CTA Case No. 3466 (Decision)

. ~� I � �.~<, Pll Ul ' �, Of ~llliL i' Ul LlPPf"!o()~::, .. OUP.T OF TAX APP U o r� c 'f.rt.c� Ot~ }V ICTORIAS MILLING CO . , INC., Petitioner , - versus - C.T.A. CASE NO. 3466 THE PHILIPPINE PORTS AUTHORITY, Res pondent. X- - DE C I S I 0 N The incidental issue in the case at bar is whethe r or not this Court has jurisdiction to entertain an appeal from the decision or ruling of the Philippine Ports Authority requiring petitione~ Victoria s Milling Co . , Inc. to undergo harbor formalit ies , pay clearance and berthing fees a n d remi t the go ver nment's 10% share on its gross income derived from cargo-handling s e rvice s and operation at its private wharf. Petitioner' s petition for review, filed by regi s- tered mail on April 2 , 1982, pre sents t h e pertinent facts f o r purposes of this incident spawned by respon- dent's mo t ion to dismiss predicated on jurisdictional grounds . Thus: 1. That petitioner is a privat.e c o rpo ration d uly o rganized and doing business i n accordance with Philipp ine laws, with mai n o ffice and business 28()

DECISION - CTA CASE NO. 3466 - 2- addre s s at Victorias, Negros Occidental, while respondent is a body corporate created and existing in accordance with Presidential Decree No. 857, with prin- cipal office at 5th Floor, B.F. Con- . dominium, Aduana, In tramuros , Manila, where summons and other pr ocess may be served upon it. 2 . ~ That by virtu e of section 39 of P.D. No . 857, th e powers, duties and jurisdictions of the Bureau of Customs over the matters involved in this petition have been.transferred to and vested in the respondent. 3. That in separate l etters both dated April 28, 1981 (xerox copies hereto attached as Annexes "A" and "B"), the respondent's Iloilo Port Manager � required petitioner to have its tugboats and barges undergo harbor formalities and pay entrance/clearance fees, as well as berthing fee, effective May l, 1981; and with regard to the operation of petitioner's private port faci lities in Daan Banua , Victorias, Negros Occidental, to secur e a permit for its cargo-handling operations and remit 10% of its gross receipts therefrom as the government's share therein. 4. That in reply t o the above- stated demands, petitioner sent to the Iloilo Port Manager separate l etters both dated J .ne 2, 1981 (xerox copies hereto attached as Annexes "C" a nd "0 11 ) respectfully declining to comply with said demands on the grounds that its private wharf and all facilities thereat were constructed and installed on land covered by Torrens titles, all at peti- . tioner's �e cpense, that r e pair and main- . tenance thereof are solely paid by peti- tioner; that even the dredging, a nd main- . tenance of the Mal ijao Riv er channel.from Guimaras Strai t up t:o the said wharf are being done by petitioner's equipment and personnel1 and that'the government at no time has spent a single centavo for 28 8

DECISION - CTA CASE NO . 3466 - 3- such activi ties . Said dredging oper a tions involve a distance of 2.5 kilometers f rom the ea stern end of peLitibne r's wharf to the end of the river channel, as shown in the s ke t ch prepar ed by its qualified person ne l, Ann ex "E" her eof . 5 � . That in reply to peti- tioner' s ' l e tters mentioned in par ag r aph 3 above, t he Iloilo Port Manager sent a lettex dated Nove mber 3, 1981, enclosing a memorandum of the i espond e n t ' s Assis tant Executive Officer dated September 23, 1981 (x e rox copies he r eto attached as. Annexes "F" and " G" ), both o f which in essence requfre petitioner (a ) to have its tugboats and barges undergo harbor fo~malities a nd pay ent~anc e / clearance fees as well as be rthing fees, and (b) to rem it 10 % of its gross income �rom cargo handling services i n its aforesaid pr ivate wharf at Daa n Ba nLa , Victorias , Negros Occide nta l. 6. That petitioner thru counsel appealed to the General Manager of respondent, thru a letter date d Nove mb er 23, 1981 , against the ruling of the Ilo ilo Port Manage r and its attached Memorandum referr e d to in para- graph 4 above . In sa id l ette r (xerox copy here to attached as Annex "H") , pe t .i tioner, for the reasons th~rein stated, prayed that a ruling be is sued by re spondent holding that pe t itioner is - (a } Not liable fo1 berthing fees for �its tugboa ts and barg1es which enter the Malijao River and moor at its private wharf at Daan Banua , Victorias, Ne gros Occidental , until such time a s the Philippine 280

DECISION - CTA CASE NO. 346 6 - 4- Ports Authority shall take over the dredging and ma ' ntenance of the rive r channel from said wharf up to the Guimaras Strait~ a nd (b ) Not liable to pay the 10% g o veinment share in its gross income from its cargo handling activi ties the ?eat, until such time as the said Authority actual l y sets up i ts own e quipme nts and facilities thereat for such operations . 7. That in a ruling dated January 14 , 1982, (xerox copy attac hed hereto as Annex "l "), received by petitioner on March 16 , 1982; r e spondent refused to give due course to petitioner's reque st for r econsideration d a ted Nov e mber 23, 1981 , in e ff e ct denying the s ame. XXX XXX XXX Afte r the filing of petitione r ' s appeal and service of summon s thereof to respondent Philippine Ports Aut hority , the la~te r s ought the dismissa l of said appeal, al l eging that its deci ion or ruling is not one of those expressly enume r ated and defin e d in Section 7 of Republi c Act No . 1125 over which this Court is veste d with jurisdict i on to r e view on appeal , and thus , under the principle o f. "expressio unius est exclusio alterious" (matters whic h are not expressly sta t ed are deemed excluded )~ said deci- sion cannot be validly tak e n cognizance of by this Cou rt . Moreover , respondent avers that petitione~ has no c a use of action because it failed to exhaust the a dmi n istrat i ve r emedies provided f o r i n cases involving protests against the decision or ruling of the general manager o f t he Philipp i ne Ports Author i ty under Administrative Orde r 291

DECISION - CTA CASE NO. 3466 - 5- No . 13-77 of the said agency . (See Amended Motion to Dismiss, pp. 58 to 66, CTA records.) On the other hand , petitioner stoutly insists in its opposition that this Court has jurisdiction to entertain its appeal because: 1. -When R. A. 1125 was enacted, the Philippine Ports Authority was not yet in existe nce , having been created only on July 11 , 197 4 under. Presidential Decree No. 505. 2 . -Under Sec. 39 of P.D. 85 7 , the powers and functions of the Bureau of Customs over the subject matter of this case were transferred to the respondent PPA . Therefore , in the absence of pro- visions in P . D. 857 governing protests against the c harges imposed by responde n t , those of the for mer l aws must be followed . In this connection, Sec . 2315 of the Tariff and Customs Code , as amended, provides that rulings and decision s of the Commissioner of Customs a r e appea l- . able to this Ho norable Court , which under Sec . 7 of Republic Act 1125 has exclusive appellate j ur i sdiction to review by appeal all decisions of said Commissioner in cases invol ving liability for customs duties , fees o r other money charges . 3. - As the functions of the Bureau of Customs over the subject matter of this case have been transferred to the respondent , i t follows that the latter ' s decisions over the said subject mat.t.er are reviewab l e by this Honorable Court , whose exc l usive appellate jurisdiction to review. t h e same, when formerly decided by the Bureau of Customs, n ow extends to decisions of t h e respondent over the same subject mat t er . 4. -If the respondent ' s theory is ado pted , i t would lead t~ t h e absu rd c onc lusion tha t a cou rt ' s jurisdict i on over the sub ject matter of a case can

DECISION - CTA CASE NO. 34 66 - 6- be nullified or transferred to another government agency or officer by the simple expedient of transferring the functions and powers of one ag,enc:y to another. A court's jurisdiction over the subject matter of a case should not be affecte d through the simple expedient of changing the office or agency administering such subj ect matter. ~ rn short, the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court over decisions of the Commissioner of Customs involving the subject matter of . this case , former- ly administered by .said official, was transferred to cover the decisions of the resp ondent PPA upon the del egation of the functions a nd powers of the former to the latter. We agree with respondent. There is no law or statute which expr essly vests jurisdiction upon the Court of Tax Appeals � to review appeals from decisions or rulings of the Philippine Ports Authority . Pres- idential Decree No. 857, in Section 39 thereof, simply transfers to the Philippine Ports Authority all the powers, duties and jurisdictions of the Bureau of Customs relative to: "a) All dues , fees and rates collect- ible und~r Title VII but excluding Part VII of the Code ; "b) The general supervision , cont.rol, and reguiation of all matters and affairs that pertain to the operation of and the issuance of permits or licenses to cons- truct ports , port facilities, warehouses , and their facilit.ies within port disttric.ts; "c) All such other powers, dutfes and juriidictions vested in the Bureau of Customs pertaining to ev.ery matter con- cerning port facilities, port ope rations or port works. "

DECISION - CTA CASE NO . 3466 - 7- but does not provide that the decisions or rulings of said agency in cases or disputes involving_ such matt.ers s hall be appea l a ble to ~he Court of Tax Appeals. Such transfer of powers and functions to the Philippine Ports Authority may be a diminution of thos e formerly gr anted to t h e Bureau of Customs whose d ec isions are appealable to this Court, but does not necessar ily give rise to the conclusion nor inferenc e that the dec�isions or rulings of the Philippine Ports Authority in cases involving such matters are a2pealab l e to t his Cour t. Juri s diction over the subject matte r is fu ndame n tal for a court to act on a given controve r sy . Jurisdiction is con fe r red by law. (21 Corpus Juris Secundum, 12 7-1 28; Commis s ioner oi Internal Revenue v s. Leo nardo s. Villa & Court of Ta x Appeals , L-23988 , Jan ua r y 2, 1968, 22 SC RA 4.) The jurisdic t ion of a court to take cognizance of a case, we believe, s hould b e cle arl y confer red and should not be d eemed to exist on mere implication , specially wi t h respect to the Court of Tax Appea ls which is a specialized court of limited jurisdiction. It is well settled that although the Court of Tax Appeals is a part of the judicial system (Ursal vs. Cour t o f Tax Appea l s , L-10123 and L-10355 1 April 26 , 1957, 101 Phi l. 209) ~ its jurisdiction is special a nd limited (Amilbangsa vs. Angangco, CTA Case No. 255 , May 7, 19~6) ~ The law conferring jurisdiction on the Co urt of 294

DECISION - CTA CASE NO. 3466 - 8- Tax Appeals is Section 7 of Republic Act No. 1125, and outside of � the matt.ers expressly def �ned and enumerated therein, to wit: SEC . 7. Jurisdiction. - The Court of Tax App eals-sha ll exercise exclusive appellate jurisdiction to review by appeal, as herein provided - of I (1) . Dec i s ions 1 of the Collector nternal Revenue in cases involving disputed assessments, refunds of internal revenue taxes, fees or other charges , penalties imposed in relation thereto, or other matters arising under the National Internal Revenue Code o~ other law or part of law administered by the Bureau of Internal Revenue~ (2) Decisions of the Commissioner of Customs in cases involving, liabili t.y for customs duties, fees or other money charges; seizure, detertion or release of property affected~ fines, forfeitures or other penalties imposed in relation thereto; or other matt.ers arising under the Customs Law or other law or part of law administered by the Bureau of Customs ; and (3) Decisions of provincial or c i t.y Boar.ds of Assessment Appeal s in cases involving t he assessment and taxation of real property or other matters arising under the Assessment Law, including ru~es and regulations relative thereto . 1Now Commissioner of Internal Revenue. 2The j ur i sd iction of the Court o. Tax Appeals over appeals from decisions o.r rulings of the Provincial or City Boards of Assessment Appeals in cases involving, real proper t.y tax assessments. has been transferred to the Central Board of Assessment Appeals in the light of the Real Pro- perty Tax Code (P.D. No. 464}. See Jamora Jr. Enterprises vs. Local Board of Assessment Appeals, C.T.A. Case No. 2731, Nov. 17, 1977. 29b

DECISION - CTA CASE NO. 3466 - 9- this Court �has no power or authority to e nte~tain a ppe als from decisions or ruling s o f the Philippine Ports Authority. "Those that fail of justification are outs ide the province of its jurisdiction and are per f orce debarr e d from be ing considered by the Cou r t of Tax Appe als." (Amil ba ng sa vs. Ang a ngco, ~upra.) "The act is a complete law by its e lf and exp~es s ly enumerates the matters which the Court of Tax Appeals may consider; such enumeration excludes all others by implic a tion . Expres s io unius es t exclu s io altr.erius. " (Ur sal vs. Court of Tax Appeals, .�_Upr a.) . Where Presidential Decree No. 857 does not pro- . vide tha t the decisions and rulings of the Philipp ine Ports Authority shall be reviewable by the Cour:t of Tax Appe al s , that should not be read into thedecree, specially so when Section 131 o f PPA Ad ministrative Order No. 13-77, othe rwise known as the General Port Regula t.ions of the Philippine Ports Authority, and which was promulgated pursua nt to Se ction 26 of P.D . 857, prescribes the remedy of appeal to the Office of the President 6f any party aggrie ve d by the decision of the General Manager as affirmed by the Philippine Ports Authority Board. 296

DECI SION - CTA CASE NO. 3466 - 10 - WHEREFORE , for l a ck of juri s diction , pe tition e r's petition for revie w is he r eby dismissed. With cost s . SO ORDERED. Quezon City, Met.ro Man i la, October 26 , 1983. WE CONCUR: 29 '1