Consolidated Plywood Industries v. Court of Tax Appeals

SPECIAL FORMER FIFTH DIVISION [CA-G.R. SP No. 30797. November 29, 1994.] (C.T.A. Case No. 4613) CONSOLIDATED PLYWOOD INDUSTRIES, INC. , petitioner , vs . COURT OF TAX APPEALS and COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOM , respondents . D E C I S I O N GUERRERO , J p : Appeal by petition for review from the decision (Rollo, p. 18) of the Court of Tax Appeals in C.T.A. Case No. 4613 dismissing the case on the following grounds: lack of jurisdiction; case barred by prescription. The facts are as follows: On 11 October 1989, Davao Seizure Identification Case No. 98-89 Per CMO No. 97-88 was issued (Rollo, p. 27) by the District Collector of Customs, Port of Davao, for the seizure and detention of one unit Isuzu Pick-up owned by the Consolidated Plywood Industries. (hereafter, "petitioner"). On 17 October 1989, petitioner posted a bond under protest in Davao Seizure Identification Case No. 98-89 Per CMO No. 97-88 covering the pick-up. The warrant of seizure and detention on the aforementioned vehicle was temporarily lifted for a period of thirty (30) days in an order dated 17 October 1989 (Records, Folder I, p. 38). On 31 October 1989, a Motion for Reconsideration (Records, Folder II, p. 18) was filed to make the order lifting the Warrant of Seizure and Detention in Davao Seizure Identification Case No. 98-89 Per CMO No. 97-88 permanent. The motion was denied "for lack of merit" in an order dated 30 April 1990 (Records, Folder II, p. 27). This order of denial was received by petitioner on the same date. On 15 May 1990, petitioner filed a Petition for Review (Records, Folder I, p. 43) via registered mail before the Commissioner of Customs, Manila with regard to the denial of its Motion for Reconsideration involving the aforementioned pick-up. Simultaneous with the issuance of the warrant of seizure and detention covering the pick-up, also on October 1989, Davao Seizure Identification No. 113-89 Per CMO 97-88 (Rollo, p. 28) was issued by the District Collector of Customs, Port of Davao for the seizure and detention of one unit Hino Truck Tractor also owned by the petitioner. On 16 October 1989, an order temporarily lifting the warrant of seizure and detention covering the tractor was issued in Davao Seizure Identification Case No. 113-89 Per CMO No. 97-88 ( Id ., p. 50). On 31 October 1989, a Motion for Reconsideration Records, Folder II, p. 13) was filed to make the order lifting the Warrant of Seizure and Detention in Davao Seizure Identification Case No. 113-89 Per CMO No. 97-88 permanent. The motion was denied "for lack of merit" in an order dated 3 May 1990 ( Id ., p. 28). This order of denial was received by petitioner on 18 May 1990. On 6 June 1990, petitioner filed a Petition for Review (Records, Folder I, p. 20) before the Commissioner of Customs, Manila with regard to the denial of its Motion for Reconsideration involving the aforementioned tractor. On 12 October 1990, the Commissioner of Customs issued an Order in Davao S.I. No. 98-89 and Davao S.I. No. 113-89 ( Id ., p. 49) declaring the appeals filed therein barred, stating: "The Notices of appeal, however, were not only (sic) affixed with the required customs stamp, nor the appeal free caused to be paid as required by Section 3301 of the Tariff and Customs Code and Customs Administrative Order No. 226. "The stamp requirement is in the nature of a docket fee and failure to pay the docket fee for appeals on time is fatal (Lipat vs. Commissioner of Customs, CTA Case NO. 1442, prom. Oct. 26, 1966)." Petitioner alleged receipt of the aforementioned order on 30 October 1990. It filed a motion for reconsideration before the Commissioner of Customs on 3 December 1990 (Records, Folder I, p. 71). However, the motion was denied in an order dated 29 January 1991 ( Id ., p. 75). The order ruled that lack of knowledge regarding the legal requirement of paying an appeal fee does not excuse petitioner from compliance with the law. Moreover, it was pointed out that the appeals has been filed out of time as per Section 2313 of the Tariff and Customs Code. This order denying the motion for reconsideration was received by petitioner on 14 March 1991. On 23 May 1991, a Petition for Review (Records of C.T.A. Case No. 4613, p. 9) was filed before the Court of Tax Appeals, docketed thereat as C.T.A. Case No. 4613. On 2 March 1993, the assailed decision (Rollo, p. 18) dismissing the appeal was issued. The dismissal was anchored on the following grounds: (1) petitioner's notice of appeal although filed within the 15-day reglementary period within which to do so, lacked documentary customs stamp as per Section 3301 of the Tariff and Customs Code (which documentary stamp tax is in the nature of a docket fee); (2) the appeal to the Commissioner of Customs which was filed on 23 May 1991 was filed beyond the 30-day reglementary period within which to file an appeal fixed in Sec. 11 of Republic Act No. 1125. Thus, this petition. The issue before Us is whether or not the dismissal of the case by the tax court on the two grounds asserted was proper. Petitioner in its Petition ( Rollo , p. 3) as well as in its Memorandum (Rollo, p. 171) alleges in the negative. It avers that its failure to affix the required Customs' documentary stamp tax on its notice of appeal should not be taken against it. Dismissal of the case by the Commissioner of Customs on a mere technicality should be frowned upon. There was good faith diligence on the part of the petitioner, as it had made inquiries with the Bureau of Customs, Davao City Office regarding the necessity of the payment of docket fees. The Bureau of Customs however did not inform petitioner's representative of Section 3301 of the Tariffs and Customs Code requiring that documentary customs stamps be affixed to the notice of appeal. Moreover, although belated, there was compliance with the legal requirement in question because on 21 November 1990, docket as well as appeal fees were paid (See Rollo, pp. 59-60). Petitioner alleges further that its appeal was filed within the reglementary period for filing the same. It received the order issued by the Commissioner of Customs denying its motion for reconsideration on 14 March 1991. the fifteenth day from the aforementioned date was 29 March 1991. Since March 29, 30 and 31, 1991 were holidays (being Good Friday, Black Saturday, and Easter Sunday, respectively), the appeal filed on 1 April 1991 via registered mail was filed on time. We find the petition devoid of merit. The following are pertinent provisions of the Tariff and Customs Code: "Sec. 2313. The person aggrieved by the decision or action of the Collector in any matter presented upon protest or by his action in any case of seizure may, within fifteen (15) days after notification in writing by the Collector and one copy furnished to the Commissioner of his desire to have the matter reviewed by the Commissioner. Thereupon the Collector shall forthwith transmit all the records of the proceedings to the Commissioner, who shall approve, modify or reverse the action or decision of the Collector and take such steps and make such orders as may be necessary to give effect to his decision." (Sec. 2313, Tariff and Customs Code of the Philippines). "Sec. 2402. Review by the Court of Tax Appeals. The party aggrieved by a ruling of the Commissioner in any matter brought before him upon protest or by his action or ruling in any case of seizure may appeal to the Court of Tax Appeals, in the manner and within the period prescribed by law and regulations. "Unless an appeal is made to the Court of Tax Appeals in the manner and within the period prescribed by laws and regulations, the action or ruling of the Commissioner shall be final and conclusive." Section 11 of Republic Act 1125 creating the Court of Tax Appeals is applicable herein. It provides as follows: "Sec. 11. Who may appeal; effect of appeal. Any person, association or corporation adversely affected by a decision or ruling of the Commissioner of Internal Revenue, the Commissioner of Customs or any provisional or city Board of Assessment Appeals may file an appeal in the Court of Tax Appeals within thirty (30) days after receipt of such decision or ruling. ". . . ." (RA 1125) Thus, the person aggrieved by the decision or action of a Collector of Customs in any matter presented upon protest or by his action in any case of seizure may give a written notice to the Collector of Customs of his desire to have the matter reviewed by the Commissioner of Customs. Such notice of appeal must be filed in triplicate within 15 days, including Sundays and legal holidays, from receipt by the aggrieved party or his authorized representative of written notification of the action or decision sought to be reviewed. The notice of appeal shall be subject to a filing fee of P10.00 in customs stamp and shall, together with the records of the case, be forthwith transmitted by the Collector to the Commissioner of Customs (Par. VII, C.A.O. No. 226 dated 3 Dec 1957). The decision of the Commissioner of Customs is appealable to the Court of Tax Appeals. The perfection of an appeal within the 30-day period required by law is mandatory and jurisdictional and the failure of the petitioner to seasonably appeals, as required, has the effect of rendering the decision of the Court of Tax Appeals final and executory (Philippine International Surety Co. Inc. vs. Commissioner of Customs, CTA Case No. 760, 7 Nov. 1963). In the case at bar, petitioner admitted that it had failed to pay the filing fees by way of customs stamps in the notice of appeal given to the Collector for the appeal to the Commissioner of Customs, although it later on complied with the legal recruitment, It was on petitioner's failure to pay the filing fees that the appeal to the Commissioner was dismissed. Under the law, petitioner had thirty (30) days after receipt of the decision or ruling of the Commissioner of Customs within which to file an appeal to the Court of Tax Appeals. Petitioner received the decision of the Commissioner of Customs on 30 October 1990. It therefore had until 29 November 1990 within which to file its appeal before the Court of Tax Appeals. It however filed the same via a petition for review only on 23 May 1991 (Records of CTA Case No. 4613, p. 9), or almost six (6) months after the last day of the reglementary period. Even assuming that the 30-day reglementary within which to file an appeal the 30-day reglementary period. Even assuming that the 30-day reglementary within which to file an appeal started to run on 14 March 1991, or from the time petitioner received the order denying the motion for reconsideration, still petitioner's last day to file the appeal would have been on 13 April 1991. Clearly the petition submitted to the Court of Tax Appeals on 23 May 1991 was filed out of time. The tax court committed no error in dismissing the appeals in the two cases on the two grounds set forth in the assailed decision. WHEREFORE, the petition for review is dismissed. Costs against petitioner. SO ORDERED. Ramirez and Francisco, JJ ., concur.