cta_decision CTA Case No. EB 2563EB 2563 2023-07-27

L.T.J.S. STORE Represented by its Owner/Proprietor, MR. ANTONIO DE JESUS SILVA, v. HON. DISTRICT COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS, MICP and HON. COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS REY LEONARDO B. GUERRERO

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES COURT OF TAX APPEALS QUEZON CITY ENBANC L.T.J .S. STORE, Represented by CTA EB NO. 2563 its Owner/Proprietor MR. (CTA Case No. 10557) ANTONIO DE JESUS SILVA, Petitioner, Present: -versus- DEL ROSARIO , P.J., RINGPIS-LIBAN , MANAHAN , BACORRO -VILLENA , MODESTO-SAN PEDRO , REYES-FAJARDO , CUI-DAVID, and FERRER-FLORES, JJ. HON. DISTRICT COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS, MICP, S Access Road, North Harbor, Port Area, Tondo, Manila; and HON. COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, REY LEONARDO B. GUERRERO, Promulgated: Ground Floor, OCOM Bldg., 16th Street, South Harbor, Port Area, JUL 27 2023 s*'-:/:3~,..,. . Manila, Respondents. X- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - X DECISION CUI-DAVID, J. : Before the Court En Bane is a Petition for Review1 filed by petitioner L.T.J.S . Store (petitioner) under Section 3 (b) , Rule 82 of the Revised Rules of the Cou rt of Tax Appeals (RRCTA),3 ~ ' SEC. 3. Who moy opf"ah wlad "fil< f"IU/on. - ... (b) A P�"Y �d,.;,ely �IT"'"' by ' decl�loo oc ""'"'''" of � Division of the Court on a motion for reconsideration or new trial may appeal to the Court by filing before it a petition for re1�iell' "ithin fiflccn days from receipt of a cop) of the questioned deci sion or resolution . Upon proper motion and the payment of the full amount of the docket and other lawful fees and deposit for costs before the expiration of the reglementary period herein fixed, the Court may grant an additional peri od not exceeding fifteen days from the expiration of the original period within which to file the petition for review. 3 A.M. No. 05- 11-07-CTA. November 22, 2005.

DECISION CTA EB No. 2563 (CTA Case No. 10557) L.T.J.S. Store, represented by its Owner/Proprietor Mr. Antonio De Jesus Silva vs. Hon. District Collector of Customs, Port of MJCP, North Harbor, Port Area Manila; and Hon. Rey Leonardo Guerrero, Commissioner of Customs, South Harbor, Port Area, Manila Page 3 of24 x------------------------------------------------------------------------------------x On February 10, 2021, the subject shipment of rice from the exporter arrived in the Philippines and the BOC issued an Assessment Notice No. L 59528 assessing petitioner a total assessed amount of P11,123,040.10. On even date, petitioner paid the total assessed amount of P11, 123,040.10 as evidenced by its Statement of Settlement of Duties and Taxes. Petitioner alleges that, on March 4, 2021, it filed its Protest and Appeal for Duty and Tax Refund with the Office of the Commissioner of the BOC demanding and praying for the grant of appropriate duty/ tax relief and easement from bearing the duty/tax burdens arising out of excessive charges of customs duty/tax on its rice shipments either by way of refund, drawback or credit, reduction, adjustment, settlement or compromise, relative to its rice importations. Due to the alleged inaction of respondent, petitioner filed the present Petition pursuant to Rule 8 of the 2005 Revised Rules of the Court of Tax Appeals (RRCTA), as amended. It avers that there is no appeal and it has no other adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law. On July 28, 2021, the Court issued a Resolution7 dismissing outright petitioner's Petition for Duty and Tax Refund for lack ofjurisdiction and for lack of proper verification. Its fallo reads: WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, petitioner's Petition for Duty and Tax Refund is hereby DISMISSED for lack ofjurisdiction and for lack of proper verification pursuant to Section 3, Rule 42 of the Rules of Court in relation to Section 1, Rule 42 of the Rules of Court. SO ORDERED. On October 15, 2021, petitioner filed via registered mail a Formal Entry of Appearance,s Motion for Reconsideration of Resolution of Dismissal,9 Motion for Leave to Admit Amended Petition for Review of Protest and Appeal for Duty and Tax Refu.nd,lO with attached Amended Petition for Review of Protest and Appeal for Duty and Tax Refund. II ~ 7 Division Docket, pp. 30-35. 8 Division Docket, p. 50. 9 Division Docket, pp. 51-58. Received by the Court in Division on November 2, 2021. 10 Division Docket, p. 36. 11 Division Docket, pp. 37-42.

DECISION CTA EB No. 2563 (CTA Case No. 10557) L.T.J.S. Store, represented by its Owner/Proprietor Mr. Antonio De Jesus Silva vs. Han. District Collector of Customs, Port of MICP, North Harbor, Port Area Manila; and Han. Rey Leonardo Guerrero, Commissioner of Customs, South Harbor, Port Area, Manila Page 5 of24 x------------------------------------------------------------------------------------x On March 18, 2022, the Court En Bane issued a Resolution15 ordering petitioner to submit a duplicate original or certified true copy of the assailed Resolution, compliant Affidavit of Service and Verification and Certification of Non- Forum Shopping and directing respondents to comment on the Petition for Review, both within ten (10) days from notice. On March 25, 2022, petitioner filed via registered mail its Compliance [Re: Court Order Promulgated March 18, 2022], 16 which the Court received on April 7, 2022. Upon records verification on April 7, 2022,17 it is reported that respondents failed to file their comment on the Petition for Review. In the Resolution dated May 5, 2022, 18 the Court noted petitioner's Compliance [Re: Court Order Promulgated March 18, 2022] and submitted the case for decision. Meanwhile, on October 7, 2022, petitioner's counsel Atty. Manuel R. Castro filed a Notice of Withdrawal of Counsel, 19 which the Court noted in a Minute Resolution dated October 11, 202220 and petitioner filed a Manifestation2 1 that was noted in the Resolution dated January 4, 2023.22 On November 10, 2022, the Office of the Solicitor General posted via registered mail an Entry of Appearance23 as counsel of record for respondents. The Court noted the same in its Minute Resolution dated November 22, 2022. 24 On January 5, 2023, a Formal Entry of Appearance25 was filed by Atty. Camille S. Palma as counsel for petitioner, which the Court noted in a Minute Resolution dated January 9, 2023.26 ~ 15 EB Docket, pp. 20-23. 16 EB Docket, pp. 25-39. 17 EB Docket. p. 24. 18 EB Docket, pp. 42-43. 19 EB Docket. pp. 45-46. 20 EB Docket. p. 49. 21 EB Docket, pp. 47-48. "EB Docket, pp. 57-58. 23 EB Docket, pp. 50-52. Received by the Court on November 17, 2022. 24 EB Docket, p. 55. 25 EB Docket, pp. 59-60. 26 EB Docket. p. 61.

DECISION CTA EB No. 2563 (CTA Case No. 10557) L.T.J.S. Store, represented by its Owner/Proprietor Mr. Antonio De Jesus Silva vs. Han. District Collector of Customs, Port of MICP, North Harbor, Port Area Manila; and Han. Rey Leonardo Guerrero, Commissioner of Customs, South Harbor, Port Area, Manila Page 6 of24 x------------------------------------------------------------------------------------x ISSUES Petitioner assigns the following errors allegedly committed by the Court in Division: I. THE HONORABLE PRESIDING JUSTICE ROMAN G. DEL ROSARIO, ASSOCIATE JUSTICE CATHERINE T. MANAHAN AND ASSOCIATE JUSTICE MARIAN IVY F. REYES-FAJARDO OF THE FIRST DIVISION OF THE CTA GRAVELY ERRED IN DISMISSING THE PETITIONER'S PETITION FOR DUTY AND TAX REFUND FOR (a) LACK OF JURISDICTION AND (b) LACK OF PROPER VERIFICATION PURSUANT TO SECTION 3, RULE 42 OF THE RULES OF COURT IN RELATION TO SECTION 1, RULE 42 OF THE RULES OF COURT. II. THE HONORABLE PRESIDING JUSTICE ROMAN G. DEL ROSARIO, ASSOCIATE JUSTICE CATHERINE T. MANAHAN AND ASSOCIATE JUSTICE MARIAN IVY F. REYES-FAJARDO OF THE FIRST DIVISION OF THE CTA GRAVELY ERRED IN DENYING PETITIONER'S "MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION OF RESOLUTION OF DISMISSAL FOR LACK OF MERIT. III. THE HONORABLE PRESIDING JUSTICE ROMAN G. DEL ROSARIO, ASSOCIATE JUSTICE CATHERINE T. MANAHAN AND ASSOCIATE JUSTICE MARIAN IVY F. REYES-FAJARDO OF THE FIRST DIVISION OF THE CTA GRAVELY ERRED IN DENYING PETITIONER'S "AMENDED PETITION FOR REVIEW OF PROTEST AND APPEAL FOR DUTY AND TAX REFUND" FOR LACK OF MERIT. Petitioner's arguments On the first assigned error, petitioner argues that the Court has jurisdiction over the inaction of the COC under Section 7(9)(2) [sic] of Republic Act (RA) No. 9282 and Section 1136, Chapter 9 on Judicial Proceedings of Title XI on Administrative and Judicial Procedures of the CMTA. For over a year, petitioner alleges that respondents took no action on the disputed issues of duty and tax valuations or assessments and the demanded refund. As such, petitioner filed its Petition for Duty and Tax Refund27 in conformity with Rule 8 of the RRCTA. { 27 Division Docket, pp. 6-9.

DECISION CTA EB No. 2563 (CTA Case No. 10557) L.T.J.S. Store, represented by its Owner/Proprietor Mr. Antonio De Jesus Silva vs. Han. District Collector of Customs, Port of MICP, North Harbor, Port Area Manila; and Han. Rey Leonardo Guerrero, Commissioner of Customs, South Harbor, Port Area, Manila Page 7 of24 x------------------------------------------------------------------------------------x As regards the second assigned error, the erroneous inscription of the affiant's name as Orlando C. Manuntag in the Verification and Certification of Non-Forum Shopping attached to the Petition for Duty and Tax Refund was due to inadvertence. Petitioner asks the Court to dispense with the strict compliance of the procedural rule in the broader interest of justice. Anent the third assigned error, petitioner insists that the unjustifiable inaction and unfair delay of respondents forced it to raise the matter by filing a Petition for Duty and Tax Refund with the Court in Division on June 25, 2021. Petitioner alleges that the affiant in this case, is a party in interest with sufficient knowledge and belief to swear to the truth of the Petition for Duty and Tax Refund allegations as the owner/proprietor. Petitioner claims that this case is under exceptional circumstances so the prudent manner of judicially treating it is by giving an opportunity for petitioner to remedy its careless misgivings or inadvertent shortcomings so as not to defeat the administration of justice. THE COURT EN BANe'S RULING The instant Petition for Review is not impressed with merit. The Court En Bane has jurisdiction over the instant Petition for Review. On December 3, 2021, the Court in Division denied, among others, petitioner's Motion for Reconsideration of Resolution ofDismissal through a Resolution,2s a copy of which was allegedly received by petitioner on December 18, 2021.29 As provided under Section 3(b), Rule 830 of the RRCTA, petitioner had fifteen (15) days from receipt of the assailed Resolution on December 18, 2021, or until January 3, 2022,31 to file a Petition for Review before the Court En Bane. ~ 2!1 Supra, note 14. 29 Par. 1, Timeliness of the Petition, Petition for Review, EB Docket, p. 2. A copy of the Resolution dated December 3, 2021 was served to petitioner thru courier on December 17, 2021, Division Docket, p. 60 (back). 30 Supra, note 2. 31 The 151h day fell on a Sunday, January 2, 2022; hence, the next working day is January 3, 2022.

DECISION CTA EB No. 2563 (CTA Case No. 10557) Hon. its Owner/Proprietor Mr. Antonio De Jesus Silva vs. Hon. L.T.J.S. Store, represented by Port of MICP, North Harbor, Port Area Manila; and District Collector of Customs, Rey Leonardo Guerrero, Commissioner of Customs, South Harbor, Port Area, Manila Page 8 of24 x------------------------------------------------------------------------------------x On December 28, 2021, petitioner filed this Petition for Review within the reglementary period.32 Having settled that the Petition was timely filed, We likewise rule that the Court En Bane has validly acquired jurisdiction to take cognizance of this case under Section 2(a)(l), Rule 4 of the RRCTA. We now discuss the merits. The Court in Division did not err in dismissing petitioner's Petition for Duty and Tax Refund and denying its Motion for Reconsideration. Anent the first and second assigned errors, petitioner claims that the members of this Court's First Division gravely erred in dismissing its Petition for Duty and Tax Refund for lack ofjurisdiction and for lack ofproper verification and in denying its Motion for Reconsideration of Resolution of Dismissal for lack of merit. Petitioner insists that the Court has jurisdiction over the instant case, that it has exclusive appellate jurisdiction to review the inaction of the COC, that respondents took no action on the disputed issues of duty and tax valuations or assessments and the demanded refund, and that the COC's inaction is already a decision by itself. As such, it filed the Petition for Duty and Tax Refund33 in conformity with Rule 8 of the RRCTA. Petitioner's contentions are the same arguments raised in its Motion for Reconsideration of Resolution of Dismissal, which have been amply considered, weighed, and resolved by the Court in Division in the assailed Resolution. Thus, We reiterate in brief the Court in Division's pronouncement on the matter, viz.: \1 32 Supra, note I. 33 Division Docket, pp. 6-9.

DECISION CTA EB No. 2563 (CTA Case No. 10557) L.T.J.S. Store, represented by its Owner/Proprietor Mr. Antonio De Jesus Silva vs. Hon. District Collector of Customs, Port of MICP, North Harbor, Port Area Manila; and Hon. Rey Leonardo Guerrero, Commissioner of Customs, South Harbor, Port Area, Manila Page 9 of24 x------------------------------------------------------------------------------------x To begin with, even if the Court relaxes the rule on submission of a proper Verification and excuses petitioner's failure to comply with Section 4, Rule 7 of the Rules of Court, as amended, petitioner's Petition for Duty and Tax Refund filed on June 25, 2021 must still be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. Thus, Section 9 of RA No. 9282 (or Section 11 of RA No 1125, as amended) invoked by petitioner to insist that the Court has jurisdiction over the COC's inaction, must be read together with Section 7 (or Section 7 of RA No. 1125, as amended) thereof. Section 7 of RA No. 9282, reads: "Section 7. Section 7 of the same Act is hereby amended to read as follows: 'Sec. 7. Jurisdiction.- The CTA shall exercise: a. Exclusive appellate jurisdiction to review by appeal, as herein provided: 2. Inaction by the Commissioner of Internal Revenue in cases involving disputed assessments, refunds of internal revenue taxes, fees or other charges, penalties in relations thereto, ... where the National Internal Revenue Code provides a specific period of action, in which case the inaction shall be deemed a denial; 4. Decisions of the Commissioner of Customs in cases involving liability for customs duties, fees or other money charges, seizure, detention or release of property affected, fines, forfeitures or other penalties in relation thereto, or other matters arising under the Customs Law or other laws administered by the Bureau of Customs; xxx'" (Boldfacing supplied) Applying the aforementioned rule in statutory construction, the inaction referred to in Section 9 of RA No. 9282 must be taken to refer exclusively to the inaction of the Commissioner of Internal Revenue (CIR) on protest in cases of disputed assessment, among others, as provided for in Section 228 of the National Internal Revenue Code of 1997, as amended. No similar provision appears in the CMTA, y specifically allowing appeals from any inaction of the COC.

DECISION CTA EB No. 2563 [CTA Case No. 10557) L.T.J.S. Store, represented by its Owner/Proprietor Mr. Antonio De Jesus Silva vs. Hon. District Collector of Customs, Port of MICP, North Harbor, Port Area Manila; and Hon. Rey Leonardo Guerrero, Commissioner of Customs, South Harbor, Port Area, Manila Page 10 of24 x------------------------------------------------------------------------------------x Interestingly, Section 1136 of CMTA is clear and categorical in stating that it is the ruling and decision of the COC which may be appealed to the CTA, viz.: "SEC. 1136. Review by the CTA.- Unless otherwise provided in this Act or by any other law, the party aggrieved by the ruling or decisions of the Commissioner may appeal to the CTA, in the manner and within the period prescribed by law and regulations. Decisions of the Secretary of Finance when required by this Act, may likewise be appealed to the CTA. Unless an appeal is made to the CTA in the manner and within the period prescribed by law and regulations, the ruling or decision of the Commissioner or the Secretary of Finance shall be final and executory." (Boldfacing supplied) The Court thus reiterates its disquisition in the assailed Resolution: "After careful evaluation of the allegations in the present Petition for Duty and Tax Refund, this Court finds that it lacks jurisdiction over the subject matter thereof. The Court of Tax Appeals (CTA) is a court of special jurisdiction and can only take cognizance of such matters as are clearly within its jurisdiction. The jurisdiction of the CTA regarding liability for customs duties, fees and other money charges is provided under Section 7(a)(4) of Republic Act (RA) No. 1125, as amended by RA Nos. 9282 and 9503, which provides: It is clear from the afore-cited provisions that the CTA in Division shall exercise exclusive original jurisdiction to review by appeal decisions of the COC in cases involving liability for custom duties, fees or other money charges, seizure, detention, or release of property affected, fines, forfeitures or other penalties in relation thereto, or other matters arising under the Customs Law or other laws administered by the Bureau of Customs. In the present case, however, an examination of the allegations in the Petition for Duty and Tax Refund shows that the COC has yet to render a decision on petitioner's Protest and Appeal for Duty and Tax Refund filed on March 4, 2021. The filing of the Petition for Duty and Tax Refund is premised on the alleged inaction of the COC. ~

DECISION CTA EB No. 2563 (CTA Case No. 10557) L.T.J.S. Store, represented by its Owner/Proprietor Mr. Antonio De Jesus Silva vs. Hon. District Collector of Customs, Port of MICP, North Harbor, Port Area Manila; and Hon. Rey Leonardo Guerrero, Commissioner of Customs, South Harbor, Port Area, Manila Page 11 of24 x------------------------------------------------------------------------------------x Inaction by the COC on cases involving liability for custom duties, fees or other money charges is not one of the subject matters upon which the CTA exercises jurisdiction. Thus, the Court lacks jurisdiction over the subject matter of the Petition. (Additional boldfacing supplied) Similarly, Section 3 of Rule 4 of the RRCTA states: SEC. 3. Cases within the jurisdiction of the Courl in Division. -The Court in Division shall exercise: (a) Exclusive original over or appellate jurisdiction to review by appeal the following: (4) Decisions of the Commissioner of Customs in cases involving liability for customs duties, fees or other money charges, seizure, detention or release of property affected, fines, or forfeitures or other penalties in relation thereto, or other matters arising under the Customs Law or other laws administered by the Bureau of Customs; ... (Emphasis supplied) The CTA may only take cognizance of cases falling within its jurisdiction as enumerated under Section 7 of R.A. 9282, and the alleged inaction of the COC is not one of them. Moreover, under Sections 3(a) and 4(a), Rule 8 of the RRCTA, an appeal from the decision or ruling of the COC shall be taken to the Court by filing before it a petition for review as provided in Rule 42 of the Rules of Court, to wit: SEC. 3. Who may appeal; period to file petition.- (a) A party adversely affected by a decision, ruling or the inaction of the Commissioner of Internal Revenue on disputed assessments or claims for refund of internal revenue taxes, or by a decision or ruling of the Commissioner of Customs, the Secretary of Finance, the Secretary of Trade and Industry, the Secretary of Agriculture, or a Regional Trial Court in the exercise of its original jurisdiction may appeal to the Court by petition for review filed within thirty days after receipt of a copy of such decision or ruling, or expiration of the period fixed by law for the Commissioner of Internal Revenue to act on the disputed assessments.... ~

DECISION CTA EB No. 2563 (CTA Case No. 10557) L.T.J.S. Store, represented by its Owner/Proprietor Mr. Antonio De Jesus Silva vs. Hon. District Collector of Customs, Port of MICP, North Harbor, Port Area Manila; and Hon. Rey Leonardo Guerrero, Commissioner of Customs, South Harbor, Port Area, Manila Page 12 of24 X------------------------------------------------------------------------------------X SEC. 4. Where to appeal; mode of appeal.- (a) An appeal from a decision or ruling or the inaction of the Commissioner of Internal Revenue on disputed assessments or claim for refund of internal revenue taxes erroneously or illegally collected, the decision or ruling of the Commissioner of Customs, the Secretary of Finance, the Secretary of Trade & Industry, the Secretary of Agriculture, and the Regional Trial Court in the exercise of their original jurisdiction, shall be taken to the Court by filing before it a petition for review as provided in Rule 42 of the Rules of Court. The Court in Division shall act on the appeal. (Emphasis supplied) Indeed, it is the decision or ruling, not the inaction of the COC, that is appealable to the CTA. Thus, petitioner's claim that respondent's unjustifiable inaction and unfair delay forced it to file a Petition for Duty and Tax Refund with the Court in Division on June 25, 2021, is without merit. While exhaustion of administrative remedies is not necessary where there is unreasonable delay or official inaction that will irretrievably prejudice petitioner,34 We find the said exception not applicable as petitioner failed to allege and substantiate the material facts surrounding the supposed "unjustifiable inaction and unfair delay" of respondents in acting on its protest and appeal. Moreover, the Petition failed to show whether the pertinent procedures for dispute settlement under the CMTA, as discussed below, have been violated by respondents. Accordingly, We uphold the Court in Division's dismissal of petitioner's Petition for Duty and Tax Refund for lack of jurisdiction and the denial of petitioner's Motion for Reconsideration. Nonetheless, even if the Court in Division had jurisdiction over respondents' inaction, the case would still not prosper because of petitioner's failure to comply with the requirements under Section 2, Rule 6 of the RRCTA, in relation to Section 2 Rule 42 of the Revised Rules of Court. i 34 Ejera v. Merta. eta/., G.R. No. 163109. January 22, 2014; Rocamora v. RTC-Cebu, G.R. No. 65037, November 23. 1988, citing Gravador v. Mamigo, et al., G.R. No. L-24989. July 21, 1967.

DECISION CTA EB No. 2563 (CTA Case No. 10557) L.T.J.S. Store, represented by its Owner/Proprietor Mr. Antonio De Jesus Silva vs. Hon. District Collector of Customs, Port of MICP, North Harbor, Port Area Manila; and Hon. Rey Leonardo Guerrero, Commissioner of Customs, South Harbor, Port Area, Manila Page 13 of24 x------------------------------------------------------------------------------------x Section 2, Rule 6 of the RRCTA, mandates that the petition for review shall state, among others, the Court's jurisdiction, a statement of facts, issues, and reasons relied upon, to wit: SEC. 2. Petition for review; contents.- The petition for review shall contain allegations showing the jurisdiction of the Court, a concise statement of the complete facts and a summary statement of the issues involved in the case, as well as the reasons relied upon for the review of the challenged decision. The petition shall be verified and must contain a certification against forum shopping as provided in Section 3, Rule 46 of the Rules of Court. A clearly legible duplicate original or certified true copy of the decision appealed from shall be attached to the petition. (Emphasis supplied) Relative thereto, Section 4, Rule 8 of the RRCTA provides that an appeal from the decision or ruling of the COC shall be governed by Rule 42 of the Rules of Court, viz.: SEC. 4. Where to appeal; mode of appeal.- (a) An appeal from a decision or ruling or the inaction of the Commissioner of Internal Revenue on disputed assessments or claim for refund of internal revenue taxes erroneously or illegally collected, the decision or ruling of the Commissioner of Customs, the Secretary of Finance, the Secretary of Trade & Industry, the Secretary of Agriculture, and the Regional Trial Court in the exercise of their original jurisdiction, shall be taken to the Court by filing before it a petition for review as provided in Rule 42 of the Rules of Court. The Court in Division shall act on the appeal. (Emphasis supplied) In turn, Sections 2 and 3, Rule 42 of the Revised Rules of Court, provide for the form and contents of the petition and its dismissal for failure to comply with the requirements, to wit: SEC. 2. Form and contents. - The petition shall be filed in seven (7) legible copies, with the original copy intended for the court being indicated as such by the petitioner, and shall (a) state the full names of the parties to the case, without impleading the lower courts or judges thereof either as petitioners or respondents; (b) indicate the specific material dates showing that it was filed on time; (c) set forth concisely a statement of the matters involved, the issues raised, the specification of errors of fact or law, or both, allegedly committed by the Regional Trial Court, and the reasons or arguments relied upon for the allowance of the appeal; (d) be accompanied by cleuly legible duplicate~

DECISION CTA EB No. 2563 (CTA Case No. 10557) L.T.J.S. Store, represented by its Owner/Proprietor Mr. Antonio De Jesus Silva vs. Hon. District Collector of Customs, Port of MICP, North Harbor, Port Area Manila; and Hon. Rey Leonardo Guerrero, Commissioner of Customs, South Harbor, Port Area, Manila Page 14 of24 x------------------------------------------------------------------------------------x originals or true copies of the judgments or final orders of both lower courts, certified correct by the clerk of court of the Regional Trial Court, the requisite number of plain copies thereof and of the pleadings and other material portions of the record as would support the allegations of the petition. SEC. 3. Effect offailure to comply with requirements. - The failure of the petitioner to comply with any of the foregoing requirements regarding the payment of the docket and other lawful fees, the deposit for costs, proof of service of the petition, and the contents of and the documents which should accompany the petition shall be sufficient ground for the dismissal thereof. (Emphasis supplied) Based on the foregoing, a petition for review filed before the Court in Division shall contain allegations showing its jurisdiction, a concise statement of the complete facts, a summary statement of the issues involved in the case, the reasons or arguments relied upon for the review of the challenged decision, and the specific material dates showing that the petition was filed on time. 35 Failure to comply with any of the requirements regarding the contents of and the documents that should accompany the petition shall be sufficient ground for its dismissal.36 For better appreciation, We quote below the contents ofthe Petition for Duty and Tax Refund, consisting of 3 pages, filed by petitioner before the Court in Division: "PETITION FOR DUTY AND TAX REFUND PETITIONER, L.T.J.S. STORE, herein represented by its Owner and Proprietor, MR. ANTONIO DE JESUS SILVA, and to this Honorable COURT OF TAX APPEALS, most respectfully states: 1. That Petitioner, is a Proprietorship Store duly registered under the laws of the Republic... 2. That, on March 4, 2021, Petitioner has tried to exhaust possible administrative remedy by submitting his Protest and Appeal for Duty and Tax Refund to the Office of the Hon. Commissioner REY LEONARDO GUERERRO of the 35 Section 2, Rule 6 of the RRCTA; Section 2, Rule 42 of the Revised Rules of Court. " 36 Section 3, Rule 42 of the Revised Rules of Court.

DECISION CTA EB No. 2563 (CTA Case No. 10557) L.T.J.S. Store, represented by its Owner/Proprietor Mr. Antonio De Jesus Silva vs. Hon. District Collector of Customs, Port of MICP, North Harbor, Port Area Manila; and Hon. Rey Leonardo Guerrero, Commissioner of Customs, South Harbor, Port Area, Manila Page 15 of24 x------------------------------------------------------------------------------------x Bureau of Customs at his Office at South Harbor, Port Area, Manila, earnestly demanding and praying to grant unto the herein Petitioner1Appellant the appropriate duty /tax relief and easement from bearing the duty/tax burdens arising out of the excessive charges of customs duty/ tax on its rice shipments either by way of refund, drawback or credit, reduction, adjustment, abatement, settlement, or compromise, relative to its rice importations.... 3. That on separate dates, Petitioner had requested and presented to the Respondents its notices of payments under protests against the valuation and collection made by the Respondent MICP Collection District Officer of the related shipments pointing out the customs duty and tax upon its rice shipments effected and imposed by the MICP Collection District Officer, that do not conform with the applicable Transaction Value System- Method One as mandated by law under Sec. 701, Chapter 1 Title VII of RA No. 10863 - the Customs Modernization and Tariff Act, mandating that the basis of valuation relative thereto shall be the price actually paid or payable for the goods, and not unduly upon the basis of Reference Value when the goods are sold out for export to the Philippines and adjusted accordingly with the conditions as set forth under the aforecited Section 701, which are evidently excessively, unfairly, unjustly, and inequitably charged. Hereunder is a recapitulation of the related valuation particulars: Item Arrival Date of Bill of Entry Particulars Details of Customs Duty* Customs Duty** Over-charged # Date of the Lading Number of Vessel goods inappropriately For Consignee Amount of Duty Shipment Boarded shipped imposed based on based on 1. Protest Number C- from Transaction Collected and from Received 38044 YM Reference Value per Disputed by Exporter #1490 CERTAIN supplier Valuefmt. Consignee/ by the 4060 TY 0028 To GATI/Per Sec. Feb. 10, Bureau 75 Reg.#YM P11,123,040.10 701 Chap. 1 RA Petitioner 2021 TOOOS-21 importing of Consignee 10863 Pl,924,522.60 Customs 26,000 P9,198,517.50 Mar. 4, bags 2021 @25kgsf bag Vietnam White Rice 4. That, despite of the fact of a palpable lapse of the intervening period, the herein Petitioner remain to be adversely affected by the shackles of the inaction of the Respondents on the disputed or questioned issues of duty/tax valuations or assessments, and on the demanded or claimed refund of the excessive charges of customs duty/tax upon the rice shipments of the Petitioner, not taking any action for just the request of the Petitioner, even just by way of a drawback or credit, adjustment, reduction, or abatement, neither even just by settlement or compromise; hence, substantially by such cause of the inaction of the Respondents, the Petitioner deems it fitting for now to file before this Honorable Court this '

DECISION CTA EB No. 2563 (CTA Case No. 10557) L.T.J.S. Store, represented by its Owner/Proprietor Mr. Antonio De Jesus Silva vs. Han. District Collector of Customs, Port of MlCP, North Harbor, Port Area Manila; and Han. Rey Leonardo Guerrero, Commissioner of Customs, South Harbor, Port Area, Manila Page 16 of24 X------------------------------------------------------------------------------------X Petition in pursuance to Rule 8 of the 2005 Revised Rules of the Court of Tax Appeals, as amended; 5. That there is no appeal, nor has the Petitioner any other practical, expedient, plain, speedy, and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law. WHEREFORE, Petitioner prays that after due cause and consideration, the Honorable Office of the District Collector of Customs, and the Honorable office of the Commissioner of the Bureau of Customs headed by the Hon. REY LEONARDO GUERERRO, be enjoined to effect the speedy refund of the over-charged Duty/Tax that its respective offices have caused to be unduly collected from the Petitioner in the grand total amount of ONE MILLION NINE HUNDRED TWENTY FOUR THOUSAND FIVE HUNDRED TWENTY TWO & 60/ lOOths PESOS (Php1,924,522.60), Philippine Currency as herein above-recapitulated and shown in paragraph 3." A cursory reading of the above Petition for Duty and Tax Refund reveals that it has no allegation of the Court's jurisdiction, no statement of material dates showing that it was filed on time, no statement of the issue/s that puts forth the questions of fact or law to be considered by the Court, no argument or reason for the allowance of the appeal was adduced, no jurisprudence cited, and no certified true copies of the assailed judgments or final order. It also failed to attach a copy of its purported March 4, 2021 Protest and Appeal for Duty and Tax Refund filed with respondent COC.37 Clearly, petitioner failed to comply with the requirements on form and contents under Section 2, Rule 6 of the RRCTA, in relation to Section 2, Rule 42 of the Revised Rules of Court, and such failure is sufficient ground for the dismissal of its Petition before the Court in Division. It is settled that the right to appeal is neither a natural right nor a part of due process; it is merely a statutory privilege and may be exercised only in the manner and in accordance with the provisions oflaw.38 Thus, the legal requirements must be strictly complied with, and deviation from the Rules cannot ~ be tolerated.39 37 Annexes "l"'to "13'', Petition for Duty and Tax Refund, Docket, pp. 10-27. 38 Boardwalk Business Ventures, Inc. v. Villareal, G.R. No. 181182, April 10, 2013; Fenequito, eta/. v. Vergara, Jr., G.R. No. 172829, July 18, 2012; Producers Bank of the Philippines v. Honorable Court of Appeals, eta/., G.R. No. 126620. April 17, 2002. 39 Baniqued v. Ramos, G.R. No. 158615. March 4. 2005.

DECISION CTA EB No. 2563 (CTA Case No. 10557) L.T.J.S. Store, represented by its Owner/Proprietor Mr. Antonio De Jesus Silva vs. Han. District Collector of Customs, Port of MJCP, North Harbor, Port Area Manila; and Han. Rey Leonardo Guerrero, Commissioner of Customs, South Harbor, Port Area, Manila Page 18 of24 x------------------------------------------------------------------------------------x SEC. 1107. Protest Exclusive Remedy in Protestable Case. -In all cases subject to protest, the interested party who desires to have the action of the District Collector reviewed, shall file a protest as provided in Section 1106 of this Act, otherwise the action of the District Collector shall be final and conclusive. SEC. 1108. Form and Scope ofProtest.- A protest shall be filed in accordance with the prescribed rules and regulations promulgated under this section. It shall specify the particular decision or ruling of the District Collector for which protest is being made, and shall indicate the particular ground or grounds upon which the protesting party bases the claim for relief. The scope of a protest shall be limited to the particular goods subject of a goods declaration, but any number of issues may be raised in a protest with reference to the goods declaration constituting the subject matter of the protest. SEC. 1110. Decision in Protest.- When a protest is filed in proper form, the Commissioner shall render a decision within thirty (30) days from receipt of the protest. In case the protest is sustained, in whole or in part, the appropriate order shall be made, and the entry reassessed, if necessary. (Emphasis supplied) Implementing Section 114, Chapter II, Title I of the CMTA is Customs Administrative Order (CAO) No. 02-2020. 40 Its pertinent provisions relative to dispute settlement and protest arising from valuation are as follows: SEC. 6. Dispute Settlement Arising from Customs Valuation. 6.1. Upon lodgment of goods declaration and before Assessment becomes final, the Customs Officer may challenge the declaration made by the importer as to the dutiable value of the goods pursuant to Section 707 of the CMTA. If the importer does not agree with the valuation, he may elevate the matter to the principal appraiser and thereafter to the Chief, Formal Entry Division or equivalent unit, then to the Deputy Collector for Assessment, and finally to the District Collector. 40 Dispute Settlement and Protest, April 4, 2020. "

DECISION CTA EB No. 2563 (CTA Case No. 10557) L.T.J.S. Store, represented by its Owner/Proprietor Mr. Antonio De Jesus Silva vs. Hon. District Collector of Customs, Port of MICP, North Harbor, Port Area Manila; and Hon. Rey Leonardo Guerrero, Commissioner of Customs, South Harbor, Port Area, Manila Page 19 of24 x------------------------------------------------------------------------------------x 6.5. The aggrieved importer adversely affected may appeal by way of protest against such ruling in accordance with this CAO. 6.6. In case the ruling of the Commissioner is adverse to the importer, he may seek reconsideration or appeal the ruling in accordance with this CAO. SEC. 10. Protest. 10.1. The aggrieved importer or exporter or any stakeholder directly affected by the adverse ruling of the District Collector in all Protestable Cases arising from tariff classification, valuation, rules of origin or other customs issues, may appeal by way of protest in writing to the Commissioner within fifteen (15) days from receipt of the adverse ruling of the District Collector or, when payment is made as a result of the adverse ruling, within fifteen (15) days from such payment.41 Otherwise, the action of the District Collector shall be final and conclusive.42 10.2. A protest filed shall specify the particular ruling of the District Collector for which protest is being made, and shall indicate the particular ground or grounds upon which the protesting party bases the claim for relief. The scope of a protest shall be limited to the particular goods subject of a goods declaration, but any number of issues may be raised in a protest with reference to the goods declaration constituting the subject matter of the protest. 10.3. When a protest is filed in proper form, the Commissioner shall render a ruling within thirty (30) days from receipt of the protest. Otherwise, the ruling of the Collector shall be deemed affirmed if the Commissioner fails to act on the same. SEC. 11. Motion for Reconsideration. The importer aggrieved by the ruling of the Commissioner, other than a ruling on tariff classification, may, within fifteen (15) calendar days, from receipt of the ruling, file a Motion for Reconsideration with the Commissioner.43 SEC. 12. Finality of the Decision. Unless an appeal is made to the CTA in the manner and within the period herein prescribed, the ruling of the Commissioner shall be final and executory.44 \.~J ~' 42 CMTA, Title XI, Chapter 2, Section 106 1107. 43 CMTA, Title XI, Chapter 9, Section 1136. 44 /d.

DECISION CTA EB No. 2563 (CTA Case No. 10557) L.T.J.S. Store, represented by its Owner/Proprietor Mr. Antonio De Jesus Silva vs. Han. District Collector of Customs, Port of MICP, North Harbor, Port Area Manila; and Han. Rey Leonardo Guerrero, Commissioner of Customs, South Harbor, Port Area, Manila Page 20 of24 x------------------------------------------------------------------------------------x Section 13. Appeal. An importer aggrieved by the decision of the Commissioner may appeal said decision to the CTA within thirty (30) days from receipt of the adverse decision or final order of the Commissioner.45 (Emphasis supplied) From the foregoing, if the importer, like petitioner, disagrees with the valuation of the customs officer, it may elevate the matter to the principal appraiser, and thereafter to the Chief, Formal Entry Division, then to the Deputy Collector for assessment, and finally to the District Collector. The aggrieved importer adversely affected may appeal by way of written protest to respondent COC within fifteen (15) days from receipt of the adverse ruling of the District Collector or when payment is made as a result of the adverse ruling within fifteen (15) days from such payment.46 Otherwise, the action of the District Collector shall be final and conclusive. 47 When a protest is flied in proper form, respondent COC shall render a ruling within thirty (30) days from receipt of the protest. Otherwise, the ruling of the District Collector shall be deemed affirmed if respondent COC fails to act on the same.48 If the ruling of respondent COC is adverse to the importer, it may flie a motion for reconsideration with respondent COC within fifteen (15) calendar days from receipt of the ruling or appeal the ruling to the CTA within thirty (30) days from receipt of the adverse decision or final order of the respondent COC. In this case, petitioner claims that on March 4, 2021, it tried to exhaust possible administrative remedy by submitting its Protest and Appeal for Duty and Tax Refund (Protest) to the office of respondent COC at South Harbor, Port Area, Manila. It did not mention in the Petition that 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. 49 Nothing in the petition intimates that a protest was made to the District Collector. In sum, We have no way to determine if the March 4, 2021 Protest was timely flied. so 45 !d., in relation to Rule 41, Section 3 of\\~ Rules of Court and Neypes v. Court ofAppeals, G.R. No. I41524, September 14. 2005. 46 Section 10.1. CAO No. 02-2020. 47 !d. 48 Section 10.3, CAO No. 02-2020. 49 Section 10.1, CAO No. 02-2020. 50 !d.

DECISION CTA EB No. 2563 (CTA Case No. 10557) L.T.J.S. Store, represented by its Owner/Proprietor Mr. Antonio De Jesus Silva vs. Hon. District Collector of Customs, Port of MJCP, North Harbor, Port Area Manila; and Hon. Rey Leonardo Guerrero, Commissioner of Customs, South Harbor, Port Area, Manila Page 21 of24 x------------------------------------------------------------------------------------x 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 and Appeal for Duty and Tax Refund on March 4, 2021, or until April 3, 2021, the Court in Division would still have no jurisdiction over the 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. However, Supreme Court (SC) Administrative Circular (AC) No. 29-2021 51 dated April 30, 2021, physically closed all courts from May 3 to 14, 2021, suspended the filing and service of pleadings, and resumed the latter after seven (7) calendar days from the physical reopening of all courts on May 17, 2021 under SC AC No. 33-202152 dated May 14, 2021. Thus, petitioner had seven days from May 17, 2021, or until May 24, 2021, to file its Petition for Review. Hence, 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. The Court in Division did not err in denying petitioner's Amended Petition for Review of Protest and Appeal for Duty and Tax Refund. Anent the third assigned error, petitioner claims that the members of this Court's First Division gravely erred in denying its "Amended Petition for Review of Protest and Appeal for Duty and Tax Refund" (Amended Petition) for lack of merit. Petitioner claims that this case is under exceptional circumstances so the prudent manner of judicially treating it is by giving an opportunity for petitioner to remedy its careless misgivings or inadvertent shortcomings so as not to defeat the administration ofjustice. \.J COURTS o~t 14 MAY 2021. 52 RE: COURT OPERATIONS STARTING I 7 MAY 2021.

DECISION CTA EB No. 2563 (CTA Case No. 10557) L.T.J.S. Store, represented by its Owner/Proprietor Mr. Antonio De Jesus Silva vs. Han. District Collector of Customs, Port of MlCP, North Harbor, Port Area Manila; and Han. Rey Leonardo Guerrero, Commissioner of Customs, South Harbor, Port Area, Manila Page 22 of24 x------------------------------------------------------------------------------------x A perusal of the Amended Petition shows that it still suffers from the same infirmities discussed earlier despite the amendment. It cannot be over-emphasized that one who seeks to avail of the right to appeal must play by the rules. 53 The rules governing pleadings and practice before appellate courts must be complied with as they were designed to assist the appellate court in accomplishing its tasks and, overall, to enhance the orderly administration of justice. 54 Petitioner cannot come before this Court to seek refuge based on an unfounded claim that this case is "under such exceptional circumstance"55 while at the same time flouting the basic ground rules in filing an appeal. Hence, even if the Court in Division admits the Amended Petition, it would also be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction, insufficiency in form and substance, and being time-barred. While We commiserate with petitioner and are touched by its plea, We cannot grant the relief it seeks as the foregoing circumstances leave the Court without a choice but to warrant the dismissal of its case. WHEREFORE, the Petition for Review is DENIED for lack of merit. The Resolution dated December 3, 2021 of the Court's First Division in CTA Case No. 10557, is AFFIRMED. SO ORDERED. ~k~ LANEE S. CUI-DAVID Associate Justice WE CONCUR: Presiding Justice q Mejillano v. Lucillo, G.R. No. 154717, June 19, 2009, citing Enriquez v. Court ofAppeals, G.R. No. 140473, January 28, 2003. 54 Neplum, Inc. v. Orbeso, G.R. No. 141986, July II, 2002; De Liana v. Han. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 142316, November 22, 200 I. 55 Par. 1, Petition for Review, EB Docket, p. 15.

Want an analysis of this document?

Ask ASG Legal AI to summarize it, compare it with other rulings, or explain how it applies to your situation — it researches from this same library.