CTA Case No. 34 (Resolution)

ltEPUBLTC OF THE PHILIPPINES . CUUHT OF T AX AP.PEALS MANILA � B. FE:r:~; �NDO , .. 34 '"'\... � J. � u. C /'E NO. Pe t itioner , C. l'.L C r- .D. 35 - versus - EDILB,...'l".TO Y. Di..VID , cting Corr.miss:'..onGr 0f :;urtoms, Rr-sp')ndent . - - - - - - - - -x Petitioner , - versus - .t:;'DIL:GEITJ Y. Dt.llill, kctin,; Commissioner of Customs , H;:; spor..deat . y- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -x F . C Ba.::.�.LETO and 6-t P.E~ E . :;:,.,<:;t.r CJ , Petitiom'rs , - ver�sus - :..:UTLBEFTO Y. Df.VID , .. ctinr; Conm1 Lssione1� ">f .~usto:rrs , R :::,) ;ndent . x- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -x R~ c J L~ T I 0 ~ hcting on the h.otion to :Jismi.ss of counsel for the respondent, dated Jovembcr 24, 1954, on thE' ;:round that 11~hat has been app'2aled to this Court in each of the above-entitled cases i s an order of an incident&l or interlocutory anL' aUYlliary character of the respon- dent and not a final jud~::;r4ent V'llich [ive an end to litigati::ms , and it apparin[ : Tha t i.t is a fac t that what has been appealed to this Court in each of the above-entitled cases is an interlocutory order or judgment of the .,ct ing ,Commissio'ler of CuE'toms denyine: petitione rs! 1 otion l'o Lift �.. arrant of ~:E'izure and Jsi:E>ntbn;

.NOE'. 34, 35 c 36. - 2- Tl�at v.hat (" .::ction 7 of . epublic ...ct .�o . 1125 m.. ans by deci- �ions o the Commi~sloner of 'w�toms v.hieh co..J. bf' appealed to this Court, are j JdLJ11t nts or orders rendered by . aid t-o...missloner of Gustoms v�hich are fl.':'l.al in naturE> a_1d '1ot interlocut.)ry orders or jud.,)!lents ~~hich do not dispost:. C>f tlJ<::: case com)letely but Lave o~ett:.o ~till to be dons upon t:e merit~ as requ~r db Sections 1375 to 1382 of the ,jvised u.ministrat::.v C'Xle; 'l'hat tl.i.s vi t:VJ is in C:)llfor ..it~� ' .... tb ...:ection 2, � ule 41 , of th... ' u s of Court, the underlying philosophy of Vlhich is to aV'Jid multiplicity f app al in a single case; Th&t there is ~ore reason to apply sa:d ssction 2 of � ule 41 of tbe .ules of 8ourt in all the cases over V1Lich this Court '\'las conferred by epublic ct To . 125 exclusive appellatr. jurisdiction to reviev� on app al, considerinc that the principal purpose or 'l''hich this eourt v�as crc�ated is to expedit the disposal of tax and customs caA s � � 1-IE:.E.~.� [)T' , findlnr th motion to lismi::-s 1i' co,msel for the rHpo rl~ 1t well-founded , and \'i thout "Jbjectio, on the _t)art of coun- sel_ fo the petitioners, th same is hereby sustained, and all the above-entitled easEls dismissed ithout prejudice on the part of p ti- ti ~ ers of interposing an"Jthe~ appeal to this C urt after all the requisite~ of SectiJ~S 137~ to 1382 of the .2vised 'd~inistrative Cocie have been corr.plhd with. \. ith costs a ainst petitioners . SO OFD:.. _;) . I anila , hilip)ines , December 17, 1954.