CTA Case No. 28 (Resolution)

. REFUBL::.. ' 'l ~;) ~OUR� O.t<' '1<>--<'C AJ:.P.C.ALS MANILA IUTIB lUIDURASID, ET ll.L. , C.T. A. CASE NO . 28 Petitioners , - versus - COf<ll'HSSIONER OF CUSTOMS, Eespondent . x- - -- - - - - - - - - x RESOLUTIO N We have before us for resolution a motion to dismiss filed by respondent's counsel on October 27 , 1954, on the ground that what has been appealed to this Court by petitioners in their peti- tion for revie\'IJ of October 1~. , 1954 is an interlocutory order of / the Commissioner of Customs and not a final judgment or decision of the latter on the merits of the case . It appears that the pe tit i oners are the owners of five sail boats (kumpits) which were ordered seized on October 15, 1953 by the Collector of Customs of Jolo together with the mer- chandise found on board consisting of 181 ca.ses of "Herald 11 and 9 cases of 11Camel11 cigarettes and 7 pieces of rattan chairs al- le gedly for violation of Section 1363 (a) of the Revised Mminis- trative Code and Republic Act No. 426, otherwise known as the Import Control Law . After the seizure , the Collector of Customs of Jolo, in compliance with the duty imposed upon him by Section 1375 of the Revised Administ rative Code, notified in writing the owners of the seized vessels and merchandise of the formal hearing in re- ference to the delinquency which was the occasion of such seizure which hearing was set on October 28, 1953 . At the scheduled hearing , neither the petitioners nor their counsel appeared . However, one Indasan A. Napii , appeared and

RESOLUTION - C.T . A. CiSE NO . 28. - 2- claiming himself to be the repr esentative of the petitioners and their counsel requested for postponement of said hearing prefer- ably after December 28, 1953, as evidencedby his letter dated October 28, 1953 . On November 23, 1953, Atty . Juan T. David, formally entered his appearance as counsel for the petitioners and instead of re- questing the Collector of Customs of Jolo to set a day for the hearing of the five cases (Jolo Seizure Identification Cases Nos . 38, 39, 40, 41 and 42) on the merits as is his ri ght under Sec- tion 1375 of the Revised Administrative Code, filed ~nstead with the Bureau of Customs of Jolo a 111v1otion to Lif.t Harrant of Seizure and Dstention11 on the ground that the s ei zure i n question was made beyond the thre e (3) marine mile limit of the territorial juris- � diction of the Philippines and therefore illegaL On February 7, 1954, the Acting Collector of Customs of Jolo deni ed the said motion in a written order and instead required that the hearing of the fiv e cases in qU~l stion on the merits be set at a future date where all the questions at issue could be heard and decided . CoLUlsel for the petitioners instead of abiding by the order of the ~cting Collector of Customs of Jolo that a day be set at the convenience of the petitioners for the hearing of the five cases on the merits before the Bureau of Customs of Jolo , appealed the said order of the Acting Collector of Customs of Jolo to the Commissioner of Customs . On July 26 , 1954, the Acting Commissioner of Customs sus- tained the order of the Acting Collector of Customs of Jolo deny- ing the motion to lift the warrant of seizure and detention in the five cases above- mentioned and ordered the latter to set the

RESOLUTION - C. T. A. CASE NO . 28 . - 3- formal hearing of the five cases as soon as possible in accord- ance V'Jith law . On October 14, 1954, counsel for the petitioners filed a petition for review before this Court from this order of the respondent Commissioner of Customs of July 26 , 1954 sustaining the order of the Acting Colle ctor of Customs of Jolo of February 17, 1954 . On October 27 , 1954, counsel for the respondent filed a motion to dismiss this appeal now pending be~ore this Court on the ground that what has been appealed to this Court is an inter- locutory order of the respondent Commissioner of Customs and not a final decision or judgment on the merits of the case . As hereto- fore stated, this is the motion that we are now called upon to decide . After hearing the arguments pro and con with respect to the motion , the Court has arrived at the concl usion and so holds that the motion to dismiss of counsel for the respondent is well-taken and should therefore , as is hereby , sustained. ~a ction 7 of Republic Act No . 1125, confers upon this Court exclusive appellate jurisdiction to review by appeal 1~ecisions of the Commissioner of Customs in cases involving liability for customs duties , fees or other money charges; seizure , detention or release of property affected; fines , forfeitures or other penal- ties , imposed in relation thereto; or other matters arising under the Cqstoms Law or other law or part of law administered by the Bureau. of Customs �11 Vie take it that V'Jhat the aforesaid section of Republic k.ct No . 1125, means by decisious of the Commissioner of Cu~toms whi ch could be appealed to this Court , are jud gments

RESOLUTION - C. T. A. CASE NO . 28 . - - 4- or orders rendered by the Commissioner of Customs which are final in nature and n21 interlocutory order s or judgments which d~ not dispose of the case compl et ely but leave still something to be done upon the merits as required by law of the Commissioner of Customs or the Collector of Customs concerned . (See section 1375 - 1382 Revised Administrative Code) . This view is in con- formity vJith secti on 2, rule 41 of the Rules of Court . (See also lialter E. Olsen & Co . vs . Olsen 48 Phil . 238 , 240) . The underlying philosophy behind the rule is to avoid multiplicity of appeals in a single case . As explained by Justice Moran in his Comments on the Rules of Court , Vol . 1, p . 438, 1940 edition, 11 if each interlocutory order or judgment may be appealed from , and the appeal may stay the progress of the action, there will be . numberless app eals in a single case, and the delay in the final disposition of the case will be such that , in many instances , the parties may not survive it 11 � We believe ~WI so hold that there is more reason to apply section 2, r ule 41 , of the Rules of Court, in all the cases over which this Court was conferred by Republic Act No. 1125 exclusive appellate jurisdiction to review on appeal , consider ing that the principal purpose :fbr which this Court was created by Congr ess is to expedite the disposal of tax and cus- f toms ' cases � !(/ l -.J Y'EIIER~FORE , finding the motion to dismiss of counsel for the r esp ondent dated October 27 , 1954, well-grounded , the same ~s hereby sustained , and the above-entitled case dismissed with- out prejudice on the part of the petitioners of inter posing another appeal to this Court after all the requisites of sec-

� RESOLUTION - C. T. A. C~SB NO . 28 . - $- tions 1375 to 1382 of the Revised administrative Code have been complied with, with costs against petitioners . SO OF:DEEED � Manila, November Z1 , 1954 . ~~ Presiding Judge