CTA Case No. 70 (Resolution)

lh L; CUUHJ.' 01'' 1 :\X AerLAL~ MANILA INDRES � LAZARD, Petitioner, C.T.A. CASS NO � .70 - versus - MANDAMUS ITH PRELIMINARY MANDATORY INJUNCTION ROGACIANO MILL~Z , as Acting Collecto~ of Customs, Port of Manila, and EDILBERTO Y. DIVJD, as Actin= Commissioner of Customs, Respondents . x- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -x RESOLUTION Acting on the Petition for Mandamus with Preliminary Injunction of the petitioner, Andres ~ � Lazaro , dated Jan- uary 31, 1955, and it appearin' that: 1 . Under section 7 of the law creating this Court (Republic ct No . 1125), it is conferred exclusive appellate jurisdiction to review by appeal only cases involving decisions of the Collector of Internal Revenue , Commis- sioner of Customs and Provincial and City Boards of Assessment Appeals . The present petition does not involve an appeal from the decision of any of these three, but is in- tended primarily to compel the respondents to decide in one way or another the case of petitioner involvin' the importation of 1,000 packa"es of potatoes a matter which is outside the jurisdiction of this Court to hear and decide Under the aforesaid sec- tion of Republic Act No . 1125; 2. Under section 1 of Republic Act No . 32, otherwise known as the Anti~umpin' ct, the Secretary of Finance is not given a time limit after receiving the report of his investieatin' Board composed of the Insular Collector of Customs, Collector of Internal Revenue and the Director of Commerce within which to decide whether or not an importation is in violation of the aforesaid Republic ct, and until such decision is rendered as is the case in the present instance, there can be no ap- peal over which this Court may exercise its exclusive appellate jurisdiction under sec- tion 7 of Republic Act No . 1125;

RiSOLUTION - C. T. A. CASE NO . 70 . - 2- 3. The discretionary power of the respondents to recommend to the Secretary of Finance the release of the potatoes involved in the present case under certain conditions can- not be controlled by mandamus the function of the respondents in this recard beinc purely discretionary and not ministerial under sections 1374, 1388, 1395 and 1399 of the Revised Administrative Code and Republic ct No . 32. It is not mandatory for respondents to institute seizure or forfeiture proceedincs for violation of Republic ct No . 32 . Un:ier the premises, they can conduct a public sale of the mer- chandise under section 1399 of the Revised Administrative Code, institute seizure or forfeiture proceedin's or recommend to the Secretary of Finance the re-shipment of the importation to the port of embarkation. Mandamus can issue only if the duties soucht to be enforced acainst a public of- ficial are ministerial . (Tabique vs . Duvall, 16 Phil . 324); 4. The special remedies of mandamus and injunction may be granted only in those cases Vlhere there is a clear and complete richt . (Pall- leo vs . Custer , G.R. No . L~3261, December 29, 1949) In paragraph III of his petition, the petitioner admits that his importation of potatoes is not covered by any release certificate from the Central Bank. By such manifestation, the petitioner is therefore without any richt to speak of since he admits havinfl violated the Central Bank Act. The special remedies of mandamus and injunction are equitable remedies that may be availed of only by those who come to Court with clean hands . 5. That the case of Santiaco Sambrano vs . Collector of Internal Revenue, C.T.A. Case No. 56, cited by petitioner in support of his proposi- tion that this Court has jurisdiction to en- tertain the present petition, is not in point, there beinc in the aforesaid case a decision of the respondent Collector of Internal Re- venue to collect from the petitioner Sambrano an assessment of 184,241 .07 as income tax deficiencies for the years 1945 to 1948 and a decision of the respondent distrainin, and levying the properties of petitioner Sambrano and sellin: them at public auction. ~FOF~, for the reasons above-stated , the petition to dismiss of counsel for the respondents is hereby sustained .

RmSOLUTION - C. T�� CASa NO. 70 . - 3- Let this case be , as it is hereby dismis sed, with costs a~ainst petitioner . SO ORDERED . Manila, February 21, 1955. ~M4R~ Pres idinc Jud ce �