PHILPLASTIC AND POLYMERS, INC., represented herein by ROCHELLE PAREDES DY ANG v. COMMISSIONER OF THE BUREAU OF CUSTOMS and DISTRICT COLLECTOR - MANILA INTERNATIONAL CONTAINER PORT

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES COURT OF TAX APPEALS QUEZON CITY THIRD DIVISION PHILPLASTIC AND CTA CASE NO. 12367 POLYMERS, INC., represented herein by ROCHELLE Members: PAREDESDY ANG, Petitioner, MODESTO-SAN PEDRO, Chairperson, FERRER-FLORES, and CENTENO-DIJAMCO, JJ. -versus- COMMISSIONER OF THE BUREAU OF CUSTOMS and DISTRICT COLLECTOR - MANILA INTERNATIONAL Promulgated: CONTAINER PORT, Respondent. CT J 6 2026 c. ;.:.)...... )l'• ..... x------------------------------------------------------------x RESOLUTION Before this Court is petitioner's Notice of Dismissal filed on April 24, 2026 praying for the Court to issue an order confirming the voluntary dismissal of its Petition/or Review. In its Notice of Dismissal, petitioner alleges that no Answer has been served upon it as of date. Petitioner, therefore, has the right to withdraw its petition by mere notice to the Court. Section 1 ofRule 17 of the Rules of Court provides: RULE 17 DISMISSAL OF ACTIONS Section 1. Dismissal upon notice by plaintiff. - A complaint may be dismissed by the plaintiff by filing a notice of dismissal at any time before service of the answer or of a motion for summary judgment. Upon such notice being filed, the court shall issue an order confirming the dismissal. Unless otherwise stated in the notice, the dismissal is without prejudice,

RESOLUTION CTA CASE NO. 12367 Page 2 of3 except that a notice operates as adjudication upon the merits when filed by a plaintiff who has once dismissed in a competent court an action based on or including the same claim. The above provision ordains the dismissal of the complaint by the plaintiff as a matter of right at any time before service of the answer. 1 The plaintiff is accorded the right to dismiss the complaint without the necessity of alleging in the notice of dismissal any ground nor of making any reservation. Records show that petitioner filed the instant Petition for Review on February 19, 2026. On March 23, 2026, the Court issued a Resolution directing petitioner to submit proof of authority of the signatory of the Petition for Review. In compliance, petitioner filed its Manifestation on March 26, 2026 stating that petitioner duly authorized Ms. Rochelle Paredes Dy Ang to act as its representative and signatory to the instant Petition as evidenced by the Secretary's Certificate dated January 26, 2026. Petitioner filed a Notice of Dismissal on April 24, 2026, before the Court has issued summons requiring respondent to file his Answer. As stated earlier, the filing of withdrawal of a Petition for Review is a matter of right at any time before service o[the answer. As the Supreme Court pronounced in the case of Go vs. Cruz, 2 viz: The dismissal of civil actions is always addressed to the sound judgment and discretion of the court; this, whether the dismissal is sought after a trial has been completed or otherwise, or whether it is prayed for by a defending party or by a plaintiff or claimant. There is one instance however where the dismissal of an action rests exclusively on the will of a plaintiff or claimant, to prevent which the defending party and even the court itself is powerless, requiring in fact no action whatever on the part of the court except the acceptance and recording of the causative document. This is dealt with in Section 1, Rule 17 ofthe Rules of Court, xxx (Citations omitted; emphasis supplied) Considering that no Answer has yet been filed by respondent of which petitioner was served a copy thereof, this Court holds that the withdrawal of the instant Petition for Review is a matter of right of the petitioner. ' O.B. Jovenir Construction and Development Corporation, et a/. vs. Macamir Realty and Development Corporation, eta/. , G.R. No. 135803, March 28, 2006. 2 G.R. No. 58986, Aprill7, 1989.

RESOLUTION CTA CASE NO. 12367 Page 3 of3 ACCORDINGLY, petitioner's Notice of Dismissal filed on April 24, 2026 is NOTED. In view thereof, the instant Petition for Review filed on February 19, 2026 is DISMISSED, and CTA Case No. 12367 is considered CLOSED and TERMINATED. Petitioner's Manifestation filed on March 26, 2026 is NOTED. SO ORDERED. s • DEBBIE Associate Justice