Alemanya International Trading Corp. v. Court of Tax Appeals

SECOND DIVISION [CA-G.R. SP No. 37065. December 12, 1995.] (C.T.A. Case Nos. 4389 & 4404) ALEMANYA INTERNATIONAL TRADING CORP., ET AL. , petitioners , vs . COURT OF TAX APPEALS AND THE COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS , respondents . R E S O L U T I O N CARPIO MORALES , J p : On May 26, 1995, the Court, without necessarily giving due course to the petition for review, required respondents to file their comment thereon within ten (10) days from receipt thereof, but as no Comment was filed, the petition was submitted for resolution on August 21, 1995. Par. No. 6 of Revised Administrative Circular No. 1-95 dated December 15, 1994 (as amended on May 16, 1995) reads: "6. CONTENTS OF THE PETITION . The petition for review shall (a) state the full names of the parties to the case, without impleading the court or agencies either as petitioner or respondents; (b) contain a concise statement of the facts and issues involved and the grounds relied upon for the review; (c) be accompanied by a clearly legible duplicate original or a certified true copy of the award, judgment, final order or resolution appealed from, together with certified true copies of such material portions of the record as are referred to therein and other supporting papers ; (d) state all the specific materials dates showing that it was filed within the reglementary period provided herein; and (e) contain a sworn certification against forum shopping as required in Revised Circular No. 28-91 " Failure to comply with the aforequoted requirements renders the petition insufficient in form and substance, a ground sufficient for its dismissal. The petition for review before Us seeks a review of the February 6, 1995 decision of the Court of Tax Appeals (CTA) in Consolidated Case Nos. 4389 and 4404 involving the forfeiture of a motor tanker and its cargo of automotive diesel oil The only documents attached to the petition, however, are the Decision of the CTA and a copy of petitioners' formal offer of evidence (pp. 8 and 18, rollo ). Petitioner did not submit the material portions of the record and other supporting papers as are referred to therein as mandated by the above-quoted par. No. 6 of Revised Administrative Circular No. 1-95 such as the: (1) Warrant of Seizure and Detention issued by the Customs Commissioner; (2) Demurrer to Evidence filed by petitioner; (3) Order dated February 15, 1987 allowing the release of the cargo and vessel; (4) Decision of the Collector of Customs of Manila dated March 3, 1988 ordering the forfeiture of the cargo and vessel after hearing thereon was renewed; (5) Decision of the Commissioner's affirming the Decision of the Collector of Customs; (6) Motion for Reconsideration of the February 6, 1995 decision; and (7) Order denying petitioners' motion for reconsideration. And petitioners likewise failed to file a Sworn Certification against forum shopping. WHEREFORE, finding the petition to be insufficient in form and substance, the same is DENIED DUE COURSE and accordingly DISMISSED. SO ORDERED. Purisima and Martin, Jr . JJ ., concur.