CTA Case No. 255 (Resolution)

REPUBLIC OF Tim PHIT.TPPJNE COL;nf OF 1 aX All EAT� M\ I'\ S. OMBRA AMILBANGSA, Plaintiff, � - versus - C�.T.A. CASE NO. 255 ISIDRO ANGAM3CO, as Collector of Customs for the Port of Manila, Defendant. x- - ~ - ~ - - - - ~ ~ - - -x RESOLUTION Plaintiff is seeking to enjoin the defendant Collector of Customs for the Port of Manila from selling at public auction two shipments of garlic imported by plaintiff in 1955. Except for subsequent events, the facts of this case were recited in our Resolution of Decem~ ber 23, � 1955 in So Ombra Amilbangsa v. Manuel P. Manahan et al., c. T.Ao Case No. 221, We reproduce the facts as stated therein& "From the record of this case, the following facts have been preliminarily established. On August 29, 1955, there arrived in the Port of Manila five hun- dred eleven (511) bundles of garlic, ex S/S "Tungus", Reg. No. 1014, consigned to the petitioner, and declared in cus- toms entry No. 73959 series 1955, and supporting documents consisting of the commercial and consular invoices, a bill of lading~ and a Central Bank release certificate, Ref. No. ll48lo "On September 16, 1955, there arrived in the Port of Manila two hundred (200) bundles of garlic, ex S/S "'Seina", Reg. No. l098, . consigned to the petitioner and de- clared in customs entry Noo 78691, series 1955; and likewise duly accompanied by the corre$ponding commercial and consular in- voice a bill of lading and a Central BeAk release certificate, Ref. No. 11695.

' RESOLUTION - C.T.A. CASE NO. 255 - 2- 110n September 16, 1955, there arrived in the P'ort of Manila, three hundred seven- teen (317) bundles of garlic, ex S/S "Seina", Reg. No . 1098, series 1955, also provided with the usual supporting commercial and consular invoices, a bill of lading and a Central Bank release certificate, Ref. No . 11698o "The aforecited three shipments of garlic were imported under Bureau of Plant Industry Permit No. 12 dated January 25, 1955, issued in favor of the petitioner for 100,000 kilos of garlic bulbs for the pur- pose of having the same planted on the land of the petitioner in Tiptipon, Talipao, Sulu. "These three shipments in question were seizeQ by the respondent Collector of Customs upon instructions of the respondent Commis- sioner of Customs and in compliance with the directive, dated October 5~ 1955, of the Ca- binet . The directive and the warrant of � seizure were based on alleged violation of Section 1 of Republic ~ct Noo 1296, in rela- tion to Section 1363 (f) of the Revised Admi- nistrative Codeo 011 n November 25, 1955, the petitioner filed ~ before the respondent Collector of Gus- terns for the Port of Manila a motion to dis- miss the Seizure Identification Cases Nos . 3926 and 3827, which was denied by the latter in his order dated November 29, 1955. The motion for reconsideration filed by petitioner on December 2, 1955 was likewise denied by the same respondent Collector of Customs in an order dated December 5, 1955. "On December 7, 1955, the petitioner filed~before the respondent Collector of Customs a motion to have the seized garlic sold at public auction, which motion was denied in an ?rder dated December 16, 1955. "On December 17, 1955, the petitioner filed ~ before this Court his omnibus peti- tion for certiorari and mandamus with pre- liminary injunctioflo 11 / ~ embe~ 23,1955, ~ th~s Court resolved to deny the omnibus pefition for certiorari and mandamus with preliminary injunctiono The motion for reconsideration

RESOLUTION - C.T.A. CASE NOo 255 - 3- was likewise denied by resolution dated January 5, 1956o The case was subsequently elevated to the Supreme Court by certiorari, which was dismissed in G.R. Noo L-10162, January 26, 1956. In a notice of sale dated March 12, 1956, the defendant Collector of Customs announced the sale of the garlic ~n question at public auction to be held on March 20, 1956 at 9:00A.M. in the premises of Pier 71 Port Area , Manilao And in a notice of post- ponement of sale dated March 19, 1956, the defendant postponed the public sale to March 27, 1956. On March 26, 1956, plaintiff filed this com- plaint for injunction, and on April 3, 1956, the de- fendant filed his motion to dismiss, alleging the following: 1. That this Court has no jurisdic- tion over the person of the defendant or of the subject-matter of the complaint. 2. That the complaint states no cause of action, hence the plaint iff is not en- titled to the relief demanded. It is the contention of the defen~ant that the order to sell, being interlocutory, is not a final de- cision within the meaning of section 7, Republic Act No . 1125. On the other hand 1 the plaintiff argues that the order to sell at public auction is not an interlocutory one issued in connection with the legal issues raised in the seizure proceedings , but is an independent action based on � section 1399 of theRe- vised Administrative Code which is not appealable to the Commissioner of Customs pursuant to section 1380

RESOLUTION - C.T.A. CASE NO. 255 - 4- of the said Codeo The instant case, according to the plaintiff, falls within the provisions of sec- tion 11 of Republic Act Noo 1125. The Court of Tax Appeals is a court of special and limited juris9iction. Its organic law, Republic Act No. 1125, deliberately delimits and carefully canalizes its jurisdiction. All cases sought to be brought before this Court must find authority and justification in the organic law. Those that fail of justification are outside the province of �its jurisdiction and are perforce debarred from being considered by this Court. Section 7 of Republic Act No. 1125 in part reads: "SEC. 7. Jurisdicticmo - The Court of Tax Appeals shall exercise exclusive appel- late jurisdiction to review by appeal, as herein provided - X X X "(2) Deaisions of the Commissioner of Cu�toms in cases involving liability for �customs duties, fees or other money charges; seizure, detention or release of property affected; fines, forfeitures or other penalties imposed in relation there- to; or other matters arising under the Customs taw or other law or part of law administered by the Bureau of Customs; X X X It Section 11 of the same Act provides: "SEC. 11. �who may appeali effect of appealo- Any person, associat~on or corp- oration adversely affected by a decision or ruling of the Collectorof Internal Re- venue, the Collector of Customs or any pro- vincial or city Board of Assessment Ap- peals may file an appeal in the Court of Tax Appeals within thirty days after the receipt of such decision or ruling. x x x" bl

RESOLUTION - C.I.A. CASE NO. 255 - 6- At first blush, sections 7 and 11 of Republic Act No . 1125 are irreconcilably and diametrically divergento Section 7 vests in the Court of Tax Ap- peals exclusive "appellate jurisdiction to review by appeal decisions of the Commissioner of Customs . Whereas, section 11 authorizes any person , associa- tion or corporation adversely affected by a decision or ruling of the Collector of Customs to appeal to the Court of Tax Appeals . But we believe that there was no congressional intention to diversify and diffuse appeals in customs cases. Section 7 of Republic Act No . 1125 circumscribes all the cases that fall within the jurisdiction of the Court of Tax Appeals . Para- graph 1 of section 11 of said Act merely enumerates who may appeal to this Courto As we have already ob- served , it could not have been the intention of Con- gress in enumerating the persons who may appeal to this Court to modify or altogether nullify the juris- diction of the Court in customs cases. (See Sampaguita Shoe and Slipper Factory v. Commissioner of Customs, et alo 1 CoT.A . Case No . 59 , Resolution dated October 17, 1955. ) In Collector of Customs v. Commissioner of Customs , Philippine Education Co ., Intervenor , C. I . A. Case No . 17, we opined: "The phrase ' Collector of Customs ' appearing in the above- mentioned provi- sion (Section 11) of Republic Act No . 1125 is clearly an oversight on the part of Congress. It should read ' Commissioner of Customs ' to make the provisions con- form with section 7 of said Republic Act and Section

RESOLUTION - C.I.A. CASE NO. 255 - 6- 1380 of the Revised Administrative Code." {See also Ricardo Hitosis v. The Acting Collector of Customs for the Port of Manila, C.I. A. Case No . 58, Resolution dated March 22, 1955; Rufino Lopez & Sons , Inc. v. The Collector of Customs, C.I.A. Case No . 101, Resolution dated May 23, 1955.) We reiterate the view that until and unless the Commissioner has rendered a "decision on appealn on the action or decision of a collector of customs ~ may an aggrieved person, association or corporation come to this Court under Republic Act No. 1125. {See Leuterio v. Commissioner of Customs, C.I.A. Case No. 61 , Resolution dated .July 23, 1955; s . Ombra Amil- bangsa v. Manuel Manahan, et al., C.I.A. Case No. 221, Resolution dated Dec. 23, 1955.) We cannot legally entertain an appeal from a decision of a collector of customs in the first instance without the benefit of an intermediate appeal to the Commissioner of Customs , nor can we entertain a petition to enjoin the per- formance of any act by a collector of customs -: unless it is shown that an appeal to the Commissioner would not provide a plain, speedy and adequate remedy. In the instant case, the Collector of Customs of Manila has decided to sell the garlic at public � auction pending final determination of the seizure proceedings on the ground that the goods are dete- riorating. On the other hand, plaintiff seeks the re- lease of the garlic to enable him to plant the same in accordance with the permit issued for its importation.

RESOLUTION - C.I. A. CASE NO. 255 - 7- We concede that if the garlic is sold at publ ic auc - tion and the plaintiff eventually wins the case . the action of the Collector in selling the garlic would nullify plaintiff ' s right to have possession of said . garlic for planting purposes . This does not mean , however , that plaintiff could come direct to this Court for relief without first exhausting all admi- nistrative remedies . We believe that the law pres- cribes an adequate remedy to meet the situation to which plaintiff has been driven. Section 1380 of the Revised Administrative Code provides: "Sec . 1380. Review b* Cbmmissioner .- The p~rson aggrieved by t e decision of the collector of customs in any matter presented upon protest or by his action in any case of seizure may. within fifteen days after noti- fication in writing by the collector of his action or decision, give written notice to the collector signifying his desire to have the matter reviewed by the Commissioner. x X X X 11 We repeat that the petitioner has not yet exhausted all the administrative remedies available to him under the Administrative Code , and until this is done, the present petition is premature. IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING , the complaint for in- junction is hereby dismissed with costs against the plaintiff. SO ORDERED . Manila , Philippines , May 7, 1956. I CON- ROMAN M. UMALI Associate Judge \

RESOLUTION - - 8- CoT. A. CASE NO. 255 CUR : I hereby certi fy t hat Presiding Judge Mariano Nable voted for and concurred in this resolutiono