National Meat Inspection Commission v. Court of Tax Appeals

SECOND DIVISION [CA-G.R. SP No. 56405. February 28, 2001.] NATIONAL MEAT INSPECTION COMMISSION , petitioner , vs . THE HONORABLE COURT OF TAX APPEALS and BEN PIMENTEL , respondents . D E C I S I O N ASUNCION , E.J. , J p : For consideration is a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 assailing public respondent's Resolution in C.T.A. Case No. 5734 dated September 8, 1999, which denied petitioner's Motion for Intervention; and its Resolution dated November 9, 1999, which denied petitioner's Motion for Reconsideration. It will be recalled that sometime in 1997, there was an outbreak of foot and mouth disease (FMD) of livestock in Taiwan. Thus March 31, 1997, then Secretary of Agriculture Salvador Escudero issued a memorandum temporarily banning the importation of meat and meat products from said country. On November 7, 1997, for violation of Section 2503, in relation to Section 2530 (f) and (l) of the Tariff and Customs Code of the Philippines (TCCP), the District Collector issued a Warrant of Seizure and Detention against 2 x 40 containers said to contain frozen mackerel but found to also contain 1,423 cartons of frozen pork which arrived at the Manila International Container Port (MICP) from Taiwan consigned to JQ Marine Products. This was docketed as Seizure identification No. 97-109. Again, on December 1, 1997, the district Collector issued another Warrant of Seizure and Detention for violation of Section 2503, in relation to Section 2530 (f) and (l) of the TCCP, docketed as Seizure Identification No. 97-117, against 3 x 40 containers which contained 1,204 cartons of frozen mackerel and 2,119 cartons of frozen pork. After due notice and hearing, the District Collector rendered decisions on S. I. 97-108 and S. I. 97-117, ordering the forfeiture of the goods subject matter thereof. Thereafter, the goods were advertised for sale to the public by the District Collector through the Auction and Cargo Disposal Division (ACDD) pursuant to Section 2607 of the TCCP as implemented by CAO 5-90 and CMO 59-90 with the condition, among others, that the goods be re-exported to Taiwan or to any other country outside of the Philippines with the charges to be shouldered by the winning bidder. Ben Pimentel, who put up the highest bid, was declared the winning bidder and after paying the bid price of P888,875.95, the Bureau of Customs awarded the auctioned goods to him. Acting on claimant Ben Pimentel's request that the mackerel be released to him and only the frozen pork be re-exported, presenting in support thereto a Certificate from the Bureau of Animal Industry stating that mackerels are not susceptible to the FMD virus, the District Collector granted the same and ordered that the frozen mackerel be segregated from the pork. The mackerel was ordered released to Ben Pimentel while the frozen pork be immediately re-exported to Taiwan or any other place outside the Philippines. It appears that in the course of the segregation, the frozen pork was also withdrawn from the Bureau of Customs warehouse and was brought to Vifel I and II Ice Plant and Cold Storage, Inc. at C-3 North Bay, Navotas, Metro Manila, where it was stored. Upon inventory, only about half of the 93,118.44 kgs. of the frozen pork was accounted for. Hence, the District Collector issued warrant of Seizure and Detention docketed as S.I. No. 98-131 against the frozen pork for violation of R.A. 7394, CAO 35-90 and CMO 50-93 in relation to Section 2530 (f), and later to include paragraph (e), of the TCCP. The National Meat Inspection Commission (NMIC) joined the Bureau of Customs in prosecuting the forfeiture case, S.I. No. 98-131. On November 4, 1998, the case was decided by the District Collector ruling that, due to the illegal withdrawal of the frozen pork from customs custody, the same was ordered forfeited in favor of the government. The appeal filed by claimant Ben Pimentel was dismissed for lack of merit and the decision of the District Collector was affirmed by the Commissioner of Customs, through the Office of the Deputy Commissioner, on January 18, 1999. Thereafter, on February 19, 1999, Ben Pimentel filed a petition for review before the Court of Tax Appeals (CTA). Previously, on January 28, 1999, then Secretary William Dar of the Department of Agriculture (DA) wrote Bureau of Customs Commissioner Nelson Tan requesting that the subject pork be turned over to the DA/NMIC for proper handling and disposal in order to ensure public safety, diminish risk to the livestock industry and correct market instability. As the petition for review was already pending before the CTA Commissioner Nelson Tan suggested that the request of the DA be addressed to the CTA 'by filing a proper Motion for Intervention". Accordingly, on July 20, 1999, NMIC filed a Motion for Intervention before the CTA. On September 8, 1999, the CTA resolved to deny said motion for intervention as it did not raise any tax matters which would make it fall within said Court's jurisdiction. The motion for reconsideration thereto was subsequently denied on November 9, 1999. The sole issue for resolution in this petition is whether the CTA properly denied the motion for intervention filed by NMIC on the ground of lack of jurisdiction. Petitioner NMIC contends that the motion for intervention should have been allowed pursuant to Section 1, Rule 19 of the Rules of Court inasmuch as it "has a legal interest in the matter in litigation", it has "an interest against" Pimentel who wants to have the frozen pork released to him presumable for the purpose of selling it to the public; and that petitioner NMIC, who has the mandate to protect the health of the meat consuming public, would "be adversely affected" if the "property in the custody of the Court (CTA)" would be released to respondent Pimentel. SCaIcA The petition lacks merit. Jurisdiction is the power with which courts are invested for administering justice, that is, for hearing and deciding cases. In order for the court to have authority to dispose of the case on the merits, it must acquire jurisdiction over the subject matter, and the parties ( Paramount Insurance Corporation vs. Japzon, 221 SCRA 879) . It is already a well-settled jurisprudential precept that jurisdiction over a subject matter is conferred by law (Union Bank of the Philippines vs. Court of Appeals, 290 SCRA 198) . Section 7 of R.A. 1125 (An Act Creating the Court of Tax Appeals) provide the subjects over which said Court shall exercise jurisdiction, to wit: "SECTION 7. Jurisdiction . The Court of Tax Appeals shall exercise exclusive appellate jurisdiction to review by appeal, as herein provided. f. Decisions of the Collector of Internal Revenue in cases involving disputed assessments, refunds of internal revenue taxes, fees or other charges, penalties imposed in relation thereto, or other matters arising under the National Inter nal Revenue Co de or other law or part of law administered by the Bureau of Internal Revenue; g. Decisions of the Commissioner of Customs 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 thereto; or other matters arising under the Cus toms L aw or other law or part of law administered by the Bureau of Customs; and (3) Decisions of provincial or city Boards of Assessment Appeals in cases involving the assessment and taxation of real property or other matters arising under the Assessment Law, including rules and regulations relative thereto." Thus, the CTA's power is limited to deciding cases of such nature as provided in its charter. The CTA would be exceeding its mandate if it were to grant the motion for intervention and thereafter rule on the reliefs sought by petitioner NMIC therein which would necessarily involve a finding on the health risk posed by the forfeited goods. Indeed, this Court finds NMIC's concern for public health well-founded. It's motivation for pursuing the proper handling and disposal of the frozen pork subject of the forfeiture proceedings is recognized. However, the forfeiture case before the CTA on petition for review concerns matters relating to violations of the TCCP which are properly within the CTA's jurisdiction, particularly Sec. 2530 (e) and (f): "SECTION 2530. Property Subject to Forfeiture Under Tariff and Customs Laws . Any vessel or aircraft, cargo, articles and other objects shall under the following conditions, be subject to forfeiture: xxx xxx xxx e. Any article which is fraudulently concealed in or removed from any public or private warehouse under customs supervision . f. Any article of prohibited importation or exportation, the importation or exportation of which is effected or attempted contrary to law, and all other articles which, in the opinion of the Collector, have been used, are or were intended to be used as instrument in the importation or exportation of the former. xxx xxx xxx (Emphasis supplied) The petitioner NMIC itself raised the argument that its interest 'could not be adequately protected by merely coordinating with the Bureau of Customs in the prosecution of the case before the respondent CTA as the Bureau of Customs is only concerned with the possible violation of the Tariff and Customs Code by respondent Pimentel and not with the health risk posed by the frozen pork to the consuming public and to the animal population in the Philippines. It may happen that the respondent CTA would rule that the petitioner did not violate the Tariff and Customs Code and thus order the release of the frozen pork, without hearing on the health risks posed by the frozen pork". It seems to escape petitioner NMIC that is beyond the CTA's competence to rule on the issue of the health risk posed by the subject frozen pork. R.A. 1125, section 7 is clear in its enumeration of matters falling within the CTA's jurisdiction. Granting that the NMIC is an authority with regard to the storage life and health risks posed by the subject frozen pork, then it should institute the necessary proceedings before a competent body which can order the disposal of the frozen pork on the ground that it poses a serious risk to public health. WHEREFORE, based on the foregoing premises and without prejudice to petitioner's right to file the proper action before a competent forum, the instant petition is hereby DISMISSED. SO ORDERED. Garcia and Agcaoili, JJ . , concur.