CTA Case No. 542 (Resolution)

l'llil"UBLH.: OF . THE PHlLlPPlN~ COURT OF TAX APPEALS WANI.L4 HAT IB BDURAS lD , ID IRIS , ISMIN , HAJAD , Gl\ I , , ABHURAHAM II SAHAIL , MAN$ UL I SAJ WAN , ILLON ASALI , OTTO KALON ' SAMAD HAMAD II AS lD ABUNIPA , JULKANAIN IMPIT , Dl NISIO TATTONG , MOH..t.\MAD BANIAlA , ADAI ISON ' JAKARIA II BA.RUM , INT IONG , MONNONG 11 SAMAIND ING , JAFAR 11 BAS IO NIC , AMJ\,10H 11 lvOHAMAD DAYANI , l\fiONDO , ALU. 11 HUS IN 11 ISA , and II'-ICOH BANIAlA , Petitioners , - versus - C. I . A. CASE NOo 542 THE COMMISS' IONER OF ClSTO'vS , Respondento X~ � - - ~- � ~- - - - X ESOLUTION This is a petition seeking to review an order of the Commissioner of Customs dated May 9 , 1958 , denying the appeal taken by petitioners from the order of the Collector of Customs of Jolo denying petitioners' motion to dismiss the-Seizure Identi- fication Cases Noso 38 , 39 , 40, 41 and 42o On the theory that the instant petition lacks cause of action, respondent Commissioner of Customs filed his motion to dismiss the same . This case comes to us for the third time . In the f:irst instance (C . I .A. Case No . 28) , petitioners asked this Court to review the order of the Acting Commissioner of Customs , sustaining the� denial by the Acting Collector of Customs of Jolo of their motion to lift the warrant of seizure and detentiono 1

RBSOLUT ION - C. I . A. CASE NO. 542 - 2- In our resolution dated November 28 , 1954 , we dis= missed the petition for review on the ground that said order appealed from was merely interlocutoryo In the sec ond case (C . I . A. Case No. 263) , petitioners sought the review of the order of the Commissioner of Customs denying their motion to dismiss the seizure c ases . Again t he petition for review with preliminary injunction was dismissed pursuant to our resolution of July 31, 1956 on the same ground that the order ap- pealed from was interlocutory. Upon petitioners ' ap- peal by writ of certiorari of said resolution , the Supreme Court in a resolution dated October 11 , 1956 in the case of Hatib Abdurasid , et al . vs o Hono Mariano Nable , et al., G. R. No . L- 11338 , sustained this Court in finding the order complained of as interlocutory and dismissed the appeal. Whereupon , t he rec ords of Jolo Seizure Identifi- cation Cases Nos . 38 � 39 , 40, 41 and 42 were remanded by the Commissioner of Customs to the Collector of Customs of Jolo for hearing on the merits . Before the scheduled hearing of the aforementioned seizure cases , petitioners again filed , with the Coll ector of Customs of Jolo , a motion to dismiss , dated August 26, 1957, in the said seizure cases. This motion was premised on the ground that the Criminal Case Noo 989 filed in the Court of First Instance of Jolo against the herein petitioners , which allegedly involve the same incident. was provi- sionally dismissed upon the recommendation of the Assis-

RESOLUTION - C. T. A. CASE NO., 54.2 I -3 tant Provincial Fiscal on the theory that the mer- chandise were seized at sea beyond the 3~mile limit of Philippine territorial waters . However , the said motion was denied by the Jolo Collector of Customs , which action was affirmed by respondent , who ordered the case remanded for hearing on the merits. Hence , this appeal. The only issue involved in this incident is whe- ther or not the order of respondent Commissioner of Customs , denying petitioners ' motion to dismiss the sei zure cases , may be legally appealed to this Court pursuant to Section 7 (2) of Republic Act No. 1125. Respondent contends that the order sought to be reviewed is interlocutory in nature because it leaves a hearing in the seizure proceedings to be undertaken and a decision to be rendered thereon. We find respondent ' s view meritorious . In our resolution dated July 31 , 1956 in case Mo. 263 involv- ing the same party litigants , on a very analogous issue , we stated as follows: "We have held that the decisions of the Commissioner of Customs which are ap - pealable to this Court are judgments or orders which are final in nature , and not interlocutory orders or judgments which do not dispose of the cases completely but leave still something to be done upon the merits as required by law of the Commis - sioner of Customs or the Collector of Cus - toms concerned. (Hatib Abdurasid et al . v. Commissioner of Customs , C.T. A. Case No. 28 , November 29 , 1954. ) The purpose is to avoid multiplicity of suits. It finds lega l sanction in Section 2 , Rule 41 of the Rules of Court. A� aptly stated by the Supreme Court in C. N. Hodges v. Manuel R. Villanueva, G. R. No. L- 4134 , October 25 , 1951: 7

RESOLUTION. - C.T.A. CASE NO . 542 -4- 'La apelacion es prematura. La orden denegando la mocion de sobreseimiento es interlocutoria, no da fin al aa unto; por tanto es inapelable o'" (Hatib Abdurasid~~et al . Vo The Commis - sioner of Customs and The Collector of Customs of Jolo, C. T.A. Case No o 263, Resolution dated July 31 , 1956.) We find no substantial difference between the order appealed from in C. T. Ao Case No . 263 and that involved in this case . The mere fact that petitioners' motion to dismiss was denied does not necessarily re- sult in the forfeiture of the merchandise involved. It would still necessitate hearings by the Jolo Col- lector of Customs to determine the forfeiture thereof as being supported by law and the factso I('I Proceeding to petitioners� argument that, the ,/ jurisdiction of this Court has been enlarged by the provision of Sectio~ 2402 of the Tariff and Customs Code (Republic ct No . 1937) , we find the same not well takeno We believe that Section 2402 of the said Code does not enlarge the jurisdiction of this Court so as �~ to include the review of any ruling or order that is interlocutory in character . Section 2402 itself. provide s that any action or ruling may be ap- pealed to this Court 11 in the manner and within the period prescribed by law and regulationsott This con- templates necessarily Section 2 of Rule 41 of the Rules of Court , which provides that no interlocutory order or incidental judgment is subject to appeal . Hence ,

RESOLUTION - C. T.A. CASE NO. 542 - 5- Section 2402 of the Tariff and Customs Code could not have considered as appealable a mere interlocu- tory order for the said section must be harmonized with the existing law and regulations affecting the 1/I jurisdiction of this Courto Even assuming arquen o that the jurisdiction of this Court had been enlarged, we find no basis in applying said Section 2402. The detention of the merchandise involved in this case took place by vir- tue of the order dated October 15, 1953 of the Jolo Collector of Customs ordering the seizures of five sailboats together with the merchandise found on board therein , in alleged violation of Section 1363 (a) of the evised Administrative Code in relation to Republic Act No. 426 (~C.I.A . Case Noo 28, Re - solution dated November 29 , 1954). As the detention took place prior to the effectivity of the Tariff and Customs Code 1 pursuant to Section 3702 thereof 1 said code does not apply to the instant proceedings .) ' 1SECo 3702. Transitory Provisions .- All suits , proceedings or prosecutions 9 whether civil or criminal, for causes arising or acts done or committed prior to the effectivity of this Code, shall be commenced and/or prosecuted within the same time, in the same manner and with tne same effect as if this Code had not been passed; and all rights acquired , offenses committed , and penalties , for - feitures or liabilities incurred , prior to the said effectivity , shall not be affected therebyo" (Underscoring sup- plied. )

RESOLUTION + C.I. A. CASE NO. 542 .. 6 - In fine, we are of the opinion and so hold that the order appealed from is interlocutory and, hence , unappealable and the petition for review is therefore prematurely filed . WHEREFORE, the petition for review should be , as it is hereby, dismissedo Vith costs against petitioners . SO CWERED. Manila, Philippines, August 30, l958o ~~ Presiding judge WE CONCUR: RO'AAN M. UMALI Associate Judge