CTA Case No. 1006 (Resolution)

EFURUG OF THE PHILIPPIN COUKT OF MANUA TAX APPEALS 3

ACE PUBLICATICNS. Petitioner. INC

- versus.- C.I.A.CASE NO. 1006

THE COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS and THE COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS Rospondent s.

RESOLUTION

This troats of the Motion to Diamiss" filed by

the respondents on April 3, 196l, far lack of Jurio-

diction. and the "omnibus Motion" filed hy the peti-

tioner on Apri1 25, l96l. praying among others that

said motion to disamiss be stricken off from the re-

cord and that the respondento be declared in default.

The record shows that the motion to dismiss

was filed by the respondento on April 3. 196l, and

copy thereof was sent by ordinary mail to counsel for

petitioner at Room 2ll Garcia Building. 636 Rizal

Avenue. Manila, as per notation at the bottoa left

hand corner of the laet page of the motion, Actually. the ovidence shows (Exhibit A-Motion) that caid copy was mailed at the Manila post office only on April l8.

i9el. and rccoived by counsels for petitioner on April

2l. l96l, that is six days after the hearing of said

motion which was held on April l5. l96l. Qbviously.

therefore. the petitioner was not in a position to filo

an opposition for lack of prior notice.

1 37

RESOLUTICN - C.T.A. CASE NO. 1006

-2

On tbe other hand. it likewise appears of record

that respondents acted in good faith in pressing upon

the motion te dismiss for they honestly beliovod that

a copy of the motion was sont on Apri1 3. 196l (ceo

Exhibit 2-Motion), that is twelve (l2) days prior to

the hearing of satd motion.

without however passing upon the merits of the respective contentions of both parties. this Court motu proprie, on the basis of the express adnission Contained

in the basic petition that up to now no actien was taken

by the respondents on its claim for refund (see pars.

5, 7. 9. ll. 13. and 15.Petition). decide the prin-

cipal issue of jurisdiction. This edmission is fatally

decisive on the main issue raiaed. inasmuch as this Court

has exclusive jurisdsction to review by appeal only dr Ciaions of the Commissioner of Internal Rovenue, Commis-

sioner of Custona. and Provincinl or City Boards of Ag

sessment Appnalo. Without a decision fron which an appeal

can be takan. the petition for roview is premature. as

In the caso at bar. (Sampaguita Shoe & Slipper Fastary vo.Commissioner of Customs.G.R. No. L-l028S.January 14, 1958;Hufino Lope & Sons, Ine. vo. Court of Tax Ap-

peel,G.R.No.L-9274. Februaxy i, 1957.

Tho pertsnent provision of Section 7, of Republic

Act No. llz statos.

Appeals shall oxercioe oxclusive appellata provided - jurisdiction to revicw iy appeal, as herein "Sec, 7. Jurindtction.- The Court of Tax

X X X

13 8

RESOLUTICN - C.T.A.CASEN01006

Custoas in cases involving liability far affected: fines, forfeitures or other pen- matters arising under the Customs Law ar Bureau'of Custons; custons duties, fees or other money charges, alties iposed in relation thereto; or cther other law or part of law administered by the seizureo detention or release of property (2) Dccisions of tho Commisuiener of

WHEREFORE, premises considered, the instant poti-

tion for reviow is hereby dismissed without pr judice+

SO ODERED.

Manila. May 29. 196l.

Presiding Judge MNIAOBL

WE CONCUR

Ssociate Judge SAO

D CT

ROMAN M. UMALI Associate Judge

13 9