Approving the 2011 Investment Priorities Plan

SECOND DIVISION [C.T.A. CASE NO. 8412. January 28, 2013.] UNIMEX MICRO-ELECTRONICS GmBH , petitioner , vs . REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES , respondent . RESOLUTION CASTAEDA, JR. , J p : For this Court's Resolution is petitioner's "Motion for Reconsideration of this Honorable Court's Decision Dated 14 November 2012" filed on November 23, 2012, with respondent's "Comment (To the Motion for Reconsideration dated November 22, 2012)" filed on January 10, 2013. The instant Motion seeks for reconsideration of the Court's Decision promulgated on November 14, 2012, the dispositive part thereof reads: " WHEREFORE , the Petition for Review is hereby DENIED for lack of merit. SO ORDERED ." In support of its Motion , petitioner argues that the principle of res judicata under the concept of "conclusiveness of judgment" should not have been applied in the instant case considering that the payment of customs duty had not been directly and actually controverted in CTA Case No. 6329, CA-G.R. SP No. 75359 and CA-G.R. SP No. 75366, and G.R. Nos. 166309-10; that there was no actual importation of goods in the case at bar in accordance with the legal definition relevant to the process of importation; and that there was no legal and factual basis to impose customs duty on the monetary award rendered by the Supreme Court relative to the instant case. CIHTac On the other hand, respondent filed its Comment , averring that the issue of petitioner's liability to pay customs duties, although not directly controverted in the former case ( Republic of the Philippines, rep. by the Commissioner of Customs vs. Unimex Micro-Electronics GmBH, G.R. No. 166309-10, March 09, 2007 ) is, however, necessarily included in the resolution of the BoC's obligation to release the goods, or as in this case, to pay the value thereof, without which, the BoC's obligation could not be had; and that indeed, the release of the goods, or in lieu thereof, the payment of its value, is conditioned upon the payment of the necessary customs duties. Respondent claims that the Supreme Court, in said case, could not have ordered the payment of the value of the goods without necessarily delving into the importer's liability to pay the correct taxes, duties, fees and other charges before the release of the goods can be had. Respondent also opposes petitioner's contention that it is no longer "necessary" to pay the customs duties because the cargo had been lost, considering the Supreme Court's directive to pay the "necessary" customs duties, which according to respondent, only means that the importer must pay the correct taxes, duties, fees and other charges before the value of the goods is paid to the importer. Respondent argues that had the Supreme Court intended to order otherwise, the Supreme Court could have simply stated "upon payment of the customs duties by respondent Unimex Micro-Electronics GmBH, if necessary". Also, according to respondent, as a last effort to persuade the Court to rule otherwise, petitioner quotes a Supreme Court decision, without, however, making the proper citation, and argues that the Court should temper the strict application of technical rules with substantial justice. Respondent states that petitioner, unfortunately, failed to present any justifying circumstance that could have warranted the relaxation of the principle of res judicata . Respondent further states that petitioner's arguments that the value of the goods has shrunk to five percent (5%) of its original value by 1987 and that the same are exempt from customs duties as it is in the nature of "toys" are mere rehash and have already been refuted in respondent's pleadings and thoroughly discussed by this Court in its assailed Decision. Respondent also reiterates this Court's ruling with respect to petitioner's claim that the goods are exempt as they are in the nature of toys which are freely importable. The Court will now resolve the instant Motion for Reconsideration . According to petitioner, the principle of res judicata under the concept of "conclusiveness of judgment" is not applicable in the instant case. Petitioner alleged that the payment of customs duty has not been actually and directly controverted and determined in CTA Case No. 6329 as modified and affirmed by the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 75359 and CA-G.R. SP No. 75366 and the Supreme Court in G.R. Nos. 166309-10 and the same was merely a matter involved therein, which, however, has not been directly and actually debated upon in the aforementioned case. On this matter, let the Court reiterate the explanation made by the Supreme Court of the concept of res judicata known as "conclusiveness of judgment" : "But where there is identity of parties in the first and second cases, but no identity of causes of action, the first judgment is conclusive only as to those matters actually and directly controverted and determined and not as to matters merely involved therein. This is the concept of res judicata known as "conclusiveness of judgment." Stated differently, any right, fact or matter in issue directly adjudicated or necessarily involved in the determination of an action before a competent court in which judgment is rendered on the merits is conclusively settled by the judgment therein and cannot again be litigated between the parties and their privies, whether or not the claim, demand, purpose, or subject matter of the two actions is the same ." 1 In this case, the matter concerning petitioner's payment of the proper customs duties was directly adjudicated and was necessarily involved in the ruling in CTA Case No. 6329, and ultimately, in G.R. Nos. 166309-10. To emphasize, the Court determined the following controversial issues in CTA Case No. 6329: "(1) Whether or not the government, through the respondent Commissioner of Customs, is liable to pay the commercial value of the subject shipment less of taxes, duties, fees and other charges . If in the affirmative, with what method of payment; (2) Whether or not the government is liable to pay interest; and (3) Whether or not the government is also liable to pay for damages." In resolving the first issue, the Court said: "Considering that the US dollar rate of the Deutsche Mark in July, 1985 was .3563US$ ( Reference Exchange Rate Bulletin, Treasury, Central Bank of the Philippines ), the value of the subject shipment at the time of the arrival thereof in Manila on July 9, 1985 based on the evidence submitted by the petitioner in CTA Case No. 4317, was US$466,885.54 (DM 1,310,372.00 x .3563US$) with the peso equivalent of P8,675,200.22 (US466,885.54 x P18.5810). However, the correct taxes, duties, fees and other charges at that time on the importation involved shall be deducted from this amount . xxx xxx xxx WHEREFORE , premises considered, the instant petition is hereby PARTIALLY GRANTED . Accordingly, respondent is ORDERED to PAY the petitioner the amount of P8,675,200.22 representing the commercial value of the shipment at the time of importation subject, however, to the payment of the proper taxes, duties, fees and other charges thereon. The payment shall be taken from the sale or sales of the goods or properties seized or forfeited by the Bureau of Customs. SO ORDERED ." ESTaHC Also, in view of the appeal of the ruling of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 75359 and CA-G.R. SP No. 75366 before the Supreme Court docketed as G.R. Nos. 166309-10, the High Court adopted the ruling of this Court as to the payment of the proper taxes, duties, fees and other charges on the shipment despite its lost as early as 1987. The dispositive portion of the afore-mentioned Supreme Court ruling reads: " WHEREFORE , the assailed decisions of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP Nos. 75359 and 75366 are hereby AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION . Petitioner Republic of the Philippines, represented by the Commissioner of the Bureau of Customs, upon payment of the necessary customs duties by respondent Unimex Micro-Electronics GmBH, is hereby ordered to pay respondent the value of the subject shipment in the amount of Euro669,982.565 . Petitioner's liability may be paid in Philippine currency, computed at the exchange rate prevailing at the time of actual payment. SO ORDERED. " From all the foregoing, it is clear that payment by the respondent of the value of the subject shipment is conditioned upon the payment of the necessary customs duties by petitioner. Thus, the payment of the proper customs duties is necessarily involved in the resolution of the above-mentioned cases. Accordingly, the principle of res judicata in the concept of "conclusiveness of judgment" is applicable in the present case. Notably, if petitioner believes that it should not pay the proper customs duties on the subject shipment as was clearly ruled in CTA Case No. 6329, it should have raised the said issue at the earliest possible opportunity, not after the same had already been affirmed by the Supreme Court and had already become final and executory. In addition, petitioner contended that even assuming arguendo that the principle of res judicata under the concept of "conclusiveness of judgment" applies in the instant case, still the Court should temper the strict application of technical rules with substantive justice. However, even if the Court would follow petitioner's stance, the same would not cause the reversal of the assailed ruling considering that the Court, in the assailed Decision, likewise found petitioner's arguments in its Petition without merit. The Court finds no justifiable reason for the relaxation of the application of the principle of res judicata . As to the remaining issues raised by petitioner, the Court need not belabor to discuss them considering that the same have already been raised in petitioner's Memorandum filed on June 14, 2012, which have already been addressed and passed upon in the assailed Decision. WHEREFORE , petitioner's "Motion for Reconsideration of this Honorable Court's Decision dated 14 November 2012" filed on November 23, 2012 is hereby DENIED for lack of merit. SO ORDERED . (SGD.) JUANITO C. CASTAEDA, JR. Associate Justice Caesar A. Casanova and Cielito N. Mindaro-Grulla, JJ., concur. Footnotes 1. Social Security Commission vs. Rizal Poultry and Livestock Association, Inc., et al. , G.R. No. 167050, June 1, 2011.