DOJ Opinion No. 085, s. 1988

DOJ OPINION NO. 085 , s. 1988 April 29, 1988 Commissioner Salvador M. Mison Bureau of Customs Manila Sir : This refers to your request for legal opinion on the Interpretation of Section 2316 of the Tariff and Customs Codes of the Philippines (TCCP) which reads: "SEC. 2316. Authority of Commissioner to Make Compromise . Subject to the Approval of the Secretary of Finance to the Commissioner of Customs may compromise any case arising under this Code or other laws or part of laws enforced by Bureau of Customs involving the imposition of fines surcharges and forfeitures unless otherwise specified." LLpr You state that the Department of Finance has issued conflicting rulings regarding the application of the abovequoted provision of law as contained in the following Indorsements: "1. Second Indorsement to the Commissioner of Custom dated September 16, 1986, signed by Deputy Minister Alfredo Pio de Roda, Jr., approving the offer of Franklin Baker Company to pay by way of compromise the equivalent of 50% of its total outstanding exports duty obligations on shipments of desiccated coconuts . . . in full settlement of said obligations including surcharges, pursuant to Section 2316 of the TCCP; "2. Second Indorsement to the Commissioner of Customs dated June 8, 1987, signed by Alfredo Pio de Roda Jr., Acting Secretary of Finance, denying the request of Solid Mills and Unisol Industries Manufacturing Corporation for compromise settlement and waiver of penalty and surcharges for lack of legal basis in that Section 2316 of the Code is limited to compromise settlement representing unpaid duties and taxes; "3. Fourth Indorsement dated July 8, 1987, signed by Undersecretary Pio de Roda, Jr. approving the condition or the 50% of total outstanding back accounts of Hooven Comaloo Industries." It appears that your Office has disregarded the previous approval of the compromise settlement of Franklin Baker Company allegedly in line with the aforestated adverse ruling of the Department of finance in the case of Solid Mills and Unisol. Hence, this query. With regret, we are unable to give you the desired opinion. Resolution of the present query would inevitably involve a review of the rulings of the Department of Finance, a co-equal and coordinate department over which this Department has no revisory authority (Op. No. 7, s. 1987). Moreover, well settled and sound administrative practice as well as official courtesy has heretofore constrained us to advice adherence to the accepted rule that subordinate official functions, first commit their Department head before submitting the matter to this Office for opinion. Otherwise, subordinate officials of a department or bureau might elevate to this Department matters which the Department/Office head had already determined or which he can competently decide without soliciting opinion or advice from this Department (Op. No. 46, s. 1963 and No. 82, s. 1974). It is further noted that the query involves substantial rights of a private entity the Franklin Baker Company. Any legal advice that this Department may rendered the matter would have no binding effect upon said private entity which, if the advice turns out to be adverse to its interest, could always contest the same before the courts (Sec. of Justice Op. Nos. 98 s. 1978; 72, s. 1971 and 31, s. 1985). prcd Accordingly, we suggest that you take up the matter directly with the Secretary of Finance who has the competence to clarify the rulings of his Department. Very truly yours, (SGD.) SEDFREY A. ORDOEZ Secretary of Justice