CTA Case No. 3385 (Decision)

-..... ~ ,. I �� � / MIGUEL O. CABARLES, Petitioner, - .ver sus - C.T.A. CASE NO . 3385 COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, Respondent . X- - - - - -X DEC I S I 0 N Jurisdiction over the s ubject matter is fundamental for a court to act on a given contro- versy. It is conf e rred by law, not by con~ent of the p a rties. I t can be c h allenged at any stage of the p r oce edings and for l uck of it, a court can dismi s s. a case ex mero motu . To inquire into the e x istence of jurisdiction over the subjec t mat te r is the primary conce rn of a court, for the~ reon would depend the validity of its entire p r oceedings . * *Commissioner of Inte rnal Revenue vs . Leonardo s. Villa and The Court of Tax Appeals, L-23988, Jan u a r y 2, 19 6 8, 22 SCRA 4: citing 21 Corpus Juris Secundum, 127-128 : Molina vs. Dela Riva, 6 Phil. 12; Fuentebella vs. Negros Coa l Co ., 5 0 Ph il ~ 69; Vega vs. San Carlos Milling Co . , 51 Phi l . 908; u.s. vs . De la San ta, 9 Phil. 2 2 ; Vda . e Hijos de Pedro Rojas vs . Rafferty, 3.7 Ph il. 95�7. (See etl ~j O Os cwr F. Santos vs. The Commission er of Intern~ ! Revenu e , CTA Ca se No. 3070, Au g ust 14, 1981. ) 6~ .

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 Col lector of Cu stoms in t he seizure case has already bec ome fin a l and executorye The District Co llector of Cu stoms of Iloilo rendered a dec isio n in Seizu r e I dent ification No . 3-80 on November 27, 1980, ordering the return to peti tione�r Miguel Ca bar l es of 24, GOO bags of imported fert1.lize r seized by the Bureau of Cus t oms and the forfeiture of 10,622 bags in. favor of the Governmen t. Thereaf ter, in his o rder dated May 7, 198 1, said Collector modified his decision d ecree- ing that the 25 , 000 bags of fertilizer earli~r order ed r e�turned to Ca barle s he likewis.e deelared forfei ted in fav or of the Government. From receipt o f this or der on May 25, 1981 , petitioner 's counse l f iled a motion for recons ideration on June 6, 1981 70

DECIS IO CTA CAS E NO . 3385 - 3- bu t sa id motion was denied by the Co llector in his , order of August 18, 198le Subsequently, petitioner's cou nse�l who received sa id order of denia l 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 Cus t oms dismissed said appeal on t he ground that it " was made beyond the reg lementary per i od of fif teen days as requ ir ed by law11 and that "the orders of the Collector of Customs of May 7, 1981 and August 18, 1981 s ough t to be reviNed have already become final and execu- tory... On October 28 , 1981, petitioner appealed to th i s Court c ontesting the� l e9ality of respon- dent 's order of dismissal and the validity of forfeiture . Cl early , petiti oner consumed a .period of twenty (2 0) .days in filing his appea l from the orde�r of the� Collector of Customs of Hay 7, 1981 be'cau se fr om re�ceipt by h i s counsel on .Lvlay 25, 198 1 of said ord er to Ju ne G, 198 1 when he f iled his motion for reconsideration , a period of 12 days ad already bee�n c onsumed, and f rom receip t by 71

DECISION - CTA CASE NO . 33'85 _, .4 - petitioner'~ counsel on Augus t 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 d ays . We quote with app rov al , for further illucida tion , .responden ~s . observation in his answer with a mot ion 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 Ta r iff and Cu stoms Code, as amended. x x x. 15. Section 2313 of the Ta riff 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 , th r 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 wh en, 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 thr ee (3) ftays more left. 7 ,1...). .

DECISION - CTA CASE NO . 3 385 - .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 Au gust 26 , 198 1 . Adding these 8 d ays to the 12 days alr eady consumed by petitioner b~fore the motion for reconsi dera ti on 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 be c ome final and ex.ecu tory . The Commis sioner of Customs, therefore , was correct in dismi ss�.ing the appeal for l ack of juri s diction . Likewise , this Hono rab le 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 Col lector of his action or decision, give wr it te n 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 ega l requ ix:ement for appeal, wh ich was then simi l ar ly embodied in Section 1380 of the Rev i s ed Administrative Code, has been construed as mandator y and the� failure of peti- t ioner to comply therewith renders the decision or act ion of ilie Collector f i nal and conclusive and beyond the ju r isdiction of the Commiss ioner o f Customs o r of thi s Court to review, revise or mod ify. (See ~y Man vs . J acin to and Fa bros, G.R. No. L-~612, October 31, 19 53; Pascua l vs . David, CTA Case No . 95 LRe s./ Apri l 21, 19 56; F. Caballero Trading vs . Comm . of Customs , CTA Case No. 1672, August 21, 1967; La Union Elec tric Co., Inc. vs . Comm . of Customs , CTA Case No. 1957 LRes.7 Febru ary 28 , 1969 ; Jos.e Lagon vs. The Comm issioner of Customs and The Collector of Customs , CTA Case No. 2810, November 11, 1977). The rationale of such principle was mor e emphat ically enunciated by the Supreme Cou rt in the case of Chan Kian vs. The Court of Tax Appeals a nd .The Collector of Customs, G.R. No. L-121 84 , 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- ca se�s of forfe itu re is not a matter of procedu re wh ich courts may ignore . The provis ions of the Customs law, like those of the interna l 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 mpo rtation may be decided promptly and exped itiously , as delays therein may result i n the clogging of cu s tom~ wa rehouses wi t h merchandise� i llegal ly 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 Appea ls ac:t ed correctly in dismissing the� appeal of petitioner, as it was not filed wi thi n t he period of 15 days prescribed by ~aw." We find untenab le pet iti on e r'~ con tention that although the 15-~ay period h ad e xp i r ed whe n he filed his notice of appeal from the order of the Col l ector of May 7, 1981, hi s appeal was s t i ll seasonably fil ed insofa r as the Coll ector's order of deni al o f Augu s t 18, 1981 is conce fned because his mo ti on for rec onsideration r a ised new and substant i al grounds . It should be no ted that the order of the Collector dat ed May 7, 1981 wh1ch modified his previous decision involved the same seizure proceedings and s ame was rendered after a r e examination of the facts , the ev i dence� and ar - gumen ts prese nte d by t he pa rties the rein. 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 a nd addit~onal grounds we re 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 Cu stoms 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, 2 7 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 ri ghts of pet i- tioner over property worth approximately P2 ,aoo,o oo .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 towa rds the review of whether th~ order o f August 26, 1981 which denied pet i- 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 nd ubitably speak aga in s t taking cogn i zance of petitioner ' s appeal and the Cour t can not do otherwise. Thu s i n the c~se o f Lagon vs. Commissioner of Customs , supra , where a similar jurisdictional question calling for the appli- cation of Section 2313 of t he Tari ff and Customs . Code was raised, this Court, citing the ca se o f Sampaguita Shoe & Slipper Facto ry vs. Comm issioner of Customs, L-102 85 , Ja nuary 14, 1958, 1 02 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 orde rly procedure which favors a preliminary adminis- trative sifting process, and serv�es to prevent attemp t s to swamp the Courts by resort to them in the first instance (United States vso Sing Tuck, 1 04 US 1 61, 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 ac k 78 -

DECISION - CTA CASE NO. 33:85 - 11 - of jurisdicti on, with costs. SO ORDERED. Quezon City , Me:tro Manila, March 25, 1983 . WE CONCUR: aw.~a. / Ar-IANTE~ Presidi Judge � ROAQUIN Judge