COAM Phils., Inc. v. Lina

SECOND DIVISION

[G.R. No. 248737. September 28, 2020.]

COAM PHILS., INC. and GLOBALTEX IMPEX, INC., petitioners,vs. HON. ALBERTO D. LINA, in his capacity as COMMISSIONER OF BUREAU OF CUSTOMS and all persons, judicial and juridical, acting on his behalf, respondent.

NOTICE

Sirs/Mesdames:

Please take notice that the Court, Second Division, issued a Resolution dated28 September 2020which reads as follows:

"G.R. No. 248737 (COAM Phils., Inc. and Globaltex Impex, Inc. v. Hon. Alberto D. Lina, in his capacity as Commissioner of Bureau of Customs and all persons, judicial and juridical, acting on his behalf). — Acting on petitioners' Motion for Extension of Time to File a Petition for Review on Certiorari, 1 the Court resolves to GRANT a period of thirty (30) days from the expiration of the reglementary period on August 30, 2019 within which to file the petition.

Considering the allegations, arguments, and issues raised in the instant Petition for Review on Certiorari, 2 the Court further resolves to DENY the petition for failure to show that the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. SP No. 146652 committed any reversible error (a) in annulling and setting aside 3 the Decision 4 dated January 8, 2016 of the Branch 11, Regional Trial Court of Manila (RTC) in Civil Case No. 15-134698 and (b) in denying 5 petitioners' Motion for Reconsideration. 6

Let it be underscored that the CA properly ruled that the Petition for Certiorari, Prohibition and Mandamus filed with the RTC should be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. However, its reasoning that the petition challenging the issuance by the Bureau of Customs (BOC) of Customs Tariff Decision Circular (CTD) No. 01-2015 dated July 1, 2015 7 should have instead been filed with the CA is incorrect.

In Steel Corp. of the Phils. v. Bureau of Customs, 8 the Court ruled that the Court of Tax Appeals (CTA) has exclusive jurisdiction to resolve all tax-related issues ratiocinating in this wise:

The [CTA] has undoubted jurisdiction to pass upon the constitutionality or validity of a tax law or regulation when raised by the taxpayer as a defense in disputing or contesting an assessment or claiming a refund. It is only in the lawful exercise of its power to pass upon all matters brought before it, as sanctioned by Section 7 of Republic Act No. 1125, 9 as amended.

This Court, however, declares that the [CTA] may likewise take cognizance of cases directly challenging the constitutionality or validity of a tax law or regulation or administrative issuance (revenue orders, revenue memorandum circulars, rulings).

Section 7 of Republic Act No. 1125, as amended, is explicit that, except for local taxes, appeals from the decisions of quasi-judicial agencies (Commissioner of Internal Revenue, Commissioner of Customs, Secretary of Finance, Central Board of Assessment Appeals, Secretary of Trade and Industry) on tax-related problems must be brought exclusively to the [CTA].

In other words, within the judicial system, the law intends the [CTA] to have exclusive jurisdiction to resolve all tax problems. Petitions for writs of certiorari against the acts and omissions of the said quasi-judicial agencies should, thus, be filed before the [CTA].

Republic Act No. 9282, 10 a special and later law than Batas Pambansa Blg. 129 provides an exception to the original jurisdiction of the [RTCs] over actions questioning the constitutionality or validity of tax laws or regulations. Except for local tax cases, actions directly challenging the constitutionality or validity of a tax law or regulation or administrative issuance may be filed directly before the [CTA]. 11

Notably, in annulling and setting aside the RTC Decision, the CA relied on Section 4, Rule 65 of the Rules of Court which provides that "[if the petition for certiorari, prohibition and/or mandamus] involves the act or omission of a quasi-judicial agency, and unless otherwise provided by law or these Rules, the petition shall be filed in and cognizable only by the [CA]." It failed to take into account that pursuant to RA 1125 and RA 9282, it is the CTA which has jurisdiction over any petition for certiorari against the acts and omissions of the BOC, including CTD No. 01-2015.

In any event, while the Court disagrees with the CA's view that the petition for certiorari, prohibition and mandamus should have been filed before it (CA), we, nonetheless, concur with its pronouncement that the RTC lacks jurisdiction over the petition.

ACCORDINGLY, the Court resolves to AFFIRM the Decision dated July 13, 2017 and the Resolution dated July 12, 2019 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 146652.

SO ORDERED." (Hernando, J., recused from the case due to prior participation in the Court of Appeals; Gaerlan, J., designated as additional member per Raffle dated July 29, 2020. Baltazar-Padilla, J., on leave. Delos Santos, J., on official leave.)

By authority of the Court:

(SGD.) TERESITA AQUINO TUAZONDivision Clerk of Court

 

Footnotes

1.Rollo, pp. 3-6.

2.Id. at 11-39.

3.Id. at 42-48; The CA Decision dated July 13, 2017 was penned by Associate Justice Rosmari D. Carandang (now a Member of the Court) with Associate Justices Eduardo B. Peralta, Jr. and Ramon Paul L. Hernando (now a Member of the Court), concurring.

4.Id. at 66-68; penned by Judge Cicero D. Jurado, Jr.

5. Resolution dated July 12, 2019; id. at 40-41.

6.Id. at 49-65.

7. In particular, the Bureau of Customs prohibited the conditional release of importation or those destined for transshipment or re-exportation of used clothing and rags pursuant to Section 1, Republic Act No. 4653 (An Act to Safeguard the Health of the People and Maintain the Dignity of the Nation by Declaring It a National Policy to Prohibit the Commercial Importation of Textile Articles Commonly Known as Used Clothing and Rags.); as culled from the CA Decision dated July 13, 2017, id. at 42.

8. 825 Phil. 809 (2018), citing Banco De Oro v. Rep. of the Phils., 793 Phil. 97 (2016).

9. An Act Creating the Court of Tax Appeals, approved on June 16, 1954.

10. An Act Expanding the Jurisdiction of the Court of Tax Appeals (CTA), Elevating Its Rank to the Level of a Collegiate Court with Special Jurisdiction and Enlarging Its Membership, Amending for the Purpose Certain Sections of Republic Act No. 1125, as Amended, Otherwise Known as the Law Creating the Court of Tax Appeals, and for Other Purposes, approved on March 30, 2004.

11.Steel Corp. of the Phils. v. Bureau of Customs, supra note 8 at 824-825.