CTA Case No. 3106 (Decision)

REPU BLIC 0 T HE PHILIPPINE C ) URT OF TAX PPEALS QU EZON CITY r \ ANTON IO COLAO, Petit i Qner , - .versus - C.T eA. CASE NOo 31 06 COI~ISSI ONER OF CUSTOMS , Respondent s X - ~ - - ~ ~ ~ ~ - - .- � GOLDEN LANE SOCIETA A RESPONSIBILITA LIMI~ATA , Petitioner , - versus - C.T. A. CASE NO . 3107 COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, Respond~ n t . X- ~ - - - - - - - - - - X I 'I I DE C I S I 0 N Orig~na~ing in Customs Di~trict II I, Man i la Inte r- national Air port, B~ reau of Cu stoms , as Se i zure I dent i - fication No. 1441-7 6 , with petiti oner Antonio Colao , a n I talian national , as claimant, this appeal i nvolves the .. seizure o f var i ous jewelc les listed in Inventory Report � dated March 17, 1976 , w.hich were t urn ed over to the Customs Di strict by the MetrOi>9l i tC<..n. Police Command or "Me tr ocom" for brevity . Seizure proceedings were ins tituted against said jewelries by t he C usto~ ~ au thor ities for violation of Secti on 2505; Section 25301 pcmtragraph (m) '� s~ b-paragraphs 1 , 2 and 5 ; Section 2530, par.a~r--aph (f)'� all of the Ta riff and Cu s toms Code as amended by Pres i dential Decree No. 34, � 253

DECISION - . CTA CASES NOS . 3106 & 107 - 2- in rel ation to Central Bank Circular No. 247 as amended 8 The pertinent facts as found by t he District Collector of Customs who r eceived the evidence are : Petitioner Anton i o Colao, together with Mr . and Mrs . �Romulo Lombardi , � arrived at the Ma~a I nter national Airport on November 26, 1975 on board a PAL-~L fli ght from Europe . Among the article~ brought in by peti tioner Colao were assorted jewelr�-ies , now subject matter of this appeal . Without submitting a baggage declaration nor making any declaration of these jewelries befor e the airport Cu stoms authorities as req~ired by Customs l aw and r egulat i ons , Colao was ab l e to clear his baggage and to bring ou t with him sai d j ewelr ies . It appears that , subsequently , pet itioner An t onio Colao had been the subject of surveillance , and his ~ctivities ha d been closely watched by military agents & It was reported that An t onio Colao , t ogether with Mr . and Mrs . Romulo Lombard i, went to the house of Mrs. Marietta �- Santos a t Forbes Park, Makati, Metro Manil a_., and the afore-~aid jewelr ies weFe s hown and offered for sale to Mrs e Santos. The je�,relr ies were also shown and offered for sale t o the Co j uangco s~ the Yules, and the Kat igba ks of the same subdivision. However , as soon a s Col ao and companions had l eft the gate of Fofbes Park , a group of Metrocom agents headed by Lt. Nes tor Sanares apprehended them, after which they were brought to Fort Bonifacio for investigation . Found in the possession of Antonio Colao were the assorted ~54

'' DECI SI ON - CTA CASES NOS . 3106 & 3107 - 3- jewelr i e s now s~ bj ect ma tte r of the se p roceedi ngs . On March 17, 1976 , the Me tr opoli t a n Polic e Command , or Metr ocom , r epresente d by i t s Comm and i ~g Of fi c e r, t ur ne d ove r t he j e welries to t he ~ i stric t Col l e c tor o f Cus t oms of the Manila I n te rn ~ t i ona l Ai rpo r t f o r se i zur e proc e ed i ng s . Seizure proceed ings were t hus institut ed against s aid jewe ~ r i es by the Cus t oms a uthor iti e s f o r v i ola t i on of Section 2505 ; Section 2530 , paragraph ( m) ~ sub- par agraphs 1 , 2 and 5 1 Secti on 2530 , par ag raph ( f )~ a l l of t he Tarif f and Customs Code a s amended by Pr e siden t i al Decr ee No . 34 , i n r e l a ti on tQ Centr a l Ban k Ci rcu l ar No . 247 as amende d , in t he c a se enti tled "Repu bl i c of t he Ph ilipp ine s vs . Var ious J ewelr ies l i s t e d i n Invento ry Repor t dated Marc h . 17 , 197 6 and Apri l 17 , 19 76 , r e s pec t i ve ly, An t on io Colao, claiman t " , Sei zu r e I de nt i ficat i on. No . 1 44 1-~ 6 . I n a deci sion da ted Ma r c h 19, 19 79 , th e Collector o f C u st~ms of the Man i la I nternat i onal Airpor t dec l ared the forf e iture o f t he jewe l rie s i n f avor :of the Re public of t he Phili pp i ne s to he disposed of in the manner pres - of c ribed by� l aw . Copy s~i d decision was r eceived by pe titioner An tonio 9o1ao on April 20 , 1979 . � On Ma y 7, 1979, pe t a' b i an e r Colao f iled h is notice of appea l be fo re respondel"lt Comm i ssi oner o f Cus t oms . The requir e d c us toms stamp ot ~1 0. 0 0 as fil i ng f e e was no t howeve r affixed t o the not i ce o f a ppe al o Meanwh ile , on .. �255 ..

DECISION - CTA CASES NOS . 3106 & 3107 - 4- J uly 26 , 1979 , petit i oner Gdden Lane Societa A Responsibilita Limi t ata (Go lde n Lane fo r short) l i led wi t h r esponden t Comm i ss i oner of Cu stoms its mo t i on f or i n~ervention . on Oc t obe r 5 , 1979 , respondent Comm i ss ione r o f Customs i ssued an Or der d i smiss i ng pet itioner Colao's appeal for the l att e r '� failure to affix . the cu s toms s tamp of PlO. OO as required by ~ aw. Copy of sa i d or de r was rece i ve d e ach by pet i tioner Colao and by petitione r Go lde n Lane on Novembe r 29 , 1979 e On Decembe r 12 , 1979, pe ti t i oner Colao fil ed wi th responden t Commissioner o f Customs hi s mot ion for r e c onsi- deration of the l a tter� � orde r of d ismi ssal , contend i ng , allegedly , excusable neg ligence . And on i ts part , peti - tioner Golden Lane f i l e d also with re sponden t on Dec ember 1 3 , 197 9 , an Omnibu s Mo tion adopting petitioner Co lao 0 � moti on f or reconsideration . On Apr il 24 , 1980, however , responde n t Commiss i one r . of Cust oms i ssued an Order de ny ing for l acK o f meri t pe t i - � ' tione rs �� .mo ti on for rec:o-ns ider a tion . Cop ies of sa i d order were r ece i ved by pe titiP~r Antoni o Colao and pe titione r Golden Lane on May 15 , -9~0 . Hence, the pr e sen t jo i ~t pe t ition for review fil ed be f o r e th i s Cou rt on June 11 , 1980 by petitione r An ton i o Co l a o and petit i one r Golden Lane s .. 256 -- ---------

DECISION - CTA CASES NOS. 3106 & � 3107 5 Ins tead of answering the joint pe tition f or review, respondent file d on August 25, 198 0 a motion to dism i ss the appeal based on lac k of jurisdiction Ol} t he ground t ha t the decisions of the Col1ectpr of Customs of the Manila International Airport and the Commissioner of Cu stoms had become fi nal and executory. In ' a Resolu~ion dated April 12, 1~82, this Court deferred the determination of the jurisdic t ional ques tion raised in responden t'~ ~otion to dismiss and to con sider the same submitted together with the princ ipal issue on the mer i ts of the case, i t appearing that the jurisdictional gromdraised by respondent did not appear to be indubitable at that time . The issues here presented are therefor e: (1 ) whether or not this Court has juri sd iction ove r this case� and (2) ~hether or not there was violation of the Tariff and Customs Code . .. Jurisdict i on over the subject matte r is fun amental for a court to act on a given controversy. It is conferred by l aw . It can be challenged at any stage of the proceed- . ings an d f o r lack of it, a court can dismiss a case ex me ro !!!2.E!.� To inqui re into the e~dstence of jurisdiction over the subject matter is the primar y c oncern of a c ou rt, for thereon would depend the valid ity of the entire proceedings. (Comm is sioner of Inte rnal Revenue vs. Leonardo s. Villa and .. 257 I.

DEC IS ION - CTA CASES NOS. 3106 & 3107 �1 - 6- I, The Cour t o f Tax Appea l s , L-23 988 , J anuar y 2, 196 8 , 22 l SCRA 4, and c ase s c ited t he rein.) ! In invoking l ack of jur isdicti on of thi s Court over J the c ase on the ground that t he decisions of the Collector 1 of Customs of the Manila I nternationa l Air port an d Comm is- I s ione r of Customs had become fi nal and execu t ory, respondent I argu~s~ I Dec i sion of the Collector of Customs has become I fi nal and executory . I Se ction 231 3 of the Tar iff and Cu stoms Code provides : I " Review by Commiss ioner . t Th e person aggr i eved by the decision or action of the Col- l l ector i n any matter presented upon protest or by his action 1 in any c ase of seizure may, within f i fteen (1 5) days after " 1 notification in writing by the Collector of his action or de- 1 c ision, give written not ice to t he Collector and one copy f ur - I nished t o the Commissioner of his desire to have t he ma tte r I revi ewed by the Commiss i oner . Thereupon t he Co l lec tor s hal l l f orthwith t ransm i t all the re- cords of the proceedings to the I Commissioner , who shal l appr ove , modify or reverse the action or l deci sion of the Co llec t or a nd t ake such steps and ma ke such l or ders as may be ne ce ssar y to give effect to his dec i s i on ." l (As amended by P.D. No. 34 ) Additionally , pa r . VII , CAO No . 226 da ted Decembe r 3, 1957 of the Bu reau of Cu stoms provi des : "The person aggrieved by the dec i s i on or action of a 258

DECISION - CTA CASES NOS. 3106 & 3107 - 7- Collector of Customs in any matter presented upon protest or by hi s action in any case of seizure pursuant to Sect ion 2312 of the Cus t oms Law of the Ph ilippine s may gi ve a wri tten notice to the Coll ector of Cus- t oms of his desi re to have the ma tter r ev iewed by t he Comm is- s i oner of Customs . Such not ice of appeal mus t be filed in trip- .. lica te wi t hi n f i ft e en (15) days includ i ng Sundays and l ega i hol- idays , f rom receip t by t he a g- grieved par ty or his au thorized r epr esentative of written noti- fication of t he action or decision s ought s ha ll be s ubject t o a filing fee of Pl O.O O in customs stamp and sha ll, t ogeth e r with the reco r ds of t he case, be forthwith transmit- t ed by the Collector to t he Commis- s ioner of Customs ." It i s not disputed by the parties tha t the decision �of t he Collector of Customs dated March 19, 1979 was rec e i ved by petitioner on April 20, 1 979 . Petitioners, therefore, had lS days from April 20 , 19 79 or up to May 5, 1979 within which to appeal to respondent Commissioner of Customs. It is a condition pr ecedent , however, tha a ten- peso customs stamp be affixed to the notice of appeal, s uch stamps being in the nature of filing f ee . Pe tition e rs fil e d t heir notice o~ a ppeal on Ma y 7, 1979 (Exh. "2" ), t wo 2) days after t he ~eg l ementary peri od of fifteen � (1 5) days within wh ich t o a ppea l the Collector' s decision and without affixing the aforesa id customs stamp as required by Customs Administrative Order No . 226 in r e l a tion to Sec t ion 3301 of the Tariff and Cu s toms Code . Such failure is fatal to t heir appeal and , consequent ly, the appealed decision had became f inal and executory . So it has been held that: " The stamp requirement i s in the nature of a docket fee and f a ilure to pay the docket .~ 259

1 DECIS I ON - CTA CASES NOS . 310 6 & I 3107 I -8 .J f ee f or appeals on time is f atal . " lj (Lipa t v. Comm . of Custo ms , .T . A. Case No . 1 442, Oc t . 26, 19 66 ) l " The period of 1 5 days prescr ibed Ij b y l aw f or a n appeal in cases of f or- f eiture i s n o t a ma tte r o f p roc edu r e I which t he court may ignor e. Th e p r o- vi sions of customs l a w, like those of I t he i nternal revenue code , are no t d i- r ectory but mandatory, x x x . I t is .! beyond t he power o f the c ourts to ext end th e period f o r appea l s . " (Chan i a n v. i C.T .A ., e t a l ., G. R. ro . L-1218 4 , May 26 , 1959 ) I I "The period o f 15 da ys p rescribed by l aw f or an appeal i n c ase s of f o r - j f eiture i s n ot a mat t er of pr o c edu e wh i c h the courts may i g nore. The p rov is ions of 1 the Customs Law , like those of the i n t ernal r evenue code , a re not d i r ect ory mer e l y but I mandator y The p e ri o d for a n a p p eal i s fixed by l aw at 15 da y s in o rder t hat pe - I n a l ties fo r vi ola ti o n o f the l aw s or rul es I on i mportati o n should be decide d p romptly and expedi tiou s ly a s de l a y s t h e r ei n may � 1 r esult in t he c l ogging of cu s toms areho use s wi th me rchand ise ill egally i mpo rte d . It i s I beyond the power o f the courts t o e x t e nd t he per i od of appeal " (Shanghai Ting Ting Soy I Factor y vs . Cour t of Tax Appea ~s and the Co l lector o f Cu stoms , 47 OG., 8 661 ) I The assailed deci s i on having become final I and executory, the Comm i ss i on e r of Customs h a d I .... n o o ther r ecourse bu t t o di smiss t he appeal � I Likewise , the deci sion of the Commissione.r of Customs had become fina l and executory . Under Sect ion 11 , Republic Ac t No. 1 125 , as amended, creating the Cour t of (Tax ) Appeals , "any person , associ ation or corpora t i o n �a dve rsely affected by a decision o r r uling o f the X X X Commissioner o f Custom s may f i le an a ppea l i n th e Cour t o f Tax Appeal s wi thi n 30 d a y s af t e r receipt of such decision o r ruling'' {unde rscor i ng supplied ) ~ The record of th i s case shows that the appealed Order dated Oc to be r 5 , 1 9 79 (Exh . " 3 11 ) o f t he Commissioner of Customs d en y ing pet i tioner s 9 a ppea l was received by bo th o f the m on Novembe r 2 9 , 197 9 (Exhs . "3- A" & "3~Bn) . Th i s f act , pe ti- t ioners a dmi t. Th e ir j oint p et it i on s f or rev i ew 26 0

T l I i DEC I SION - CTA CAS ES NOS . 3106 & { j 310 7 II -9 - l 1 in CTA Cases Nos 3106 and 3107 so allege (PP e 4-~ , par . 7 )~ thus: "7 . n the meantime , how- ever , petitioner Colao r eceived on November 29 , 1979 , a copy of the order of t he r espondent Com- missioner, dated October 5, 1979 (Annex "B" , hereof) , dismissing the appeal on the ground that petiti oner fai ed to affix the ~10 .00 customs stamp on t he ap- '� peal on time o Said petitioner fil ed on December 12 , 1979 a motion f or the reconsi deration of the order, on the ground that the failure to aff ix the ~10 . 0 0 customs stamp on the appeal at the ti me i t was filed by the comp la inant was due to e xcusa- ble mistake and neg ligence . 8 . I n the meant i me al s o , petitioner Golden Lane , as owner of t he j ewe lri es, fil ed a mot ion for i ntervention with the respon- dent , dated J u y 26 , 1979 . No ac t ion �was taken on said motion . for in tervent i on . On ovember 29, 1979 , counsel for the i nt er venor received a copy of the order of the respondent Commis- . sioner denying the appeal on the ground t hat although an appeal .. was filed within the 15-day perio~, the PlO . OO customs stamp was af- fixed out of time (Annex "C" here of) . I n tervenor then filed an Omnibus Mo ti on, dated December 12 , 1979 , wherein it adopted the motion for reconsideration filed by the claimant Colao and in t he alternative prayed that his motion f or i ntervent ion and supporting memorandum be con- . sidered as an independen t claim." Petitioners had 30 days fr om November 29, 1979 or up to December 29 , 1979 , within which to I I I 261 I I I 1 I

rI 1 II l DECISION - CTA CASES NOS. 3106 & 3107 - 10 - file th~ petit i on for review before the Court of Tax Appeals . On December 12 , 1979, after a lapse of 13 days , they filed their motions for reconsideration of the above Order, which was denied by the Commissioner of Customs per reso- lution dated Apr il 24, 1980. Copies of said Order were received by petitioners on May 15 , 1980 (Exhs. "6" & "6-~")~ (This fact is admitted by private respondents as per their allegations in page 1 of the ir petition for review, in CTA Cases No. 3106 and 3107). Petitioners, therefore, h,ad 17 days from Hay 15, �1980 (after deducting the '13 days that have elapsed when they fil ed thei r motion s for recons i deration) within which to file their appeal before the Court of Tax Appeals or up to June 1 , 1980. Petitioners filed their appeal only on June 11, 198 0 , which was ten (10 ) � days beyond the reglemen tary period of 30 days. � Consequently , the assailed Order has become final and executory as of June 2, 1980 (Eduardo Sales vs. Commis sioner of Customs, CTA Case - ~an. 31 , 1967 , infra) �. The thi rty-qay per iod prescr i bed by Section 11 of RA 1125 , as amended , within which a tax- payer adversely affected by a decision of the Commissioner of Internal Revenue (in this case the Commissioner of Customs) should. file his appeal with the Tax Court, is a jurisdictional requirement, and the fa ilure of a taxpayer to take such step within the prescribed period bars his appeal and renders t he questioned decision fin al and executory (Su ri gao Electric Co . vs . CTA, 57 SCRA 528; Act ing Commiss ioner;'. vs . Joseph, et a l., 5 SCRA 895; Republic vs. Kim Tian Teng Sons & Co ., I nc. , � 16 SCRA 584; Republic vs . de l Rosario, 105 Ph il. 27 7; Uy Ham vs. Republic , G.R. 13809 , Oct . 20, 1959; underscoring supplied)~ In North Camarines Lumber Co., Inc. vs. Collector of Internal Revenue (G R. L-12353, Sept. 30, 1969; 6 Velayo ' s Digest 419 ) ,� this Honorable Court declared that for the Tax Court to have jur isdiction over any case , the party seeking redres s must fir st invoke its exerc ise in the manne r and within the time prescribed by law. Thus Section 7 of RA 1125 which enumerates the specific cases falling .. within the jurisdiction of the Court of Tax Appeals, must be read together with Section 11, 26 2 I

DECISI ON - . CTA CAS ES NOS. 3106 & 3107 - 11 - which fixes th e time for invoking s aid j uris- diction . I ndeed6 as contended by r espondent, thi s issue is not one of first i mpression. Aside from t he c ases cited by respondent, supra, in C.B. Antolin Enterpri ses , et al ., vs . Commis sione r of Cus t oms , C.T.A. Cas e No . 1435 , J an uar..y �14 , 1965, where t he f actual setting is similar to t ha t i n the c ase at ba r, t his Co ur t une quivocally established t he r ul e that f a i lure to comply f ully with the stamp re- quiremen t a s mandated unde r Parag raph VII of Cus toms Admi- ni strat i ve Or der No . 226 , is f a t a l and t h is Court cannot a c qu ire j uri sdicti on ove r the c a se. Bec ause of i t s con- trol ling e ffects on . the pr e s ent case, we will quote at l ength from the decision . Bu t it is respondent' ~ the ory that, even gran ting a r guendo that the petitioner's appeal was filed wi th in the reglementary period prescribed by law, nevertheless, the failure of t he petitioners to comply with the require- . me n t s of Parag r aph VII of Customs Adm inistr~tive Order No. 226 dated Dec ember 3, 1957, wh ich reads as f ol l ows : "The per son aggr ieved by the decision or action of a collector of cu stoms in any matter presented upon pr otest or by his action in any c a s e of se i zure pu r su~n t to section 2312 of th e Tar i f f an~ Customs Code of the Ph i l ippines ma y g i ve a written notice to t he eollector of Customs of his desire to have the matter revi ewed by the Commi s sion e r of Cu s toms . Such notic e of appeal must be fi led in tripl icate within fif t een (15) days, including Sundays and legal hoiidays, from .. rece i pt by the aggrieved party or his 263

. DECISION - CTA CASES NOS. 3106 & 3107 - 12 - authorized representative of wri t ten notification of the action or decis i on sought to be reviewed . The notice of appeal shall be subject to a f i ling fee of PlO in customs stamp and shall, to- . gether with the records of the case, be forthwi t h transmi~ted by the Collector to the Commissioner of Customs. ' made th e decis i on of the Collector final, executory and unappealable . ~ From the above-quoted administrative order , it can be gathered that in order to perfect an appeal to the Commissioner of Cu s t oms, the following requi- s ites should be complied with , to wit: (1) filing of a written notice of appeal within fifteen days from the rece i pt of the Collector'� decision or ac t ion in any case of seizure a nd (2) payment of the f iling fee of ~10 .00 in c ustoms stamps . As has been shown above, the petitioners were able to file their written notice of appeal to the Commissioner of Customs within the reglementary per iod of fifteen days. Howeve r, they paid a f i ling fee of only ~10 . 00 for all of the fifteen seizure cases covered by this case. To our min6, this failure to co~ply ful ly with Paragraph VII of Customs Administrat ive Order No 266 is fatal in the sense that we cannot take cog- nizance of Seizure Identification Nos . 161 , 1631, 1634, 1646, 1654, 1685 , 1701, 1703 , 1785, 1803 , 1807, 1809, 1810 and 1812. It seems already well- settled tha t the payment of the full amo unt of the docket fee is an ind ispensable step in the perfection of an appeal (Lazar.o vs. Endencia, 57 Ph il. 552 ), and upon failure of the appellant in a civil case to pay . the said fee, the appeal is deemed abandoned (Salavaria vs. Albindo, 39 Phil . 922; Alvero vs. de la Roxas, 76 Phil . 4 28 ; Ampang Tan vs . Commis- sioner o f Customs, C.T.A. Case No. 92 , April 2, 1956). Invoking interest of justice , petitioners however contend that their failure to affix the ten- peso customs stamp on their appeal at the time it was filed was an honest mistake or accident. Petitioners' position on 264

DECISION - CTA CASES NOS. 3106 & i 31 0 7 I - 13 - \ this point calls to mi nd Al f redo E. Lipat vs . Comm issione r of Customs, C.T.A. Case No. 1442, October 26, 1966, the factual setting of which is identical to that in the instant appeal, and where this Court disposed of the same conten tion in clear and unambiguous terms, in the following wi se : .. The 15- qay period men t ioned in the foregoing. e xcerpt has been interpreted as not merely pro- . cedural bu t j urisdictional, not directory but mandatory, and unextendi ble by Courts. Said the Supreme Court in Chan Ki an vs. The Court of Tax Appeals and the Collector of Customs (G.R. No. L-12184, May 29, 1959)~ "The petition admits that a copy of the decision of the Collector of Cu s toms was furnished the petitioner on October 24 , 1955 . But he claims that he believed from t he notice received from the Collector of � Cu stoms that the period within which he s hould appeal was 30 days from the date of demand for p a yment~ that his failure to appeal within 15 days was due to an honest mi s ta ke. This is the gist of the br i ef filed in his behalf by his counsel. I is argued in support of this claim tha a rule of proce dure may be overlooked if ~ it does not involve a public policy and when a lapse in proc e du re a rise s from an honest mistake � or an un fors ee n e vent not prejudicial to the adverse pa rty. We find no merit in this argume n t . The period of 15 days prescribed by law f or an appeal in cases of forfeiture \ is not a matter o f procedure which courts .I may i gno r e . The provi s ions of the customs law, like those of the internal revenue code , are not di rectory merely but mandatory. The period for an appeal is fixed by l aw at 15 days in order that penalties for violations of the laws or rule s on importation may be promptly enforced . Questions involvi ng forfeiture s hould be decided pr,omptly and expeditiously, as delays therein may result � 265

\ I� I, � I I DECISION - . CTA CASES NOS. 3106 & . 3107 I - 14 - I in the clogging of customs warehouses with merchandise illegally i mported& It is beyond the power of the courts to extend the period for appeal. The Comm i ssioner of Customs and the Court of Tax Appeals acted correctly in dis- missing the appeal of the petitioner, as it was not fil ed within the period of 15 days prescr i bed by law." Aga in, the settled rule in this j ur i sdic t i on is that tardiness of one day in the filing of an appeal i s� sufficient to bar an appeal (Juan G. de Rodriguez vs . Hon. Enrique Ae Fe rn andez , e t al., G.R. No 8 L-1082 3 , May 28, 1957 )~ "We d9 not agree t hat 't.he ends of j ustice wou ld be better subserved' .by allowing an appeal presented 'o.nly one day late .� There i s no basis in fact, law, or reason for such conclusion. On the contrary , these considerations mi li tate against i t : (1 ) The orderly adrnh i stration of justice would su ffer a drawback if the period for perfecting appeals be rendered uncert ain , as it would be, by sanctioning such transgression of the deadline . ( 2) The appea~ed decision is presumed by law to �be just and correct , and therefore the denial of the appeal does not necessa rily imply an injustice to the appellant. (3) The right to appeal is a purely statutory right, and he who wants to exerci se it must comply with the ~tatute.' (Leoncia Reyes vs. The Cou rt of Appeals and En rique Baut i sta , No. 48960 , June 29, 19 43 , 74 Phil. 238.) . Lastly, it is not den ied t hat the appeal of t he petitioner had no customs stamp of PlO . OO as requir ed by Customs Admin i s trative Order No . 22 6 when it was filed . The necessary stamps were sent to t he Bureau of Cus toms only on May 15, 19 61 wi t h a request that same be attached to the notice of appeal . To our mind, the stamp requireme nt is i n t he nature of a docket fee and good author ity is to the effect that failur e to pay the docket fee for appeals on t ime is fa tal (Adriano Valdez , vs. Rodrigo Ocurnen, et al., G.R. No . L-~35 36 , J an . 29, .. 1 960 ) �. 266

I' DECISION - CTA CASES NOS . 3106 & 3107 - 15 - We find no valid and cogent reason to modify, much less depart, fr om the conclusion reached i n Lipat vs . Commissioner of Customs, as expressed in t~e above-quoted opinion of the Court there, ~nd the same should resolve the identical problem now brought before us in these proceedings . To �this end , and bearing in mind that the customs stamp requ irement is in the nature of a docket fee, fai lur e to pay such fee within the 15-qay period for filing the appeal did not confer jurisdiction on the Comm issioner of Customs to t ake cognizance of the se proceedings. (See Ampang Tan vs. Commi ssioner , 10 6 Phil . 233 ; Ramon Roces vs. Commiss ioner, 10 6 Phil . 233. ) There having been no valid appeal from the decision dated March 19, 1979 of the Collector of Customs of the Manila In ter national Airport to r espondent Commissioner of Customs, i t fol lows that this Court has no jurisdictio. n to take cognizance of this case. Having arrived at 'this conclusion, we deem it unn ecessary to pass upon the question o f whether or not t he orde r of the Commissioner of Customs dated Oc tober 5 , 1979 had become final and executory, and the issue of whether or not there was violation of the Ta riff and Customs Code. WHEREFORE, the joint petition for re view is hereby di sm is~ed at pet itioners' ~osts . .' 267

DECISION - CTA CAS ES NOS . 310 6 & 3107 - 16 - SO ORDERED . Quezon Ci ty , Metro Man i l a, November 29 , 1 984 . WE CONCUR : " � ROAQUIN �" Judge E ' Z. ~ Associa t e Judge .�- .. 268 I