CTA Case No. 771 (Decision)

8J"'JiLIC . p � Tim .fRD.JJIII / 50UI\l' 'OF TAX ArJI."'JW:w...i!~~ ~ PHILIPPINES INTERNATIONAL SURETY CO., I nc . .P e 11 ; it1o n e r , ersus - C. T. A. CASE No . 7?1 / COl~ISSIONER ORF eCsUpSoTnOdMeSn1't. DECISION The petitioner Philippines International Surety Co., Inc., the surety or Andres E. Lazaro, appeals from the decision dated February 19, 1960 or the Commissioner or Customs ordering Andres E. Lazaro as well as the Philippines International Surety Co., Inc. to pay, jointly and severally, the total sum or 1:6?,01+1.00. ndres E. Lazaro is the claimant or 300 packages or green peas, 200 packages or dried green peas and 10 packages or dried fish (codfish) which arrived in the port of Manila on various dates. The importa- tions in question were not covered by release certifi- cates issued by the Central Bank or any of its agent banks. Conseque tly, seizure proceedings were insti- , tutad, but during the pendency or the proceedings the artieles in question were released to the claimant under bond (Customs ree., pp. 80-8?, 89 & 101+). Arter hearing, the Collector of Customs for the port of Ma- nila ordered their forfeiture for having been im- vr _.-/

DECISION - CTA CASE No. 771 - 2- ported in violations of Central Bank Circulars Nos. 44 and ~5. It appearing that they were released under bond, he ordered the claimant, as well as his surety, the Philippines International Surety Co., Inc., to pay, jointly and severally, the f ull amount of the surety bonds or the sum of �67,0~1.00 (Customs rec., pp. 52-~). Notices of said deci- sion were given to the claimant and the Philippines International Surety Co., Inc. (Customs rec., PP� 50-51) . The claimant appealed to the Commissioner of Customs who affirmed the decision of the Collect- or of Customs (Customs rec., pp. 39-42). After re- ceipt of the decision of the Commissioner of Cus- toms on February 22, 1960 (Customs rec., pp. 37-38), the claimant and his surety filed separate motions for recons ideration on March 21, 1960 (Cus t oms rae., p. 23) and March 23, 1960 (Customs rec., p. 17), respectively. The former motion was denied on March 25, 1960 (Customs rec., pp. 11-16), and the counsel for Andres E. Lazaro and the Philippines Inter.national Surety Co. , Inc. received the order of denial on March 25, 1960 and March 28, 1960, respectively {Customs ree., pp. 9-10) . The claimant filed a second motion f or recon- sideration on March 31, 1960. In an order dated

DECISION - CTA CASE No. 771 - 3- April~' 1960 {Customs rec., p. 5), the Commissioner of Customs denied the second motion for reconsidera- tion and furnished Andres E. Lazaro and the Philip- pines International Surety Co., Inc. copies thereof on April 5, 1960 (Customs rae., pp. 3-~) . Three days l a ter or on April 8, 1960 the Philippines Interna- tional Surety Co., Inc. instituted the instant ap- peal. The petitioner questions the validity of the seizure and forfeiture proceedings, the same being - (1) contrary to the purpose and in- tent of Republic Act No. 1410; and {2) based on Central Bank Circulars Nos. 44 and 45 which are null and void insofar as no-dollar importations are concerned in view of the absence of authority on the part of the Central Bank to issue said circulars. On the other hand, the respondent assails the ju- risdiction of this Court to entertain the instant case, the same having been filed allegedly beyond the 30-day reglementary period. He further chal- lenges the personality of the petitioner to appeal, i t being merely the surety of the claimant of the imported articles involved. We shall f i rst dispose of the preliminary

DECISI ON - CTA CASE No. 771 - ~- issues posed by the respondent. The respondent maintains that the petitioner, being merely the surety of Andres E. Laza ro, has no personality to appeal from the decision of the Com- missioner of Customs .inasmuch as it is not a person adversely affected by the decision appealed from. This question has been passed upon by this Court unfavorably against the petitioner in two previous cases (Philippines International Surety Co., Inc. vs. Com. of Customs, CTA Case No. 7~5, Resolution, Ja n. 12, 1961; Philippines International Surety Co., Inc. vs. The Com. of Cus toms, CTA Case No. 736, Resolution, Dec . 3, 1962). We said therein that the surety bas no legal capacity to appea l to this Court. We see no strong and convincingly valid reason to depart from our ruling in the two afore- mentioned cases. Assuming, however, that the petit ioner can ap- peal from the deeision of the Commissioner of cus- t oms, still this Court cannot take cognizance of the instant appeal for the reason that the petition for review was filed beyond the thirty-day period provided for in Section 11 of Republic Act No. 1125. It appears that Andres E. Lazaro and the peti- tioner received the decision or the Commis s i oner of Customs on February 22, 1960. Both filed separate

DECISION - CTA CASE No . 771 - 5- motions for reconsideration on March 21 , 1960 and March 23, 1960, respectively . The respondent denied the motion filed by Andres E. Iazaro on March 25, 1960 and furnished the claimant and the petitioner copies of the order or denial on March 25, 1960 and March 28, 1960, respectively. On March 31, 1960, Andres E. Lazaro filed a second motion for reconsia- eration. This appeal was commenced three days at- tar the petitioner and dres E. Lazaro received the order denying the latter's second motion tor reconsideration. From the date or receipt or the decision of the Commissioner of Customs until the filing of the second motion for reconsideration, ndres E. Lazaro consumed 34 days . The petitioner filed the petition for review in this case 36 days after receipt of the respondent's decision. The contention or the petitioner that its ap- peal was timely filed, because the motion for re- consideration he filed immediately after receipt of the respondent's decision has not been acted upon, is without merit. Its motion for reconsidera- tion was filed on March 23, 1960, two days after its principal, Andres E. Lazaro, tiled his motion. Both motions raised practically identical issues. On March 25, 1960 the respondent denied the motion of � dres E. Lazaro . llthough no mention was made ot' --( tj

� DECISION - CTA CASE No. ?71 - 6- the petitioner's motion, we are of the opinion that the denial of La~aro's motion for reconsid- eration was also a denial of the petitioner's motion, firstly, because the petitioner intervened in the case merely as surety of Andres E. Lazaro; secondly, because the petitioner raised the same issues set up by its principal. Moreover, Andres E. Lazaro, for having con- sumed a total of 3~ days from receipt of the re- spondent's decision until he filed his second motion for reconsideration, has lost his right to institute an appeal. Likewise, the herein peti- tioner, under the circu.stances obtaining in this case, cannot legally appeal to this Court, it be- ing merely the surety of Andres E. Lazaro . A surety cannot have a better right than its prin- cipal. Having found that the petitioner lacks the legal capacity to appeal from the decision or the Commissioner of Customs and that this Court has no jurisdiction to entertain ~his case ~or the reason that the petition for review was filed beyond the thirty-day period provided tor in Sec- tion 11 of Republic Act No . 1125, we shall abstain from discussing the other issues presented by the parties.

DECISION - CTA CASE No / 771 - 7- N VI EW OF THE FOREGOING CO:rNIDIONS, the petit ion fo review is hereby di ssed, with costs against the petitione , SO ORDERED. Manila, January 4, 1963 � .<�uuLLL..,u.wO '-UU......&;~ Presiding Judge WE CONCUR: ROMAN M. UMALI ssocia te Judge