CTA Case No. 4310 (Resolution)

� REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES COURT OF TAX APPEALS .QUEZON CITV SENBA SHOKAI CO. , LTD. , <Represented by its Attorney- In-Fact, Takashi Shi�izu), AMIRUL DIN ISLAM AL- PHILIPPI ES, INC., SENBA SHOKAI CO., LTD., <Represented by its President, Voshitaro Okazaki>, P e t i t i o n e r s ., - versus C.T.A. CASES NOS. 4310., 4313 & 4322 THE COMMISS IONER OF CUSTOMS, Respondent. X- - - - - - - - - - - - - X RE S 0 LUT I 0 N Petitioner A�irul Din Isla� Al - Phil ippines, Inc� .,.iled on Dece�ber 16, 1988 a petition for review in this court of the decision of the Co��issioner of Custo�s in Case No. 88-36 which started as Special Investigation <S.I.) No. 87-355 in the office of the District Collector alleging, a�ong others, that it is the consignee and property owner of the articles subject of this case. Previously, Senba Shokai Co., Ltd. as represented by its Attorney-in-fact Takashi Shi�izu had .,.iled its petition for review of the said 36. q....

RESOLUTION CTA CAS f:~ s. 4310, 4313 & 4322 -2 1 lOll f th Co 19B6 lleg1n lf t b thP. ownPr of th artie es in Another p titiol for rev1ew ont 1g the II d 1 LOTI 1 o 1.n the na e of Senb Shoka Co � ., Ltd.~ b t tht t Ute r pr s nted by Yoshitaro Okazak1, s f1l d on J u ry Th e p t � t 1on� w r v ntu lly con ol n one s , b ing involv d Wll h� ub e t t r n h Vl. ted ssuec;. ot:a.on for ub u nt y, P tit on ~ A trul ld l () l und ud on A r 1 , 1 9. II t n 0 01 0 ' t1 n l ud Bond 11 s y pon n bn ' HJB � In h t un ot)on to ?7, 1991 r- ptmd nt r tr:orat d 01~ pend nq d the e t 1t1 n r A rul nd mov d r r solutJ. n of id motion. r pond n g0 0 th d lSS l Of he t 0 A� rul: ( u p t t1on h s no legal personal1ty to 1ns tute th nt pet1tion; (2) the court is w1thout JUrl. d1c 1on over t �nstant pe ition. P titioner A�irul contends, ong ot r , th t : it entered its appearanc as a p ty l i n S pte�ber 21, 1987., by virtue of Not�_ o � per nc signed by Sultan A�irullah S. Mangelen nd ounsel 37 0

RESOLUTION CTA CASES NOS. 4310, 4313 &4322 3 Oscar P. Ferreros . and 'filed with 'the District Collector, Port o'f Manila; (b) It ...s, howeYer, no~ noti'fied o'f the subsequent hearings and .... not served with a copy o'f the District Collector's decision rendered on 3une 13, 1988; (c) This alleged denial o'f petitioner A�irul's right to due process ...s supposedly re.,-ated having 'filed a 'for reconsideration o'f said decision, the sa�� was also not acted uponJ (d) Nonetheless, the decision o'f the Co��issioner o'f Custo�s adverts to petitioner ~irul as clai�ant in the seizure proceedings. The records o'f the case show that 'fro� the outset petitioner Atlirul was not an original ,.rty to the ad�inis'trative proceedin s in S.I. � 87-355. A.irul entered its appearance through ~torney Oscar P. Ferreros on Septe�ber 21, 1987 Mhen the ad�inistraive proceedings in S. I. � 87-355 were we11 on the way. When said counsel Ferreros was asked about the personality o'f his client, said counsel . .ni'fested that his client is the owner o'f the shi~ent in question by Yirtue o'f an alle ed Deed o'f Donation. Thus: '"HEARIN:i tFFICER: May I inquire 'fro� ~'ty. Ferreros the personality here o'f his client?

RESOLUTION CTA CASES NOS. 4310, 4313 & 4322 4- fTY. ERREROS: Th s is for r l1gious corporation the owner o the ubJect� v hicles by virtue of a Deed f Donation xecut d by the donor 1. s lf. I will present in due tute our do u entary evidence in that effect." (p. 01, Custo c R ~.> In h. our 0 h hearing on Sep e11ber 21 7 19877 c un 1 for A� ru m n"fest~d his wish to 1ncludt Am ru rty, but. t requ s w s not acted upo � A Y. R AR t e r CJUP 0 A ty. W WJ.ll er l.t Will b d Pd F rr ros f r ' 0 r 198/ :00 ro er. r duly not "ed ~n 0 'n cs l 1 Cu to R c.) Part h r1.ng. ' <p .. Th s p sene o p t1t"on r A 1ru ln t h r1ng n ver 'followed un il the proc eding n �.,. T. No. 87-355 were concluded with a deere 0 forf e ture of the subject articles by the D1 tr1.ct Coll t on June 13, 1988. It was., not unt i 1 August ' 1988 th t p t1t100 r A11irul appeared again to pursue 1 �t r for 372

RESOLUTION CTA CASES NOS. 43101 4313 & 4322 -5 reconsideration of the afore�entioned decision of the district Collector it had filed on July 8, 1988. HEARING OFFICER: We are today in receipt of appearance fro� Atty. Ro�ualdo Tecson as counsel for clai�ant intervenor Sultan Hadji A�urallah Sy Mangelen. I don't think Sultan Mangelen is a party-clai�ant in this case. ATTY. TECSON: Yes, sir, Sultan Mangelen filed a letter for reconsideration with the office so �uch so that with this pleadings he beco�es a party in this case and this I will sub�it for resolution before this investigation. HEARING OFFICER: Have you furnished the prosecution a copy of your letter for reconsideration? ATTY. TECSON: I don't know, because I think this is the ti�e of the for�er counsel. HEARING OFFICER: What is the interest of Sultan Mangelen in this case? ATTY. TECSON: I think he is the donee in the association of A�irul Din Isla� Philippines. HE@RING OFFICER: Where did this A�irul Din Isla� get involved in this case? ATTY. TECSON: It was donated to hi�. 373

.. RESOLUTION CTA CASES NOS. 4310, 4313 & 4322 -6 HEARING OFFICER: ATTY. TECSON: By the owner." <pp. 341-342, Custo�s Rec.) It is clear that up to this point of the ad�inistrative proceedings, petitioner A�irul has not been recognized as a party to the case, thus: HEARING OFFICER: Not even the supposed donor filed a Motion for Intervention showing the interest in this case. How can we enter the appearance of Sultan Mangelen not even the donor �ade a representation in this case. At any rate, we will consider this letter. We will just take note of this Motion for Reconsideration, it is already part of the records. What is our subject now is the resolution of the Motion for Reconsideration filed by intervenor Senba Shokai. The prosecution has already �ade an opposition to the Motion for Reconsideration. Would you sti 11 1 ike to argue the Motion or you wi 11 just sub�it this for resolution? ATTY. QUINTANILLA: Based on that I a� sub�itting our Motion for resolution of this office. HEARING OFFICER: We will take note of this letter for reconsideration by Atty. Tecson. ATTY. CHUA: But he has no personality. You did not enter your appearance in this hearing. 374

RESOLUTION CTA CASES NOS. 4310, 4313 & 4322 - 7- HEARING OFFICER: This chair will take care of his request for whatever value it has. The Motion for Reconsideration is sub�itted for resolution by this Office." <pp. 339-340, Custo�s Rec.) By its assertions, however, petitioner, A�irul holds the belief that �erely entering its appearance during the hearings on Septe�ber 21, 1987 was sufficient to �ake it a party to the case. The law, on the other hand, provides that jurisdiction over the person is acquired by the voluntary appearance of a party in court and his sub�ission to its authority, or it is acquired by the coercive power of legal process exerted over the person <Banco Espanol-Filipino v. Palanca, 37 Phil. 921, 927 [19181; Nilo v. Ro�ero, 1 SCRA 926, 929 [1961]). Yet this principle speaks of a person already a party to the case, as a defendant, for exa�ple; and conte�plates of conditions where the party tries to avoid the jurisdiction of the court. The applications of this principle pertain to cases of this nature (See Banco Espanol-Filipino v. Palanca; Nilo v. Ro�ero, supra; Infante v. Toledo, 44 Phil. 834>. We hold, therefore, that the �ere voluntary appearance of petitioneer A�irul in the pendency of the ad�inistrative proceedings, was not sufficient to �ake 375

RESOLUTION CTA CASES NOS. 43101 4313 & 4322 8 it a party to the case. The law affords a speci fie �ode by which a third person not an original party can beco�e party to a suit or action, and that is, by intervention. "Intervention is a proceeding in a suit or action by which a third person is per�itted by the court to party, either joining plaintiff in clai�ing what is sought by the co�plaint, or uniting with defendant in resisting the of the plaintiff, or de�anding so�ething adversely to both of the�; the act or proceeding by which a third person beco�es a party in a suit pending between others; the ad�ission, by leave of court, of a person not an original party to pending legal proceedings, by which such person beco�es a party thereto for the protection of so�e right or interest alleged by hi� to be affected by such proceedings." ("Moran, Co��ents on the Rules of Court, Vol. 1, p. 404, 1979 ed., citing C� .J. 4477 and Lacuna v. Board of Liquidators, 12 SCRA 469, [1964]). It �ust be that the atte�pt of petit1oner A�irul to be included as party to the case was not allowed because the �ode e�ployed by it was not in accordance with that prescribed by the rules. Petitioner A�irul 376

.. RESOLUTION CTA CASES NOS. 4310, 4313 & 4322 -9 cannot there~ore invoke the principle o~ due process, ~en it was not served with a copy o~ the decision o~ the District Collector and ~en its letter o~ reconsideration was not acted upon, since it was not entitled to this consideration in the ~irst place, not being party to the suit. Rules o~ procedure are �atters o~ public interest (Moran, supra, p. 117 citing cases), so that, Mhen a procedure is provided ~or, it �ust be observed. Matters o~ procedure �ay be waived only i~ public interest is not a~~ected Ud.). �A strict observance o~ the Rules o~ Court Milich have been considered indispensable to the prevention o~ needless delays and to the orderly and speedy dispatch o~ judicial business is an i�perative necessity� <AlvAro v. .Judge de lA Rosa, 76 Phil. 428 [19461). Here the conduct o~ petitioner ~irul in pursuing its CAse cannot be described as characterized by consistency and diligence. It presented itself only once in the proceedings in S.I. No. 87-355, nay, seeking to intervene in a wrong~ul �Anner. Its ~ailure to allege �andatory jurisdictional ~acts in its petition ~or review such as that, it was party to the seizure proceeding, and that it filed a notice o~ / appeal o~ the decision o~ the District Collector, 377

� RESOLUTION CTA CASES NOS. 4310, 4313 & 4322 - 10 affects the power of this court to hear its case and proves disastrous to its cause. When petitioner A�irul was not served the decision of the District Collector, it should have been "forwarned that all is not well with its case. More so when its letter of reconsideration was not acted upon. It is too plain "for petitioner A�irul not to see that during all the ti�e that it was trying to be party to the case, the caption of the case has not been changed to include its na�e as party. If petitioner A�irul had "filed a proceeding in intervention in co�pliance with the rules, it could have contested any denial of this action. Even during the appeal to the Co��issioner, petitioner A�irul was not lacking in the recourse of intervention but this was not had. We do not agree with petitioner A�irul that �ere advertence by the Co��iss ioner to it as a clai�ant could constitute it as a party with its conco�itant rights. Petitioner A�irul was not even privy to the appeal in the Co��issioner of Custo�s as it did not appeal the decision of the District Collector. With all these, we "find that the court has no jurisdiction to entertain the petition "for review of petitioner A�irul. 378

. .,. . RESOLUTION CTA CASES NOS. 4310, 4313 & 4322 - 11 ACCORDINGLY, the p~tition for review of petitioner A�irul Din Isla� Al-Philippines, Inc. is hereby DISMISSED for lack of jurisdiction. SO ORDERED. Uuezon Cit y, Metro Man i la, October 15, 1991. ~~ <2-,.Q~ / ERNESTO D. ACOSTA / Associate Judge .,,_,.,..., .~ � ROAUUIN Judge 37~)