R33 CAR EXCHANGE v. BUREAU OF CUSTOMS headed by the COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS

CTA Form No.8 11111111111111111111111111111111 IIIII 1111111111111111111111111111111111111111111 22-000383-0024 REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES COURT OF TAX APPEALS QUEZON CITY SPECIAL FIRST DIVISION CTA CASE N0.10950 R33 CAR EXCHANGE, Petitioner, -versus- NOTICE OF RESOLUTION BUREAU OF CUSTOMS headed by the COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, Respondent. To: OFFICE OF THE COMMISSIONER Bureau of Customs G/F, OCOM Building, 16th Street South Harbor, Port Area, Manila ASSISTANT SOLICITOR GILBERT U. MEDRANO ASSOCIATE SOLICITOR II LANZ AIDAN L. OLIVES ASSOCIATE SOLICITOR II LEANDRO MARl B. MANABAT ASSOCIATE SOLICITOR I NOE M. BAUTISTA ASSOCIATE SOLICITOR I JACINTO JERICO D. DELAROSA IV Office of the Solicitor General 134 Amorsolo St., Legaspi Village, 1229 Makati City R. A. TAGLE LAW 702 Trame Street Brgy. Manuyo Uno Las Piii.as City J AT & ASSOCIATES LAW FIRM Unit 214, SID Center, National Highway Barangay San Pedro, Puetto Prinsesa City GREETINGS: You are hereby notified by these presents that on July 6, 2023, a Resolution was rendered in the above-entitled case, copy of which is attached hereto. Quezon City, Philippines, July 12, 2023. . Chan-Te urt II

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES COURT OF TAX APPEALS QUEZON CITY SPECIAL FIRST DIVISION R33 CAR EXCHANGE, CTA Case No.10950 Petitioner, -versus- Members: DEL ROSARIO, PJ, Chairperson, MANAHAN, and REYES-FAJARDO, J]. BUREAU OF CUSTOMS headed by the COMMISSIONER OF Promulgated: CUSTOMS, Respondent. )(--- ----------- ---- - - - ------ - - - RESOLUTION In the Pre-Trial Conference (PTC) held on March 23, 2023, respondent moved, and the Court dismissed this case for failure of petitioner's counsel to appear in said proceeding, sans valid cause.1 In its bid2 to reconsider said dismissal, petitioner argues that: (1) its Pre-Trial Brief with Manifestation of Change of Address was filed three (3) days prior to PTC; and (2) its counsel indeed failed to appear in such PTC; yet, the latter filed with the Court, and served upon respondent, a Motion for Cancellation and Resetting on March 22, 2023. By these reasons, petitioner prays that the order of dismissal be lifted, along with another setting of PTC. See Order dated March 23,2023. Docket, unpaginated. 2 Petitioner's Motion for Reconsideration, filed on April4, 2023. Id. unpaginated.

RESOLUTION CTA Case No . 10950 RULING The dismissal stands. Foremost, we acknowledge that petitioner indeed filed through registered mail, its pre-trial brief on March 20, 2023. However, petitioner failed to sufficiently justify the non-appearance of its counsel in the PTC. Specifically, Spouses Sibay, et al. v. Spouses Bermudez (Sibay)3 ruled that the situation justifying counsel's absence is one which is unavoidable and one that could not have been foreseen. Sibay added that the reason for counsel's absence in a court proceeding must be duly substantiated: ... We, likewise, find the counsel's absence as 11 not unavoidable and one that could not have been foreseen'' considering that the July 29, 2008 hearing was set with prior agreement of the parties and consultation with their respective calendars, four months in advance. In some instances, resort to postponements may be allowed because of extraordinary circumstances - such as a party's or counsel's sudden death, force majeure or an act of God rendering impossible the accomplishment of its purpose. Here, no such circumstances existed. Loreto Sibay grounded his motion on an unsubstantiated claim of illness, while his counsel's excuse is conflict of schedule. Even if these w ere true, there is still no reason why both Loreto Sibay and his counsel could not have submitted his medical certificate, or fix the schedule and file the motion for postponement, seasonably.4 Like Sibay, petitioner's counsel failed to validate his claim that he transferred to Puerto Princesa, Palawan, as required by Section 3, Rule 155 of the Rules of Court, as amended, through presentation of affidavits and papers. Further, the circumstance claimed by petitioner is not unavoidable or unforeseen. In addition, petitioner's counsel already knew of the scheduled PTC, as early as January 26,2023.6 If he was indeed planning to move to Palawan, he could have earlier filed a motion for postponement or resetting. Yet, petitioner's counsel only 3 G.R. No. 198196, July 17, 2017. 4 Citations omitted . Italics in the original. 5 Section 3. Conten ts. - A motion shall state the relief sought to be obtained and the grounds upon which it is based, and if req uired by these Rules or n ecessary to prove facts alleged therein, shall be accompanied by supporting affidavits and other papers. (Boldfacing supplied) 6 Par. 1, counsel for petitioner's Motion for Cancellation and Resetting. Docket, unpaginated.

RESOLUTION CTA Case No. 10950 filed a Motion for Cancellation and Resetting at the eleventh hour- March 22, 2023, or one (1) day before such scheduled PTC on Marr-h 23, 2023. Besides, petitioner contributed to its counsel's non- appearance in the scheduled PTC-the former failed to provide the latter a plane ticket to attend said proceeding? On the strength of the above observations, respondent may not be blamed in moving, and the Court granting, the dismissal of this case, based on petitioner's counsel unwarranted absence to appear in the PTC: AS DELAROSA: Your Honors, upon reading the Motion for Cancellation and Resetting, we respectfully request for the dismissal of this case, your Honors. We oppose the motion and we request for dismissal of this case. Pursuant to the Revised Rules of Court, a Motion to Postpone is prohibited if it is intended for delay. After perusing, after reading the Motion for Cancellation and Resetting[,] it is indeed just for the purpose of delaying the proceedings. JUSTICE FAJARDO: Okay. Your motion is GRANTED. The Motion for Cancellation and Resetting dated March 22, 2023 is DENIED for failure to justify the non-appearance today and the rules specifically provide for a meritorious ground which includes only acts of God and the reason propounded by petitioner is not a meritorious ground for the cancellation of today's pre-trial conference. 8 WHEREFORE, petitioner's Motion for Reconsideration, filed on April4, 2023, is DENIED, for lack of merit. 7 See Par. 3, petitioner's Motion for Cancellation and Resetting. Docket, unpaginated. s Page 3, Transcript of Stenographic Notes of Hearing held on March 23, 2023. Boldfacing supplied.

! RESOLUTION ! CTA Case No. 10950 Page 4 of4 SO ORDERED. Presiding Justice c~~/, ~ CATHERINE T. MANAHAN Associate Justice ~ ~ r � -~='aJa~ MARIAN 1.Jli F. REYES-FAJARDO Associate Justice