HERMA SHIPPING AND TRANSPORT CORPORATION v. HON. NICANOR FAELDON, IN HIS Capacity as COMMISSIONER OF THE BUREAU OF CUSTOMS

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES COURT OF TAX APPEALS QUEZON CITY Third Division HERMA SHIPPING AND CTA CASE NO. 9561 TRANSPORT CORPORATION, Petitioner, - versus - Members: HONORABLE NICANOR UY, Chairperson) and FAELDON, IN HIS CAPACITY AS COMMISSIONER OF THE RINGPIS-LIBAN, Jl. BUREAU OF CUSTOMS, Promulgated: Respondent. X- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - X RESOLUTION l''or resolution are the following: 1) Respondent's "Niotion for Further Extension of Time to File Comment/Opposition" flied on May 20, 2019 v1a registered mail, received by the Court on May 28, 2019; 2) Respondent's "Motion for Further Extension of Time to File Comment/ Opposition" ftled on May 27, 2019 v1a registered mail, received by the Court on JVfay 30, 2019; 3) Respondent's "Motion for Further Extension of Time to File Memorandum" filed on May 24, 2019 via registered mail, received by the Court on May 30, 2019; 4) Respondent's "Motion for Further Extension of Time to File Memorandum" filed on June 06, 2019; 5) Petitioner's "Ex-Parte Manifestation and Compliance" filed on June 06, 2019; and

RESOLUTION CTA CASE NO. 9561 6) Respondent's "Comment/Opposition (Omnibus Motion for Leave of Court: a. To Ship-break or Dismantle M/T Malolos; and b. To Reduce Surety Bond dated March 19, 2019)" filed on May 30, 2019 via registered mail, received by the Court on June 10, 2019. Resvondent's "Motion for Further Ext"ension of Time to File . Comment/O.v.. .v.. osition" filed on Mav 20, 2019 via registered mail. "Motion for Further Extension of Time to File Comment/Opposition" filed on May 27, 2019 via registered mail. and Res...vondent's "Comment/Ov..._ v.... osition (Omnibus Motion for Leave of Court: a. To Shiv-break or Dismantle MIT Malolos: "and b. To Reduce Sure(v Bond dated March 19. 2019)" filed on - . May 30. 2019 via registered mail. received bv the Court on Tune 10, 2019 On May 23, 2019, a Resolution1 was issued: 1) Denying Respondent's "Motion for Further Extension of Time to File Comment/Opposition" filed on May 08, 2019; 2) Denying Respondent's "Motion for Further Extension of Time to File Comment/Opposition" filed on May 14, 2019; 3) Granting Petitioner's "Omnibus Motion for Leave of Court: a. To Ship-break or Dismantle M/T Malolos; and b. To Reduce Surety Bond"; 4) Ordering Petitioner to keep the Court apprised of the progress of the ship-break or dismantling of M/T Malolos; 5) Ordering Petitioner to file a surety bond in accordance with the Supreme Court Circular Re: Guidelines on Corporate Surety Bonds, in the reduced amount of Php24,897,000.00, within ten (1 0) days from receipt; and Docket, pp. 6867-6872.

RESOLUTION CTA CASE NO. 9561 6) Submitting the case for decision. pursuant to the Resolution dated April11. 2019. Thus, We find that the following pleadings had been rendered MOOT by the May 23, 2019 Resolution of this Court: 1) Respondent's "Motion for Further Extension of Time to File Comment/Opposition" flied on May 20, 2019 vza registered mail, received by the Court on May 28, 2019; 2) Respondent's "Motion for Further Extension of Time to File Comment/Opposition" flied on May 27, 2019 via registered mail, received by the Court on May 30, 2019; and 3) Respondent's "Comment/Opposition (Omnibus Motion for Leave of Court: a. To Ship-break or Dismantle M/T Malolos; and b. To Reduce Surety Bond dated March 19, 2019)" flied on May 30, 2019 via registered mail, received by the Court on June 10,2019. Resvondent's "Motion for Further Exte' nsion of Time to File Memorandum" filed on Ma,v 24. 2019 via registered mail. received by the Court on Ma.v 30. 2019 and Resvondent's "Motion for Further Ext'ension of Time to File Memorandum" filed on �Tune 06. On February 19, 2019, a Resolution2 was issued resolving Respondent's Formal Offer of Evidence and ordering parties to file their respective memoranda within thirty (30) days from receipt. Records reveal that Respondent received the said resolution on February 26, 2019.3 Thus, he had until March 28, 2019 within which to file his Memorandum. However, instead of filing a Memorandum, Respondent filed via registered mail on March 28, 2019 a "Motion to Suspend Period to File Memorandum", praying that the period to file memorandum be suspended in 2 Id., pp. 6745-6746. Id., p. 6744.

RESOLUTION CTA CASE NO. 9561 the meantime, and he be given a fresh period of thirty (30) days from receipt of the Resolution resolving Petitioner's Omnibus Motion to file the saiJ memoranuum. On April 11, 2019, a Resolution4 was issued denying Respondent's "Motion to SuspenJ Period to File Memorandum". In the interest of justice however, respondent was given a fresh period of ten (10) days from receipt of the Resolution to file memorandum. Rccorus show Respondent receiveJ the said resolution on May 14, 2019. Thus, Respondent had only until May 24, 2019 within which to file his Memorandum. And yet on May 24, 2019, Respondent flied a "Motion for Further Extension of Time to File Memorandum" via registered mail, praying for an extension of fifteen (15) days from May 24, 2019 or until June 08, 2019, within which to file the required memorandum. Moreover, on June 06, 2019, Respondent filed another "Motion for Further Extension of Time to File Memorandum", praying for another extension of thirty (30) Jays from June 08, 2019 or until july 08,2019. We find Respondent's prayer for another extension of forty-five (45) days 5 as unnecessary and unwarranted. It must be emphasized that the Court had alreauy granted Respondent enough leeway. In fact, Responuent haJ a total of eighty-seven (87) days within which to file his Memorandum, Jue to the previous incidents in the instant case: Date Incident Description Period of days within which to February Resolution Parties were ordered to file 19,2019 their respective memoranda file within thirty (30) days from memorandum receipt. Thirty (30) days March Respondent's The said resolution was E.rJentia!!y, an 28,2019 "Motion to Suspend received by Respondent on Period to File Pebruary 26, 2019. extenxion of jimrteen Memorandum" filed Respondent prayed that the via registered mail period to file memorandum (14) dayJ be suspended In the meantime. 4 Jd., pp. 6840-6841. Fifteen (15) days plus thirty (30) days extension.

RESOLUTION CTA CASE NO. 9561 ,\pril 11' Resolution Denied Respondent's E.r.rentia!!y, an 2019 "Motion to Suspend Period exten.rion of thirty- to File Memorandum". In three (33) day.r the interest of justice, Respondent was g1ven a fresh period of ten (1 0) days from receipt to file memorandum. The said resolution was received by Respondent on May 14, 2019. May 24, Dead!inefor ReJpondent'.r J'v1emorandum Ten (1 0) days 2019 Total number of days given to Respondent to file Eighty-seven memorandum (87) days It must be emphasized that the grant of additional time to file any pleading is not granted as a matter of right but addressed to a court's sound discretion and that lawyers should never presume that their motions for extension of time will be granted as a matter of course, or for the length of time sought.6 Rules of Procedure must be faithfully complied with and should not be discarded with the mere expediency of claiming substantial merit. As a corollary, rules prescribing the time for doing specific acts or for taking certain proceedings are considered absolutely indispensable to prevent needless delays and to orderly and promptly discharge judicial business. By their very nature, these rules are regarded as mandatory7 Considering that Respondent's memorandum was originally due on March 28, 2019, and that Respondent has already been granted in actuality an additional period of fifty-seven (57) days8 from the original due date, Respondent has had more than ample time to submit its memorandum. Both Respondent's "Motion for Further Extension of Time to File Memorandum" filed on May 24, 2019 IJia registered mail, received by the Court on May 30, 2019 and Respondent's "Motion for Further Extension of Time to File Memorandum" filed on June 06, 2019 are DENIED. Petitioner's "Ex-Parte Manifestation - and ComvHance" 6 Aurora B. Go vs. Elmer Sunbanun, Georgie S. Tan, Doris Sunbanun and Richard Sunbanun, G.R. No. 168240, February 09, 2011. 7 Laguna Metts Corporation vs. Court of Appeals, et al., G.R. No. 185220, July 27, 2009. 8 Eighty-seven (87) days minus thirty (30) days.

RESOLUTION CTA CASE NO. 9S61 On May 23, 2019, a Resolution9 was issued granting Petitioner's Omnibus Motion for Leave of Court to Reduce Surety Bond, the dispositive portion of which provides: "WHEREFORE, Petitioner's "Omnibus Motion for Leave of Court: a. To Ship-break or Dismantle M/T Malolos; and b. To Reduce Surety Bond" is GRANTED. Petitioner is allowed to ship-break or dismantle M/T Malolos, with the condition that Petitioner keep the Court apprised of the progress of such ship- break or dismantling. Petitioner is also ORDERED to file a surety bond, taken from a reputable surety company, duly accredited by the Supreme Court in the reduced amount of Twenty-four Million, Eight Hundred, Ninety-seven Thousand Pesos (Php24,897,000.00) 10, within ten (10) days from receipt hereof, together with the reguired supporting documents as specified in Supreme Court Circular Re: Guidelines on Corporate Surety Bonds 1\ as follows: 1) Certified copy of a valid Certificate of Accreditation and Authority issued by the Office of the Court Administrator; 2) Copy of the Certificate of Compliance with Circular No. 66 of the Insurance Commission duly certified by the Insurance Commission; 3) Proof of payment of legal fees under the Rules of Court and the documentary stamp tax (thirty centavos [P 0.30] on each four pesos [P4.00] or fractional part thereof, of the premium charged, pursuant to Section 187 Title VII of Rep. Act No. 8424) and Value Added Tax (VAT) under the National Internal Revenue Code; 4) Photocopy of the Certificate of Accreditation and Authority issued by the Court Administrator containing the photograph of the authorized agent (after presentation to the Clerk of Court of the original copy thereof as Copy of the Certificate of Accreditation and Authority containing the photograph of the agent); and 9 Docket, pp. 6867-6872. 10 Appraisal Report for Herma Shipping and Transport Corp., M/T Malolos, February 28, 2019, Docket, pp. 6754-6766. 11 A.M. No. 04-7-02-SC, July 20, 2004.

RESOLUTION CTA CASE NO. 9S61 5) Secretary Certificate contatrung the spectmen signatures of the agents authorized to transact business with the courts. The surety bond must be a continuing bond which shall remain effective until the case is finally decided, resolved or terminated by this Court, without necessity of renewal on a yearly basis, and without its validity being dependent on the payment of a renewal premium pursuant to Section 177 of the Insurance Code. Failure to comply with the above requirements shall cause the setting aside of this Resolution granting Petitioner's Omnibus Motion. On June 06, 2019, Petitioner filed an "Ex Parte Manifestation and Compliance" securing Endorsement No: H0-0092376-oo-RA to form part of Bond No: 0092376 IC No. G(16) 19748, for the posting of the reduced amount of the Surety Bond dated July 16, 2018 issued by Pioneer Insurance & Surety Corporation and submitting the required supporting documents, in compliance with the May 23, 2019 Resolution. WHEREFORE, Petitioner's "Ex Parte Manifestation and Compliance" is NOTED. In view of Petitioner's compliance with the conditions laid down in the May 23, 2019 Resolution, the reduced amount for the surety bond is approved. i\lso, in view of the fact that all matters in the instant case are finally setded, this case is submitted for decision anew for the guidance of all the parties. SO ORDERED. ~. ~ ) .... EARssL~~~sPt.icUeY MA. BELEN M. RINGPIS-LIBAN Associate Justice