Republic of the Philippines
SUPREME COURT
Manila
EN BANC
G.R. No. L-22420 March 18, 1967
PHILIPPINE INTERNATIONAL SURETY CO., INC., petitioner,
vs.
THE COURT OF TAX APPEALS and the COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, respondents.
Tolentino & Garcia and D. R. Cruz for petitioner.
Office of the Solicitor General for respondents.
BENGZON, J.P., J.:
On December 13, 1954 one package of fresh water peanuts and 23 packages of various merchandise arrived in the port of Manila from Hongkong consigned to J.D. Salva. For lack of release certificate and import license required by Central Bank Circulars 44 and 45, the Collector of Customs of Manila instituted seizure proceedings against said goods. Later, however, the goods were released to the consignee after he posted Surety Bonds Nos. 174 and 175 of the Philippines International Surety Co., Inc.
In a decision dated April 20, 1955 the Collector of Customs of Manila declared the importation forfeited and ordered the payment of P4,733.00. J.D. Salva, claimant, appealed to the Commissioner of Customs who in turn affirmed the decision of the Collector. Said claimant did not appeal from the Commissioner's decision. The Philippines International Surety Co., Inc. moved for reconsideration. The motion was denied and said surety appealed to the Court of Tax Appeals.
On a stipulation of facts, the Court of Tax Appeals rendered a decision dismissing the petition for review. Said court upheld the validity of Central Bank Circulars 44 and 45 and declared petitioner Philippines International Surety Co., Inc. without personality to appeal, it being merely a surety. A motion for reconsideration was denied, hence the instant appeal.
The decision under review herein is predicated upon two separate grounds, procedural and substantial. Regarding the procedural question of personality to appeal, the record shows that petitioner failed to appeal from the decision of the Collector of Customs to the Commissioner of Customs. And thus, assuming it had personality to appeal,1the same was lost.2Against this conclusion, however, petitioner lays stress on the alleged fact that it could not have appealed from the Collector's decision because it was not notified thereof.1äwphï1.ñët
The Commissioner of Customs, on the other hand, stated in his answer filed in the Court of Tax Appeals that notice of the decision in question was in fact served on appellant on April 30, 1955.
We observe that in forwarding the Customs record in this case to the Commissioner of Customs, the chief of the law division of the Bureau of Customs listed the documents composing the record. Document No. 2 in said list is a letter dated April 23, 1955 addressed to Atty. C. Soriano, counsel for claimant; document No. 3 is a letter dated April 27, 1955 addressed to the Philippines International Surety Co., Inc.; and, document No. 4 is the decision of the Collector of Customs dated April 20, 1955. We presume the chief of the law division performed his duties regularly.3Said documents, therefore, must be deemed to have existed. Since documents Nos. 2 and 3, in point of time, come immediately after the decision of the Collector (document No. 4), and since both are addressed to the parties affected, it is reasonable to consider that they were actually transmittal letters of copies of the decision.
Moreover, in its motion for reconsideration dated July 27, 1960 filed in the office of the Commissioner of Customs, appellant never mentioned that it was not furnished a copy of the decision of the Collector of Customs. Twice it made mention of the Collector's decision, yet it never intimated, even only as a reminder, lack of notice thereof. It was only in its petition for review filed in the Court of Tax Appeals that it first pleaded the alleged omission. This behavior of appellant does not reflect the natural reaction of a party left without notice of a decision adversely affecting him.
Appellant prays in its reply brief that this case be returned to the Court of Tax Appeals for hearing on the merits of its petition for review filed therein. The fact, however, is that the Court of Tax Appeals likewise fully considered said petition for review on the merits, upon submission by the parties of the case for decision on the merits.4Precisely its decision resolved the substantive question of the validity of Central Bank Circulars 44 and 45, sustaining them. And in a long line of decision, this Court has repeatedly upheld the validity and constitutionality of the same Central Bank Circulars 44 and 45. 5 Wherefore, the decision appealed from is hereby affirmed. With costs against appellant. So ordered.
Concepcion, C.J., Reyes, J.B.L., Dizon, Regala, Makalintal, Zaldivar, Sanchez and Castro, JJ., concur.
Footnotes
1Philippines International Surety Co., Inc. vs. Commissioner of Customs, L-20980, Nov. 29, 1965.
2Sampaguita Shoe and Slipper Factory vs. Commissioner of Customs, L-10285, Jan. 14, 1958; Philippines International Surety Co., Inc. vs. Commissioner of Customs, L-18291, Jan. 31, 1964.
3Sec. 5(m), Rule 131, Rules of Court.
4Cf. CTA Minutes for March 30, 1963, p. 40, CTA record.
5Commissioner of Customs vs. Serree Investment Co., L-12007, May 16, 1960; Po Eng Trading vs. Commissioner of Customs, L-10508, Nov. 29, 1960; Commissioner of Customs vs. Eastern Sea Trading, L-14279, Oct. 31, 1961; Commissioner of Customs vs. Santos, L-11911, March 30, 1962; Commissioner of Customs vs. Nepomuceno, 1-11126, March 31, 1962; Pascual vs. Commissioner of Customs, L-12219, April 25, 1962; Serree Investment Co. vs. Commissioner of Customs, L-19564, Nov. 28, 1964; Bombay Department Store vs. Commissioner of Customs, L-20460, Sept. 30, 1965; Serree Investment Co. vs. Commissioner of Customs, L-21217, Nov. 29, 1965; Lazaro vs. Commissioner of Customs, L-21790 and L-21794, Dec. 24, 1965.
The Lawphil Project - Arellano Law Foundation
