cta_decision CTA Case No. 1059910599 2026-05-29

MILLIONSTAR GRAINS CORPORATION represented by its President, MS. JAENA BAUTISTA-MANUNTAG v. HON. DISTRICT COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS, Port of MICP, North Harbor, Port Area, Manila; and HON. REY LEONARDO GUERERRO, Commissioner of Customs, South Harbor, Port Area, Manila

CTA Form No.8 lllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll llllllllllllllll lll 21�000338-0082 REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES COURT OFTAX APPEALS QUEZON CITY SPECIAL FIRST DIVISION CTA CASE N0.10599 MILLIONSTAR GRAINS NOTICE OF DECISION CORPORATION, represented by its President, MS. JAENA BAUTISTA-MANUNT AG, Petitioner, -versus- HON. DISTRICT COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS, Port of MICP, North Harbor, Port Area, Manila; and HON. REY LEONARDO GUERERRO, Commissioner of Customs, South Harbor, Port Area, Manila, Respondents. To: SENIOR STATE SOLICITOR JOEL N. VTLLASERAN STATE SOLICITOR SOLIEL C. FLORES ASST. SOLICITOR KEVIN YURI C. CHAN ASSOCIATE SOLICITOR VICTOR EMMANUEL I. ALMAZAR OFFICE OF THE SOLICITOR GENERAL 134 Amorsolo Street, Legazpi Village, Makati City COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS Commissioner of Bureau of Customs Ground Floor, OCOM Bulding 16th Street, South Harbor, Port Area, Manila HON. DISRICT COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS Port of Manila International Container Terminal (MICT) S Access Road, North Harbor, Port Area Tondo, Manila VALDEZ LAW & ASSOCIATES Unit 804, Future Point Plaza I 112 Panay Avenue, Brgy. South Triangle Quezon City Page 1 of2

GREETINGS: You are hereby notified by these presents that on May 29, 2026, a Decision was rendered in the above-entitled case, copy of which is attached hereto. Quezon City, Philippines, June 2, 2026. Atty. Maria Joft:'~;;:.2c� Chan-Te Executive Cl ourt III Page 2 of2

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES COURT OF TAX APPEALS QUEZON CITY SPECIAL FIRST DIVISION MILLIONSTAR GRAINS CTA CASE NO. 10599 CORPORATION, represented by its President, MS. JAENA BAUTISTA-MANUNTAG, Members: Petitioner, -versus- HON. BACORRO-VILLENA, Acting Chairperson, and COLLECTOR DISTRICT CUI-DAVID, JJ. OF CUSTOMS, Port of MICP, North Harbor, Port Area, Manila; and HON. REY LEONARDO GUERERRO, Commissioner of Customs, South Harbor, Port Area, Promulgated: Manila, -~ - Respondents. MAY 29 2026 �!:J:IJ Pt'l X- - -- - ---- ----- - - - -- - - --- - - ------- -X DECISION CUI-DAVID, J.: Before this Court is a Petition for Duty and Tax Refund (Petitionjl filed by petitioner Millionstar Grains Corporation (petitioner) on July 28, 2021, seeking a refund of allegedly overcharged customs duty amounting to PHP 5,809,915.99. THE PARTIES Petitioner Millionstar Grains Corporation, represented by its President Ms. Jaena Bautista-Manuntag, is a corporation v duly registered and existing under Philippine laws.2 Docket - Vol. I, pp. 7-10. !d. at 436, Joint Stipulation of Facts and Issues (JSF I), I. Admitted Facts, par. I.

DECISION CTA Case No . 10599 Millionstar Grains Corporation represented by its President, Ms. Jaena Bautista- Manuntag v. Han. District Collector of Customs, Port of MICP, North Harbor, Por t Area, Manila; and Han. Rey Leonardo Guererro, Commissioner of Customs, South Harbor , Port Area, Manila x------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------x COC,15 allegedly on March 29, 2021, April 29, 2021 , and May 12, 2021. 16 PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE COURT Having received no response to its protests, on July 28, 2021, petitioner filed the instant Petition for Duty and Tax Refund. 17 A summons was issued on September 15, 2021, directing respondents to file their Answer. 18 On November 5, 2021 , respondents filed their Motion for Extension of Time to File Answer, 19 which the Court granted in an Order dated November 22 , 2021.20 On December 3, 2021, respondents filed their Answer.21 This was followed by petitioner's filing of a Reply ofPetitioner to Respondent COC's Answer [Re: Petition for Duty and Tax Refund dated 25 June 2021} on January 4, 2022.22 The Pre-Trial Conference was initially set on March 23, 2022. 23 On said date , however, counsels for both parties failed to appear. Consequently, the case was dismissed without prejudice in an Order dated March 23, 2022.24 On March 31, 2022, the Court received petitioner's Urgent Motion to Reset Pre-Trial Conference, which was filed via registered mail on March 21, 2022.25 Considering the dismissal, petitioner later filed its Manifestation and Motion for Reconsideration [Re: Order of Dismissal without Prejudice of March 23, 2022] on May 6, 2022,26 to which respondents filed their Comment (Re: Petitioner's Manifestation and Motion for Reconsideration dated April29, 2022).27 15 /d. , JSFI, I. Admitted Facts, par. 13. 16 /d. at 7, Petition for Duty and Tax Refund, par. 2. 17 /d.at7-I O. 18 !d. at 59. 19 !d. at 6 1-64. 20 !d. at 68. 21 !d. at8 1-9 1. 22 !d. at 70-78. 23 /d. at 116-117. 24 !d. at 120. 25 !d. at 121-1 23. 26 !d. at 127-1 29. 27 /d. at 168-172.

DECISION CTA Case No. 10599 Millionstar Grains Corporation represented by its President, Ms. Jaena Bautista- Manuntag v. Han. District Collector of Customs, Port of MICP, North Harbor, Port Area, Manila; and Han. Rey Leonardo Guererro, Commissioner of Customs, Sout h Harbor, Port Area, Manila x------------------------------------- -- --- ------------------------------------------------x On January 30, 2025, respondents presented their witnesses: Mr. Basset G. Lucman, Mr. Greg J. Serrano, and Ms. J enalline M. Garcia, all of whom testified through their respective judicial affidavits. ss Respondents filed their Formal Offer ofEvidence on February 5 , 2025,59 to which petitioner filed its Comment/ Opposition (to Respondent's Formal Offer of Evidence) on February 10, 2025.60 On May 9, 2025, the Court resolved to admit respondents' exhibits.51 Petitioner62 and respondents63 filed their Memoranda on June 16, 2025. The case was submitted for decision on July 10, 2025.64 THE ISSUE The issue submitted for the resolution of the Court, as stipulated by the parties, is as follows: WHETHER THE PETITIO NER IS ENTITLED TO A REFUND OF ITS CLAIM FOR OVERPAYMENT OF CUSTOMS DUTY AND TAXES ON ITS SUBJECT RICE SHIPMENT. 65 PETITIONER'S ARGUMENTS In its Petition 66 and Memorandum,57 petitioner argues that it is entitled to a refund. Petitioner maintains that respondents should have used Method One, or the Transaction Value Method, in valuing its importation of Vietnam Rice, in accordance with Article VII of the GATT. Petitioner argues that the value for customs purposes of imported merchandise should be based on the actual value of the imported merchandise on which duty is assessed, or of like m erchandise, and should not be determined b ased on the value 58 !d. at 598-600. 59 !d. at 605-608. 60 !d. at 6 14-618. 61 /d. at 630-632. 62 /d. at 633-644. 63 /d. at 649-663. 64 /d. at 669. 65 Docket - Vol. I, p. 439, J SFI, II. Issue. 66 !d. at?- 10. 67 Docket - Vol. II, pp. 633-644.

DECISION CTA Case No. 10599 Millionstar Grains Corporation represented by its Presid ent, Ms. Jaena Bautista- Manuntag v. Han . District Collector of Customs, Port of MICP, North Harbor, Port Area, Manila; and Han. Rey Leonardo Guererro, Commissioner of Customs, South Harbor, Port Area, Manila x--------------------------------------------- -------- ------ -- ----------------- ------------x of merchandise of national origin, nor on arbitrary or fictitious values. Petitioner further states that the basic principle in valuation, as provided under Section 701 of the CMTA and the GATT, is to use the transaction value of the shipment or goods, which is generally shown on the shipment invoice. According to petitioner, its presentation of the commercial invoices should have been sufficient to justify the application of Method One. Petitioner additionally posits that respondents had no legal basis to use Method Three. According to petitioner, the application of Method Three "presupposes that Methods [One] and [Two] are insufficient to determine the dutiable value ," and that there is no showing of such. Petitioner suggests that the values in the pertinent OCOM Memorandum "were whimsically and capriciously stated." RESPONDENTS' ARGUMENTS In their Answer68 and Memorandum,69 respondents argue that the Petition should be dismissed for failure to comply with the formal requisites under the Rules of Civil Procedure. According to respondents, petitioner "entirely failed to : (a) indicate the material dates to prove that the Petition was filed on time; (b) set forth a concise statement of facts and of the case; (c) raise specific legal issue or issues for the consideration of the Court; (d) specify the errors of fact or law allegedly committed by Respondent COC; (e) propound sound legal arguments as grounds for the allowance of the petition; (f) attach certified true copies of the assailed judgments or final orders; and (g) attach copies of material portions of the record to support the allegations made in the petition." Respondents also maintain that they correctly assessed petitioner's shipments using Method Three under Section 703 of the CMTA. Respondents allege that petitioner failed to prove compliance with the requirements for the application of Method One under Section 701 of the CMTA. According to respondents, Method Two is likewise inapplicable, as resort to Method Two requires "not only the comparison of the documents of the 68 Docket - Vol. I, pp. 81-91. ~ 69 Docket - Vol. II, pp. 649-663.

DECISION CTA Case No. 10599 Millionstar Grains Corporation represented by its President, Ms. Jaena Bautista- Manuntag v. Hon. District Collector of Customs, Port of MICP, North Harbor, Port Area, Manila; a nd Hon. Rey Leonardo Guererro, Commissioner of Customs, South Harbor, Port Area, Manila x------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------x Corollary thereto, Section 11 of the same law provides that an appeal may be taken within thirty (30) days from receipt of the decision or ruling, or "after the expiration of the period fixed by law for action": SEC. 11. Who May Appeal; Mode of Appeal; Effect of Appeal. - Any party adversely affected by a decision, ruling, or inaction of the Commissioner of Internal Revenue, the [COC] ...may file an appeal with the CTA within thirty (30) days after the receipt of such decision or ruling or after the expiration of the period fixed by law for action as referred to in Section 7(a)(2) herein.... (Emphasis supplied) The foregoing prov1s10ns are restated in Section 3(a)(4), Rule 4,72 and Section 3 (a), Rule 8 73 of the Revised Rules of the CTA (RRCTA). A plain reading of the above-cited provisions shows that the CTA's jurisdiction over cases involving the COC is limited strictly to the review of decisions and does not extend to inactions. This legislative intent becomes evident when Section 7(a)(4) is contrasted with Sections 7(a)(1) and 7(a)(2) of the same law, which expressly confer jurisdiction over both decisions and inactions of the Commissioner of Internal Revenue (CIR) . Significantly, while Section 11 of RA No. 1125 mentions appeals taken "after the expiration ofthe period fixed by law for action," such reference is explicitly tied to Section 7(a)(2), which y pertains solely to the CIR's inaction. 72 Section 3. Cases within the jurisdiction ofthe Court in Division.- The Court in Division shall exercise: (a) Exclusive original 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, forfeitures or other penalties in relation thereto, or other matters arising under the Customs Law or other laws administered by the Bureau of Customs[.] 73 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 wi thin thirty d ays 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. In case of inaction of the Commissioner of Internal Revenue on claims for refund of internal revenue taxes erroneously or illegally collected, the taxpayer must file a petition for review wi thin the two-year period prescribed by law from payment or collection of the taxes.

DECISION CTA Case No. 10599 Millionstar Grains Corporation represented by its President, Ms. Jaena Bautista- Manuntag v. Han. District Collector of Customs, Port of MICP, North Harbor, Port Area, Manila; and Han. Rey Leonardo Guererro, Commissioner of Customs, South Harbor, Port Area, Manila x-------------------- ----------------------------- ----- ------------------------------------x Entry Division or equivalent unit, then to the Deputy Collector for Assessment and finally to the District Collector. 6.2. If the District Collector finds that the Valuation Issue involves difficult or highly technical questions relating to the application of customs valuation rules, the following procedures shall be undertaken: 6.2.1 . The District Collector shall accordingly inform the importer within two (2) days that the Valuation Issue involves difficult or highly technical questions; 6 .2.2. In such case, the District Collector shall require the importer and the Customs Officer to submit position papers to support their declaration or findings, respectively within five (5) days from the receipt of the notice; 6.2.3. If th e nature of the goods permit, the District Collector shall require the taking of samples subject to verification of the Customs Officer concerned to be returned to the importer upon termination of the dispute settlement; 6.2.4. The importer may request release of the goods under Tentative Assessment upon payment of duties and taxes as declared in the goods declaration and posting of sufficient Security to cover the disputed amount of duties, taxes and other charges as determined by the examiner and appraiser and compliance with other pertinent applicable rules and regulations; and 6.2.5. The District Collector shall resolve in writing the Valuation Issue within fifteen (15) days from submission of the position papers. 6.3. If the dispute does not involve difficult or highly technical questions on proper application of methods of valuation and the District Collector adopts the findings of the Customs Officer, the District Collector shall notify within forty-eight v (48) hours the aggrieved importer of his ruling in

DECISION CTA Case No. 10599 Millionstar Grains Corporation represented by its President, Ms. Jaena Bautista- Manuntag v. Han. District Collector of Customs, Port of MICP, North Harbor, Port Area, Manila; and Han. Rey Leonardo Guererro, Commissioner of Customs, South Harbor, Port Area, Manila X-- ----------------------------- -- --- --------- ----------------- ---- ------------------------X writing stating his reasons and with a directive to pay the duties and taxes in full based on the valuation made by the Customs Officer. 6.4. In case of a ruling adverse to the importer, the importer shall be liable to pay the additional duties and taxes as adjudged or if the goods are released under Tentative Assessment, any posted security shall be made to answer for the deficiency in duties and taxes resulting from the ruling. 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. Section 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. Otherwise, the action of the District Collector shall be final and conclusive. 10. 2. A protest filed shall specify th e 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.

DECISION CTA Case No. 10599 Millionstar Grains Corporation re presented by its President, Ms. Jaena Bautista- Manuntag v. Hon. District Collector of Customs, Port of MICP, North Harbor, Port Area, Manila; and Hon. Rey Leonardo Guererro, Commissioner of Customs, Sou th Harbor, Port Area, Manila x------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------x 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. Section 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. Section 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. Section 13. Appeal. - An importer aggrieved by the decision of the Commissioner may appeal t he said decision to the CTA within t hirty (30) days from receipt of the adverse decision or final order of the Commissioner. (Emphasis supplied) Section 13 of CAO No. 02-2020 is explicit that only the decision of th e COC may be appealed to the CTA. Reading the prov1s1ons sequentially and h arm oniously, the "decision" contemplated therein refers to t h e decision of the COC on the protest in accordance with Section 10.3 or the Motion for Reconsideration filed by the impor ter in accordance with Section 11 . Notably, Section 10.3 of the same CAO provides for a "deemed affirmation" where the District Collector's ruling is considered affirmed if the COC fails to act on the protest within the prescribed period. Thus, in light of RA No. 1125, as amended, and the provision s of the CMTA, read in conjun ction with CAO No . 02- 2020, th e Court h olds that it has ju risdiction over petitions grou nded on the inaction of the COC, provided it falls under the "deemed affirmation" of the challenged ruling of the District Collector. In the present case, petitioner alleges in its Petition that it filed Protests before the COC but the same remain undecided, hence, the present appeal, viz.:

DECISION CTA Case No. 10599 Millionstar Grains Corporation represented by its President, Ms. Jaena Bautista- Manuntag v. Hon. District Collector of Customs, Port of MICP, North Harbor, Port Area, Manila; and Hon. Rey Leonardo Guererro , Commissioner of Customs, South Harbor, Port Area, Manila x------------- ---------------- -------------------------------------------------------------x 2. That, on March 29, 2021, April 19, 2021 and May 12, 2021, Petitioner presented its formal Protest and Appeal for Duty and Tax Refund to the good office of the Hon. Commissioner REY LEONARDO GUERRERO, earnestly demanding and praying for appropriate consideration and expeditious resolution of its request for duty and tax relief, easement from bearing the duty and tax burdens arising out of the excessive charges of customs duty and tax upon its rice shipments be duly acted upon in due time; A faithful photo reproduction of the Protest and Appeal presented for consideration and resolution which were received by the Bureau of Customs marked CCC-21-040871 dated March 29, 2021, CCC-21-053330 dated April29, 2021, and CCC-21-059503 dated May 12, 2021, together with its supporting documentary evidences marked as Annexes "1", "2", "2a", "3", "3-a", "4", "4-a', "4-b", and "4-c", which are attached herewith and made as parts and parcels of this Petition; 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. 70 1], 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 as adjusted accordingly with the conditions set forth under the afore-cited Section 701, which are evidently excessively, unfairly, unjustly, and inequitably charged.... 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,

DECISION CTA Case No. 10599 Millionstar Grains Corporation r epresented by its President, Ms. Jaena Bautista- Manuntag v. Hon. District Collector of Customs, Port of MICP, North Harbor, Port Area, Manila; and Hon. Rey Leonardo Guererro, Commissioner of Customs, South Harbor, Port Area , Manila x------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------x substantially by such cause of the inaction of the Respondents, the Petitioner deems it fitting for now to file before this Honorable Court this Petition in pursuance to Rule 8 of the 2005 Revised Rules of the Court of Tax Appeals, as amended[.] 75 (Emphasis supplied) The records show that the Protests were not offered in evidence. Nonetheless, the fact of payment under protest76 and the fact of filing the Protests77 were admitted in the JSFI. As to the dates of filing of the Protests, respondent is deemed to have admitted the same for his failure to properly specifically deny such material facts in its Answer. The COC denied the allegation, in this wise: 2. Respondent COC specifically denies pa ragraphs 2, 3, 4 and 5 of the petition for the reasons herein provided.78 The subsequent averments in the Answer, however, failed to state the basis of respondent's denial of the alleged date when petitioner "presented its formal Protest and Appeal for Duty and Tax Refund to the good office of the Hon. Commissioner REY LEONARDO GUERRERO". The Answer focused on respondent's perceived non-compliance with the formal and substantial requirements under Rule 42 of the Rules of Court of petitioner's Petition, without stating the correct filing date of the Protests if the alleged date were incorrect or alleging that no such Protests were actually filed. Under Rule 8, Section 10 of the Rules of Court, a party must specify each material allegation of fact the truth of which it cannot admit and, whenever practicable, shall set forth the substance of the matter upon which it relies to support its denial. Where a party is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of a material averment made, it shall so state, and this shall have the effect of a denial. Allegations not specifically denied are deemed admitted.79 75 Docket - Vo l. I, pp. 7-8, Petition for Duty and Tax Refund, pars. 2, 4. 76 !d. at 438, JSFI, I. Adm itted Facts, par. 13; 48 1, Exhibit " P-4" ; 482, Exhibit " P-I 0" ; 483 , Ex hibit " P- 17. 77 /d. at 438, J SFI, I. Admitted Facts, par. 13 . 78 /d. at I04, Answer, par. 2. 79 Rule 8, Section II , Rules of Court. Sec. I I. All egati ons not specifically denied deemed admitted. - Material averments in a pleading asserti ng a claim or claims, other than those as to the amount of unliquidated damages, shall be deemed admitted not specifi cally d en ied.

DECISION CTA Ca se No. 10599 Million star Grain s Corporation represen ted by its President, Ms. Jaena Bautista- Manun tag v. Hon . Dist rict Collector of Cu stom s, Por t of MICP, North Harbor, Por t Area, Manila; a nd Hon . Rey Leon ardo Gu ererro, Commissioner of Customs, South Harbor, Port Area, Ma nila x----- ------------------------------- --------- ---------- --- ----- ------- -- --- ---------------x Denials based on lack of knowledge or information of matters clearly known to the pleader, or ought to be known to it, or could have easily been known by it are insufficient, and constitute ineffective or sham denials. so Here, the COC ought to know or could have easily known the actual date of filing of the Protests before him, but the Answer did not specifically deny such material averment. Hence, he is deemed to have admitted the dates of the filing of the protests as alleged in the Petition. Nonetheless, as the Protests were not offered in evidence, the Court cannot determine whether they were made in proper form as mandated under Section 10 of CAO No . 02-2020. Petitioner also did not mention if the Protes ts with the COC were made within 15 days from its receipt of the adverse ruling of the District Collector or from payment, as a result of the adverse ruling. Hence, the Court cannot determine if the Protests were timely filed. Assuming that th e Protests were timely filed and made in proper form, based on the alleged dates of the Protests, petitioner at the latest had until July 11, 2021 to appeal before the CTA: Alleged Date of End of 30-day End of 30-day Date of Filing of Protest, deemed period for the admitted COC t o a ct on period to file the Presen t th e Protest Ma rch 29 , 202 1 Petition for Petition April 28, 2021 April 19, 202 1 Review with the M ay 19, 2 021 May 12, 2021 CTA June 11 , 2 02 1 May 28, 202 1 June 18 , 202 1 J uly 28, 2021 July 11, 2021 Clearly, the present Petition was filed out of time. The perfection of an appeal in the manner and within the period laid down by law is no t o nly m andatory but also jurisdictio na l. The failure to perfect an appeal as required by sy the rules has the effect of defeating the right to appeal of a party and precluding the appellate court fr om acquiring jurisdiction over the case. �8 Fernando Medical Enterprises, Inc. v. Wesleyan University Philippines, Inc, G.R. No. 207970, January 20, 20 16 [Per J. Bersamin, First Division]. 81 Commissioner ofinternal Revenue v. Fort Bonifacio Development Corporation, G.R. No. 167606, August I I, 20 10 [Per J. Mendoza, Second Division).

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES COURT OF TAX APPEALS Quezon City SPECIAL FIRST DIVISION MILLIONSTAR GRAINS CTA CASE NO . 10599 CORPORATION, represented by Members: BACORRO-VILLENA, Acting Chairperson, and its President, MS. JAENA CUI-DAVID,]].. BAUTISTA-MANUNTAG, Petitioner, -versus - HON. DISTRICT COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS, Port of MICP, North Harbor, Port Area, Manila; and HON. REY LEONARDO GUERERRO, Commissioner of Customs, South Harbor, Port Area, Manila, MPAroYmu2l~:Jat~ed(:.5P.f\1 Respondents . X - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ~jC - - - - - - - - - - -X SEPARATE OPINION BACORRO-VILLENA, L: I concur with the ponencia of my esteemed colleague, Associate Justice Lanee S. Cui-David, in dismissing the Petition for Review for lack of jurisdiction on the finding that the judicial appeal was filed out of time. Nonetheless, with due respect, I am constrained to withhold my concurrence on the ponente's discussion that the Court of Tax Appeals' (CTA's) jurisdiction does not extend to the Commissioner of Customs' (COC's) inactions. -tSection n26 of the Customs Modernization and Tariff Act1 (CMTA) vis-a-vis Sections 10.1 and 10.3 of Customs Administrative Order (CAO) No. o2-202o2 provide AN ACT MODERNIZING THE CUSTOMS AND TARIFF ADMINISTRATION. DISPUTE SETTLEMENT AND PROTEST.

\ SEPARATE OPINION CTA Case No. 10599 Millionstar Grains Corporation, represented by its President, Ms. Jaena Bautista-Manuntag v. Hon. District Collector of Customs, Port of MICP, North Harbor, Port Area, Manila; and Hon. Rey Leonardo Guererro, ' Commissio ner of Customs, South Harbor, Port Area, Manila Page 2 of3 x---------- --- --- ----- ------------------------------------------------------------- x CMTA SEC. 1126. Appeal to the Commissioner. - In forfeiture cases, the person aggrieved by the decision of a District Collector may, within fifteen (15) days or five (s) days in case of perishable goods, from receipt of the decision, file a written notice of appeal, together with the required appeal fee to the District Collector, furnishing a copy to the Commissioner. The District Collector shall immediately transmit all the records of the proceedings to the Commissioner, who shall review and decide on the appeal within t hirty (3o) days from receipt of the records, or fifteen (�s) days in the case of perishable goods: Provided, That if within thirty (3o) days, no decision is rendered, the decision ofthe District Collector under appeal shall be deemed affirmed. An appeal filed beyond the period herein prescribed shall be dismissed .3 CAO No. o2-202o Section 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, va luation, 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. Otherwise, the action of the District Collector shall be final and conclusive. IO.J. When a protest is filed in proper form, the Commissioner shall render a ruling within thirty (3o) 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.4 Based on the foregoing provisions, a person aggrieved by the decision of the District Collector may elevate an appeal to the COC within fifteen (15) days from the receipt of the assailed decision. The COC shall have thirty (3o) days from the receipt ! . of the records to decide on the case. If no such decision is rendered within the said 30-day period, the decision of the District Collector shall be deemed affirmed. This "deemed affirmed" provision of the law is precisely the result of the COC's failure to act on the appeal within the statutory period. Simply put, it is an inaction of the ,. COC that is appealable to this court.t Italics in the original text and emphasis suppl ied. Emphasis in the original text and supplied.

\ SEPARATE OPINION CTA Case No. 10599 Millionstar Grains Corporation, represented by its President, Ms. Jaena Bautista-Manuntag v. Hon. District Collector of Customs, Port of MICP, North Harbor, Port Area, Manila; and Hon. Rey Leonardo Guererro, Commissione r of Customs, South Harbor, Port Area, Manila Page 3 of3 x------ ------------------- ------------------- -------------------------------------- x Thus, in my humble opm10n, it is difficult to subscribe to a sweeping declaration that the CTA's jurisdiction does not extend to the COC's inaction, most especially when the instant case was primarily resolved on the determination that the COC failed to act on the Protests and Appeals fi~d before it. Indeed, the issue before Us stemmed directly from such inaction. � Moreover, this Court cannot proceed on the assumption that there may be circumstances, other than a protest against the District Collector's assessment, valuation, or decision under Section 1126 of the CMTA, in which the COC may fail to act and yet such inaction would fall outside this Court's cognizance. Any pronouncement on that matter would be premature and speculative. It is only when an actual case or controversy involving the COC's inaction on a different matter is properly brought before the Court that the issue may be resolved, having then become ripe for judicial determination. A case is ripe for adjudication when the challenged governmental act is a completed action such that there is a direct, concrete, and adverse effect on the party seeking relief.5 Accordingly, judicial intervention is warranted only when there exists a completed governmental act or omission and the petitioner demonstrates an actual, immediate, or threatened injury arising therefrom.6 With the foregoing, I CONCUR IN THE RESULT and I vote to DISMISS the Petition for Review for lack of jurisdiction. JEAN !. Kilusang Mayan Uno, eta/. v. Hon. Benigno Simeon C. Aquino Ill, eta/., G.R. No. 2 10500, 02 April 20 19. 6 See Kilusang Mayan Uno, et at. v. Hon. Benigno Simeon C. Aquino Ill, et at., id.

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.