GOLDMINE RICE MARKETING, represented by its Proprietor MR. ORLANDO C. MANUNTAG v. HON. DISTRICT COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS, Port of Manila International Container Terminal (MICT) S Access Road, North Harbor, Port Area, Tondo, Manila and HON. REY LEONARDO GUERRERO, Commissioner of Customs, G/F OCOM Bldg. 16th St., South Harbor, Port Area, Manila

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES COURT OF TAX APPEALS QUEZON CITY ENBANC GOLDMINE RICE MARKETING, CTA EB NO. 2617 represented by its Proprietor, (CTA Case No. 10559) MR. ORLANDO C. MANUNTAG, Present: Petitioner, -versus- DEL ROSARIO, P.J. , RINGPIS-LIBAN, HON. DISTRICT COLLECTOR MANAHAN, OF CUSTOMS, Port of Manila BACORRO-VILLENA, Int'l. Container Terminal MODESTO-SAN PEDRO, (MICT) S Access Road, North REYES-FAJARDO, Harbor, Port Area, Tondo, CUI-DAVID, Manila; and HON. REY FERRER-FLORES, and LEONARDO B. GUERRERO, ANGELES, JJ. Commissioner of Customs, G/F, OCOM Bldg. 16th St., South Harbor, Port Area, Promulgated: Manila, APR 0 1 2024 x- ---- - - - - --- - ~~~p-o~~~~t~. - ------ - -~~.:o_a,4:,.... . RESOLUTION For resolution is petitioner's Motion for Reconsideration filed on September 4, 2023, with respondents' Comment filed through registered mail on October 31 , 2023, and received by the Court on November 8 , 2023. Petitioner prays that the Court reconsider its Decision dated August 14, 2023 (assailed Decision), with the following dispositive portion: WHEREFORE, premises consid ered , the insta n t Petition for Review is DENIED for lack of merit . SO ORDERED. Petitioner argues that the Court has jurisdiction over this case because Section 11 of Republic Act (RA) No. 1125, as amended, provides that as long as the Commissioner o~

RESOLUTION CTA EB NO. 2617 (CTA Case No. 10559) Goldmine Rice Marketing vs. Hon. District Collector of Customs et al. X------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------X Customs (COC) or the person obligated to act failed to do so, any interested person may file an appeal with the CTA after sufficient time had lapsed for the person to act on their matter. This argument, according to petitioner, is affirmed by the Supreme Court in Nestle Philippines, Inc. v. Honorable Court of Appeals, Court of Tax Appeals, and Commissioner of Customs (Nestle), 1 where it remanded the case to the CTA for hearing and reception of evidence relative to petitioner's claims for refund of alleged overpayment of customs duties, after the Collector of Customs' inaction for nearly six (6) years. In their Comment, respondents move for the denial of the present motion as it failed to advance cogent grounds to warrant a reversal of the assailed Decision as the issues raised by petitioner have already been passed upon. We deny the motion. Petitioner's reliance on the case of Nestle is misplaced. Said case is premised on the fact that a written protest is seasonably filed with the Collector of Customs under the Tariff and Customs Code of the Philippines (TCCP). As discussed in the assailed Decision, petitioner's Amended Petition before the Court in Division was denied as it is bereft of any allegation that it made a timely protest with respondents, viz.: In this case, petitioner claims that on March 4, 2021, it filed its Protest and Appeal for Duty and Tax Refund (Protest) to the office of respondent COC. Petitioner did not mention if the March 4, 2021 Protest with respondent COC was made within 15 days from receipt of the adverse ruling of the District Collector or from payment, as a result of the adverse ruling. Nothing in the petition intimates that a protest was made to the District Collector. Hence, We cannot determine if the March 4, 2021 Protest was timely filed. Nevertheless, even if petitioner seasonably filed a protest with the concerned officers as laid down in the CMTA and CAO No. 02-2020, such that there is a supposed ruling issued by the District Collector that was "deemed affirmed" due to respondent COC's inaction within 30 days from receipt of petitioner's Protest on March 4, 2021 or until April 3, 2021, the Court in Division would still have no jurisdiction over the Amended Petition for being time-barred. ~ 1 G.R. 1-:o. 134114. July 6. 2001.

RESOLUTION CTA EB NO. 2617 (CTA Case No. 10559) Goldmine Rice Marketing v. Hon. District Collector of Customs et al. X------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------X the Court in Division would still have no jurisdiction over the Amended Petition for being time-barred. Under Section 13 of CAO No. 02-2020, petitioner may appeal to the CTA the COC's deemed affirmed ruling of the District Collector within 30 calendar days from April 3, 2021, or until May 3, 2021. ... Thus, petitioner had seven days from May 17, 2021, or until May 24, 2021, to file its Petition for Review. Consequently, even if petitioner properly filed a Petition for Review instead of a Petition for Duty and Tax Refund, the Court in Division would still dismiss the same for having been filed out of time on June 25, 2021, or 32 days late. As correctly ruled by the Court in Division, the filing beyond the prescriptive period rendered the Court without jurisdiction over the subject petition. [Emphasis supplied] Moreover, as ruled in the assailed Decision, petitioner's repeated failure to comply with this Court's rules2 and lawful orders3 warrants the dismissal of the present petition. Accordingly, We find no compelling reason to reconsider, modify, or reverse the assailed Decision upholding the Court in Division's dismissal of petitioner's Amended Petition for Review for lack of jurisdiction, for insufficiency in form and substance, for failure to comply with the Court's orders, and for being time- barred. WHEREFORE, premises considered, petitioner's Motion for Reconsideration is DENIED for lack of merit. SO ORDERED. ~(:bn't, LANEE S. CUI-DAVID Associate Justice 2 Section 3. Ruk: 42. Ruks of Court prO\ ides: SEC. 3. t._[(ect of.failure to comp(1� 1rith requirements. - The failure of the petitioner to comply with any of the or foregoing n::quirements regarding the payment of the docket and other lawful fees. the deposit tOr costs. proof service of the petition. and the contents of and the documents which should accompany the petition shall be sufficient ground for the dismissal thereof. (Emphases suppfied) 3 Section 3. Rule 17 of the Red sed Rules of Court. provides that: SEC. 3. Dismissaf due to fault ofplaint!fr- If, for no justifiable cause, the plaintiff fails to appear on the date of the presentation of his or her evidence in chief on the complaint. or to prosecute his or her action for an unreasonable length of time. or to comply with these Rules or any order of the court, the complaint may be dismissed upon motion of the defendant or upon the court's own motion, without prejudice to the right of the defendant to prosecute his or her counterclaim in the same or in a separate action. This dismissal shall have the effect of an adjudication upon the merits. unless othcn' ise declared by the court.

RESOLUTION CTA EB NO. 2617 (CTA Case No. 10559) Goldmine Rice Marketing v. Hon. District Collector of Customs et al. X------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------X WE CONCUR: Presiding Justice ~- ~ ---1- '--~- MA. BELEN M. RINGPIS-LIBAN Associate Justice C~7-~ CATHERINE T. MANAHAN Associate Justice \ MARIARO ustice M~ ARIA~ N IV[ Y<i-.~ ~EY- E~-~ FAJX~ RDO Associate Justice HENR~NGELES Associate Justice