DIOSDADO RAVARRA, MONIQUE SUNTAY, MICHAEL SUNTAY, CHRISTOPHER BARETTO, ANTONIO DE LA FUENTE, JOSE DE LA FUENTE, GERARLD DE LA FUENTE, JOEL MARTINEZ, VICTOR FLORES, LIBERATO VILLEGAS, NEMESIO JARONAS, ANNIE PANLILIO and EFREN ORDO??ES v. NELSON A. TAN, in his capacity as Acting Commissioner of Customs, EMELITO V. VILLARUZ, District Collector of Subic Bay, and Hon. RONALDO ZAMORA, in his capacity as the EXECUTIVE SECRETARY of the President of the Philippines

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES COURT OF TAX APPEALS QUEZON CITY DIOSDADO RAVARRA, MONIQUE SUNTAY, MICHAEL SUNTAY, CHRISTOPHER BARETTO, ANTONIO DE LA FUENTE, JOSE DE LA FUENTE, GER..-\LD DE LA FUENTE, JOEL MARTINEZ, VICTOR FLORES, LIBEP-A.TO VILLEGAS, NEMESIO JARONAS, ANNIE PANLILIO, and EFREN ORDONEZ, Peuuoners, - versus- CTA CASE NOS. 5739 NELSON A. TAN, in his capacity as Acting Commissioner of Customs, EMELITO V. VILLARUZ, District ollector of Subic Bay and Hon. RONALDO ZAMORA, in his capacity Promulgated: as the Executive Secretary of the ~-es~de~~ ~~~~e-~~~~~~~~;=~~~~e_u_l~ ________ !U~-~~ ~~- _~ RESOLUTION At bar for resolution 1s the Issue ot JUnsdichon rmsed by the Respondents in their "Amended Answer with Motion for Heming on AffmnatJ.ve Defense" dated April 21, 1999. The pertinent facts of the case are as follows: Herein Petitionc.-rs are il1.diviclual consignees of Fourteen (14) units of various 4x4 motor vehicles that arrived at the Subic Bay Freeport.

RESOLUTION - CTA CASE NO. 5739 2 Sometime on November 6, 1998 a11.d January 7, 1999, herein respondent, Emelito V. Villaluz, the District Collector of Customs of Subic Hay issued DEC.REES OF ABANDONMENT (Annexes C) to ()-13) against the aforementioned vehicles, citing as his legal anchor Sections 1801-1802 of the Tariff and Customs Code of the Philippines (TCCP). The Respondents allege that on October 15, 1998 and November 12, 1998, Collector Villmuz posted at the Bulletin Boa1�d of the Customs House, Port of Subic, a "Notice to Claim Importations" (Annex 1 of Amended Answer; docket, p. 61) directing such notice to herein Petitioners. But despite the foregoing notice the importations were not claimed by t..h.e Petitioners before the expiration of the 15-day peremptory period prescribed therein. As a consequence, res~ondent Collector issued the questioned Decrees of Aba11.donment a11.d decla1�ed the imported motor vehicles i'pso facto the property of the Government by virtue of the mandatory provisions of KA. 7651. Petitioners questioned the validity and legality of the aforesaid decrees raisiilg the follm~7i..11.g points of contention: 1) the issuance of t.."'l.e Decree of AbUJ.T)_donment is ur.Jm\7ful as it does not comply with the due process clause. Mere notice, through posting .in the Bulletin board, is insufficient as the required notice is that

RESOLUTION - CTA CASE NO. 5739 3 which is sent to the addresses of the proper party indicated in the Bill of Lading; 2) Section 1801 and 1802 as amended by KA. 7651 is not applicable to the case at bar because they have complied with the filing of the respective consumption entries and the payment of the Customs duties as required. And that the only pending issue is \Vit..~ regards to the revocation of the AUTHORITY TO RELEASE IMPORTED GOODS (ATRIGS) which up to the present has not been resolved, which has caused the non-release of the vehicles from the custody. Furthermore, the Petitioners question the legality of the memorand urn issued by the Executive Secret.a.ry directing the 4x4 motor vehicles be t..-rc-...nsferred to !'.1alacaiiang Palace for safekeeping. On December 14, 1998, upon know:il1.g of the issuance of the Decree of Abandonment, herein consignees, through their lawyer, flied a Notice of Appeal (Annexes ~. ~-1, Petition) before the office of the C'..-ornmissioner. However, in a resolution, dated February 3, 1999, Deputy Commissioner Emma M. Rosqueta afiLrmed t."he decrees issued by the District Collector and dismissed the Notice of Appeal for lack of me1it (Annex A, ibid.). The Actil1.g Commissioner of Customs Nelson A. Tan likewise dismissed the Notice of Appeal for lack of merit in a resolution,

RESOLUTION - CTA CASE NO. 5739 4 dated Februru:y 11, 1999, docketed as Customs Case No. 99-002 (Annex 4 of Amended Answer). After exhausting ail admmistrative remedies, Petitioners filed on March 9, 1999 the instant "Petition for Review with Preliminary Mandatory Injunction and Prayer for Temporary Restraining Order" before this Co11rt. On April 21, 1999, Respondents flied an "Amended Answer with Motion for Hearing on Affirmative Defenses" (pursuant to Section 6, Rule 16 of the 1997 t<ules of Civil Procedure) challenging the jurisdiction of this Court over the appealed case. The parties 'vere then ordered by this Court to file their respective memoranda within f..fteen (15) clays from :May 1, 1999 i.."'l order to resolve the question of ju1isdiction. Both parties complied. Thus, this Court is confronted with the task of resolving flrst the preliminary Issue of "whether or not the Court of Tax Appeals has jmisdiction to take cognizance of the present appeal." It is clear that the action flied by the Petitioners m this Court is foremost a remedial measure to safeguard their rights over the imported vehicles as well as to maintain the status quo i11 their favor. It is to be noted that the relief prayed for in the Petition for Review is the

RESOLUTION - CTA CASE NO. 5739 5 adjudgment by this Court of the Decree of Aban.donment to be null and void ab initio as it violates the due process clause coupled with the provisional remedy of tl1e issuance of a Writ of Preliminary injunction against Respondent from proceeding against the Motor Vehicles and the lawful release of Ll}e same in their favor and, lastly, t..l}e Issuance of a Tempormy Restraining Order (TRO) against the Respondents for tuming over the said vehicles to Malacal'iang Palace for safekeepin.g purposes. it is vety evident from the circumstances obtaining that the subject o1 tile instant Petition lor 1-<eview is outside tile ambit of tile Cl'A's jtuisdiction. The Court of Tax Appeals is a court of special and limited jurisdiction, as such it can take cognizance only of such matters as are ...... clearly withiTl its jurisdiction (Commissioner of Internal Revenue ......, Villa, 22 SCRA 3). The law creating it, Republic Act 1125, deliberately limits its jurisdiction to cases expressly provided in Section 7 of the said law, to wit: "Section 7. Jurisdiction. The Court of Tax Appeals shall exercise exclusive appellate jurisdiction to review by appeal, as herei..Tl provided - (1) X X X (2) Decisions of the Comilllssioner of Customs in cases involving liability for customs duties, fees or other money charges, seizures, detention or release of property a..flected, fines, forfeitures or other penillties imposed in relation thereto; or other matters arising under the Customs

RESOLUTION - CTA CASE NO. 5739 6 Law 01 other law or pill.l: of law administered by the Bureau of Customs; and (3) X X X' The principal controversy in the case at bar is the validity and legality of U1e Decrees of Abandonment issued by U1e Respondent Collector. While it is true that what is involved is a customs case involving St"'ction 1801 and 1802 of the TCCP, it does not necessarily follow that the crA may tr>Jce cognizaTlce of said case once it is appealed to it. The enumeration cited in the law is exclusive. No one could ever take refuge lo U1e law by merely expanding il. NeiU1er does U1e case fall wiU1iu U1e so called "other matters" as contain.ed in the last part of paragraph 2, Section 7 of R.A. 1125. The interpretation of "other matters" has long hf"'en ~:wttled by thf"' Suprf"'me C:ourt :in a litcmy of cases decided by it, thus: "In deflnir1g the cases that maybe reviewed by the CI'A, the law begins by enumerating them and then adds a general clau:se pertaiuiug to U1e oll1ers Umt may a~ise under U1e customs law. This shows that the "other matters" that may come under the general clause should be of the same nature as those t..~at have preceded them apply:i..."lg the rule of construction known as ejusdem genen�s. OtheiWise, it should be deemed foreign or exl:ran.eous aJ.'ld 1s not :induded" (Ollada vs. CTA, 99 Phil. 605, July 24, 1956; Acting Collector of Customs vs. CTA, 102 Phil. 244, 252 [1957])

RESOLUTION - CTA CASE NO. 5739 7 It is not disputed that the case at bar involving the validity of the Decrees of Abandonment IS not srm:llar to customs duties, tees or other money charges, seizure, detention, release of property, fines, forfeitures or ot._}]_er penBJties; therefore under the terms of the aforequoted section, the present case does not come \Vithin the appellate jurisdiction of the CI'A. It follows therefore that if the main or principal action is not within this Court's JUnsdiction, then the provisional remedies attached to it should likewise be dismissed. Although the prayer for the preliminruy injunction involves the release of t._}]_e property forfeited in favor of the goven1ment, a subject matter falling �within Section 7(2) of R.A. 1125, this Court has no power to resolve the issue. As a matter of fact, the petition for the release of the forfeited property in the abandonment case IS merely an mcident to the pnncipal controversy, which is the legality of the decree of abandonment issued bv the resnondent Collector of which �� .L this Court cannot take cognizance of. As held in the case of Commissioner vs. Alikpala, (ibid.), nowhere does the law expressly vest in the Court of Tax Appeals oliginal jlnisdiction to issue wlits of prohibition or injunction, independently of, ru1d apart from, an appealed

RESOLUTION - CTA CASE NO. 5739 8 ~.. ase. And if ever there exist the ancilla1y jurisdiction of the CfA such as the power ro issue writs of prohibition and injunction, this power is only ancillary to Its appellate JUnsdiction (Collector vs. Yuseco, 35 SCRA 310). Thus being so, the prayer for preliminarv Mandatory Injunction for the ITlease of the forfeited property and the Temporary Restraining Order to prohibit the Respondents to tum over the said vehicles to Malacaflang Palacl~ for ~afekeepiag puqJose an: ancillruy remedies necessarily connected with the principal action. The principal action having fallen outside tlus Court's JUnsdictlon, then srud ancillary remedies cannot likewise be entertained bv this Court. WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, Respondents' Motion to Dismiss is hereby GRANTED. Accordi.."'lgly, the Petition for Review filed on Mru�ch 9, 1999 is DISMISSED on the ground oflack ofjurisdiction. SO ORDERED. L(Q, CLA- ERNESTO D. ACOSTA Presiding Judge (Dissenting) ~IOli 0. DE VEYRA Associate Judge

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES COURT OF TAX APPEALS QUEZON CITY DIOSDADO RAVARRA, MONIQUE SUNTAY, MICHAEL SUNTAY, CHRISTOPHER BARETTO, ANTONIO DE LA FUENTE, JOSE DE LA FUENTE, GERALD DE LA FUENTE, JOEL MARTINEZ, VICTOR FLORES, LIBERATO VI LLEGAS, NEMESIO J ARONAS, ANNIE PANL ILIO, and EFREN ORDONEZ, Petit i onet's, -- vet'SUS C.T.A. CASE NO. 5739 NELSON A. TAN, in his capacity as Pt'ornul gated: Acting Commissioner of Customs, EMELI TO V . VI LLARUZ, District -~L__2~ 1999 -~, Collector of Subic Bay and Han. RONALDO ZAMORA, in his capacity a s the Executive Secretar y of the President of the Ph ilippines, Respondents. :-<�----- DISSENTING OPINION The majority opinion dismissed the Pet1tion for Review for lack of j urisdiction in concurrence with the view of the Respondents that the 1 s<;ue of "abandonment II does not fall under the scope of cases cognizable by this Co,_wt, pur�suant to Section 7 of Republic Act llc'~:.;. I am constrained to dissent fr�om cne major-ity opinion and believe that this Court has jurisd1ction to take cognizance of the Pretition fDl' Revie~�\i. Respondents begin their argument by laying down the pt'emise that t h e Tat' i f f and Customs Code of the Phi 1 i pp 1 n E.'::; < lTCP) does not contain ::my pt'O vision grant i ng this Court the power to review cases involving abandonment of importations.

DISSENTING OPINION - C.T.A. CASE NO. 5739 t�"::'z. I ltJ it h the f o regoing contention of Respondents because it is not the TCCP which d et el�~m in e s c:~ases fall scope of this Cour-��t' s jtwisdiction but Republic Act 1125, Ol""' "1~n Act Cl�~eat i ng the Coul���t of Tax speci f'icaJ.l y Section thel�~eof, wh1ch contains the following pt-�ovision.1 thus: SEC. 7. Jw~i sdict ion. The Com't of Tax Appeals .jut' i s d i ct i on shall exet~cise exclusive appellate pt��ov:ided to t~eviev~ by appeal, s <::~ (1) Decisions of the Commissioner of Internal Revenue in cases inv~lving disputed assessment, refunds of internal revenue t~xes , fees or other charges, penalties imposed in relation thereto, or other matters arising under the Nat i onal Internal Revenue Code or other law or part of law administered by the Bureau of Internal Revenue; (2) Decisions o f the Commissioner of Customs in cases involving liability for customs duties, fees or other money charges; seizure, detention or release of property affected; fin!? s, fot~fe it rxr'e s Ot' ot hel�' pen a 1 ties imposed in relation thereto; or other matters arising under the Customs Law or other law or part of law administered by the Bureau of Customs; and (3 ) Decision of provincial or city Boards of Assessment Appeals in cases involving the assessment and taxatio n of real property or other matters arising under the Assessment Law, including rules and regulations relative thet��eto. Petit i onet��s came to this Co twt questioning the validity of th(:> decree of abandonment by the Collectot' of Customs and affinned the Deputy Commi';sion(?t' of Customs. To my mine!, this cas~? falls

DISSENTING OPINION - C.T.A. CASE NO. 5739 3 squar~ely under~ t h e phr~ase "other~ matter~s ar~ising under~ the Customs Law or other law or part of law administer~ed by the Bur~eau of Custom~~". The issue of abandonment of imported goods is specifically mentioned in Sections 1801 and 1802 of the Customs Law or TCCP and there is no r~eason which I can fathom why this case should be dismissed because of lack of jurisdiction. This Cour~t is' without a doubt, vested with jurisdiction to adjudicate the issues presented in the instant case. The Supr~eme Cou1�~t ~ in the case of Commissioner of Internal Revenue vs. Court of Appeals, 2 4 2 SCRA 289 ~ ev!~n delineated with clarity this Court's jurisdiction when it described the Court of Tax Appeals in this regard: "It is a r~egular~ cotwt vested with appellate jurisdiction over cases arising under the National Internal Revenue Code, the Tariff and Customs Code and the 1~ssessment Law." (Underscoring supplied) I do not subscribe to the view that Petitioners do not have the remedy of appeal simply because the TCCP does not provide for any in cases of abandonment. The obvious explanation why the TCCP does not contain any provision for appeal in abandonment cases is because a person or entity who abandons imported goods is presumed to have voluntarily left the goods in Customs custody and longer inclined to appeal his act of abandonment, th e further implication being, that he is no

DISSENTING OPINION - C.T.A. CASE NO. 5739 ..� 4 - longer interested in claiming these goods; so that providing for the remedy of appeal would be s up e i�' f 1 u o us . This is not the situation obtaining 1n the case Z:~.t Petitioners are vehemently claiming that they did not abandon the imported vehicles. In fact, for the release of these goods and allege that the respective customs duties have already been paid. This being the primary allegation of Pet1t1oners, -tnen the issue shifts from abandonment to possible unlawful detention or seizure of the goods by the Respondents, an issue which may be properly adjudicated pursuant to the aforequoted Section 7 of R.A. 1125. The Cour��t of rax qppeals was spec1fically created for the purpose of liberating the regular courts from handling casE�~, involving matters that ambit of the Bureau of Internal Revenue and the Bureau of Customs. To throw out this petjtion due to Lack of jurisdiction is, I believe, taking a very narrow view of this Court's tunct1ons, thereby negating the very purpose of its existence. WHEREFORE, I therefore register my dissent to che majority op1n1on and vote that th1s Cour�t h<:iS the requ1site jurJ.sdJ.ctJ.on to take cognizance of the instant Petition for Review.