CTA Case No. 4634 (Resolution)

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES COURT OF TAX APPEALS QUEZON CITY PHILIPPINE ALLIED ENTERPRISES C.T.A. CASE NO. 4634 CORPORAT ION, ARMSTRONG ENTER- PRISES, REMAL ENTERPRISES, TYREMART INCORPORATED, and ALPCO INDUSTRIAL COMPANY, Petitioners, - versus - COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, Respondent. X- - - - - - - - - - - - - X RE S 0 L UT I 0 N On July 24, 1991 Pet1tion for Rev1ew of the decision of the Commissioner of Customs dated June 18, 1991 was filed by petitioners. Respondent Comm1ss1oner of Customs on September 11, 1991, however, filed Motion to D1smiss the Petition for Review on the ground that the petition was filed out of time. Respondent alleges, in substance, that on June 20, 1991, copy of the Comm1ss1oner's decision, had already been received by Atty. Nilda A. Torrevillas as evidenced by her handwritten acknowledgment of rece1pt of the decision in the Commissioner's Record Book; that the petit1oners are supposed to have only until July 22, 1991 within which to file the subject petition and none had been filed; that the said Record Book had 274

RESOLUTION C.T.A. CASE NO. 4634 2 been borrowed by a man on J'uly 23, 1991; and that on the following day, Jovita Q. clerk, noticed that an alteration had been made in the handwritten acknowledgment in the Record Book in which the date June 20, 1991 had been altered to June 28, 1991, by the char.ging of the r.umbet~ "0" to "8" in it appeat~ as "28" ir� said date. This incident and other observations are recounted in an affidavit "A" of the Mr:�t ior�, tr:� Dismiss, pp. 50-51' C. T. A. Records) and corroborated by the affidavit of Atty. Magdaler,a R. Chief, Appellate Division, Legal Set~vice, Bureau of Customs on August 22, 1991 Petitioner's Opposition to the Motion to Dismiss disputes the foregoing allegations of respondent by stressing that Atty. Manuel M. Hechanova is the only counsel of record of petitioners, having singly filed and signed all the pleadings below; that Atty. Nilda A. Torrevillas denies having entered any appearance as collaborating counsel nor as joint counsel for the petitioners during the administrative proceedings. Atty. Ni 1 da A. Tm~t~ev i 11 as fm~t het~ avet~s that "while it is true that the undersigned counsel got a copy of the dec is i r:�r� on J' tme E~O, 1991, she act ua 11 y dated het~ receipt thereof as June 28, 19'31 for the simple 275

RESOLUTION C.T.A. CASE NO. 4634 3- reason that she was not then the counsel of record xxx, nor a collaborating counsel of Atty. Manuel M. Hechanova and neither was she the duly authorized representative of the petitioners as she was only requested by the sister of the manager of Remal Enterprises, one of the pet i t i oner~s, to verify if there was already a decision in the office <Opposition to the Motion to Dismiss, pp. 69-70, C.T.A. Records). Based on the facts of the case, par~t i cu 1 at~ 1 y considering that Atty. N1lda A. Torrevillas admits to actually receiving a copy of the decision on June 20, 1991, prescription had already overtaken the case for petitioners when they filed their case on July 24, 1991. It is unavailing for petitioners to argue that Atty. Nilda A. Torrevillas was not then counsel of record when sh e re c eived copy of the decision. The facts show that upon receipt of the decision, Atty. Ni lda A. Torrevillas signed on the Record Book "Received copy XXX Remal Phi 1. Allied, Armstrong, Tyremart, A1 pco" aY�d this coY"�Y"�ot es that she was acting for and in behalf of petitioners. This is also contrary to her allegation that she secured the copy of the decision only for Remal Ent er~pr~ i ses. Ordinar1ly, under the rules of agency, the acts of an unauthorized person, or an agent who acts 27b

RESOLU T ION C.T . A. CASE NO. 463 4 - 4- beyond the scope of his authority may not be taken against the principal <Article 1910 Civil Code). Here, however, the subsequent preparation and signing of the petition for review by Atty . Ni lda A. Torrevillas can be taken to mean as an impl1ed ratificat1on by her principals of her prev1ous act of rece1v1ng the decis1on on their behalf. 1'310, supra ). Her princ1pals, the petit1oners in this case, are now estopped from deny1ng th1s authority she exercised. The principle of estoppel mandates that when one party is led to believe some fact, tht'CII.tgh the representat i on of the other party, then such fact is rendered conclus1ve upon the person mak i ng the representat1on and cannot be denied aga 1nst the person relying thereon. Thus, where the decis1on of the Commissioner of Customs was received by petitioners on June 20, 1991, they ortly had �.mtil July 20, 1991 to file an appeal with this Co urt . S inc e t he Petit ion for Review was rece1ved by the Court only on July 24, 1991 the same should be considered as having been f1led beyond the pet'iod artd cartnot ar.ymot'e be ACCORDINGLY , the Motion t o Dismiss the petit1on for review is GRANTED on the ground that the pet1t1on 2 t-j ,_ ) { t'

RESOLUTION � C.T.A. CASE NO. 4634 - 5- had been filed beyond the prescriptive period as pt~ovided fot~ ir1 Sectior1 11 of Republic Act No. 1125. SO ORDERED. Quezon City, Metro Manila, July 7 1992. t,.... ?:= cz.a..~ LES ERNESTO D. ACOSTA ge Pt~esid i r1g Judge 278