Skip to main content

Ong Tor Cheo v. Court of Tax Appeals

G.R. No. 83687 (Notice) • Supreme Court Decisions • Decisions • Dec 14, 1988

Full text

EN BANC [G.R. No. 83687. December 14, 1988.] ONG TOR CHEO, ET AL. , petitioners , vs . COURT OF TAX APPEALS , respondents . NOTICE Gentlemen: Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of the Third Division of this Court dated December 14, 1988 : The petitioner questions a decision of the respondent court which sustained the seizure and forfeiture in favor of the Government of US$531,338.00 and H.K. $870.00 for violation of Central Bank Circular No. 265, as amended, in relation to Section 2350 (g) of the Revised Tariff and Customs Code. casia The foreign currencies were apprehended after the suitcases of Peter Uy Tong had passed through the X-ray machine examining baggages to be loaded on a Philippine Airlines plane bound for the United States. When asked to explain if Mr. Tong had any Central Bank permit, he stated he had none. Mr. Tong admitted ownership of the foreign currencies which he stated he was going to use for the purchase of a condominium unit in Hongkong for his export and import business. On the other hand, the petitioner, a Singaporean national, stated that the money was owned by a group of non-resident alien businessmen and had been brought into the Philippines for a business venture. The petitioner Mr. Ong claimed that instead of investing in the Philippines, they decided to invest the money in Hongkong; that he left the country on May 11, 1983 but decided to entrust the suitcases to his friend Peter Uy Tong; and that Mr. Tong did not know the contents and was not aware that the two (2) suitcases he was carrying for the petitioner Mr. Ong had the foreign currencies inside. The issues raised are factual. The findings of the respondent court appear to be logical and the conclusions in accordance with law. casia CONSIDERING the failure of the petitioner to show that the respondent court committed reversible error and that its findings are not based on substantial evidence, the COURT RESOLVED to DENY the petition. Very truly yours, JULIETA Y. CARREON Clerk of Court

Ask what this means for your situation

The assistant quotes the passage it relies on and links the source, so you can check every figure it gives you.