djian /,erc ;10?.ndisin:_ Co ., inc . v . Collector of -ntern al ~e venu , C. ' � .� C"se ilo . lC7 , July 26 1 1955. ) � pparently , c ounsel for petitioner s h res the s~ae view bec~use he filed a notice of Ol.ppcal w::.th the COillilissioneT of Custo,11S on !..pril 19 , 1954 in order to '1ave tl e c ~se reviewed by the Court of First lnst <nee of ~c~an � lOJ. . Unfortunate! y , he f;;dled to perfec �- his "'ppeel.l by payins: the ne cess "'ry :filins fee . For failure to perfect hi s ~ppeal , petitioner or his counsel is to bl"me � .ie hsve de c ided to oe very liberal in _the treatment of c ase s disuissed witl10ut prejudice oy the Supre111e Court , where the dismiss~ l w2 s due to tl e invG~.lidity of ~xe cutive vrder 1.0 . 401 - . relating to appeals froill the de cisions of the Jo~rd of Tax .ppe~ls to the Supreme Court. ~n sever al c ase s

.�__: ...r:..0C,L.U.T.~.c.:.JhE - :-J � 92 (') - u- de c ided bf this Court ~ we express c the view that even if no ~ppeal was filed w~th he proper Court of First L1 st anc e , .out wh re "n appe-.1 vr.s filed with this Court vJithin 30 da s af e its forulf 1 org~nizat"on on July 21 , 1954 9 we c ou l d have as - su,ned jurisdict ion over the c �se o n.d th the er e. tion of t is ~ou r t on June 16 ~ 19~4 , " new remedy was .n~de ~v~il~~le to the petitioner , i . e o , to 9 file ~n ap eal in he Court of Tnx ippe~ls within thirty d~ys ~fter t~e rec i t of such de c ision or rulin~ . Y 1 ..:i ec tion 11 , Eepublic c t l~o . 1125 . ) ~onsidering the c irc unst2nc es of the instant c ase , t~e petitioner could 1 ave av""l d itself of this new rem d p and for re so n s of e~uity , this :ourt by a un nimous concurrenc e of its mmn- ~e rs ~ ha s resolved that the thirty- day :)er iod within r1hi h to -ppeal to this �..:::ourt in c ases of s i.nil;:r natu ~ sl1ould ,Je c ou ted not fro.1 the receipt of res - pondent ' s de c ision dated ~ovemoer ~ ~ 1951 , or of th ...:>Uprela ..). jourt ' s of ~..arc h , 1954 , di S 1. � s sin~ pej ~ �inner ' s ~p peal wi '�hou t prejudic e , out fror.1 July 21 , 1~5, 9 when this ~ou_t w-s alre2dy resul1rly functionir s with the ~p~oint .en' of its two J .dses -nd its Clcr~ of Court -.nd v1i t;1 the - doption ~ 1 it in +!1 interi1.. of he J. l.ules ~nd d.e ... ulations of t~~2Lunct Boar d of Tax ppea ls fo r the guidance and observation of t ax- payers who wou l d like to question t he decisions of the Collector of Internal � evenue . 11 St a . "l �ra Lumbe r Co ., .inc . v. ollegtor of int . ev., ai .A. No o 91 , Septo 20 , 1955; s ec also i�iarsma n Developme nt o . v . ollec tor of nt . 1 ev ., . To, o r os . 11 6 & 117 , Nov . 14 ? 1955 ; Lira Tio , Dy He ng & Dee Hue v . Collector of ~nt . R Vo 1 CoT�� No . 126 , Jan . 31 , 1956 . ) The petition fo r review w- s filed wit h t his Court only on Oc to ber 26 , 1954 , more than t hree (3) months af ter its formal organize1tion on July 21 , l 954 o And again , the docketi ng fee w<~.s paid only on I.rn.rch 8 ,

ESOLUTiOl~ - i o. 92 c . c o I . ;:3 - 9- 1955 , 1nore th<m four 4) ,nonths fter the fi1in0 of the petition for revL.. w. .Je ::>e1ieve th t petitioner 1 under these c 'rcunst anc es 9 by hi s ignoranc e or sheer F � n ~ 11 y , we wish to .npha size tl1at the dis - ,Jiss 1 without prejudi e of petitioner ' s aJpeal b the .Jupreme v ourt vvas not tant",,JOunt to Cl 'udi c ia1 l)Ortni s sion to institu e the n~ c es s �ry c ourt - c tion t ~n tit.1e petitioner L1~y sec ito J..t s in1ply r eans th1t he could institu-e the proper ~ c tion in - c ourt of c ~n~ctent jurisdiction within the per~od pres - L- 8273 9 Oc t . 24 , 1955 . ) ~etitioner not havins insti - utcd he pr s en p oc cedin_, s "'"i hin he rc. 1ementary peri od v t hi s Court h s no-jurisdi c tion to ntert~in th s -a~e c FO. TI "t: .. . petition ,..or r"' v iew is here-Jy dis,nissed 9 with c osts g inst p itioncr . 1."'nila , hilippin s , . pril 2 v 1956o I l U!VJ'>i'l iv. . Ul " Li 1 s soc �� �te �ud:.,e :--=- ~ ); c _::.:-tify that J.S sec i te Jude. u � us o ~- . Luci .no voted in f�vor of nd c oncyrs in this d cisiono Jud~ ;l/t