Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1964 > January 1964 Decisions > G.R. No. L-18291 January 31, 1964 - PHIL. INTERNATIONAL SURETY CO. INC. v. COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

EN BANC

[G.R. No. L-18291. January 31, 1964.]

PHILIPPINE INTERNATIONAL SURETY COMPANY, INC., Petitioner, v. COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, Respondent.

Tolentino & Garcia for Petitioner.

Solicitor General for Respondent.


SYLLABUS


1. CUSTOMS AND TARIFF CODE; APPEALS TO COURT OF TAX APPEALS; WHO MAY APPEAL; ONLY PARTY WHO APPEALED TO COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS FROM DECISION OF COLLECTOR. — As the surety did not interpose an appeal to the Commissioner of Customs from the decision of the Collector of Customs in the seizure proceedings in which it was a party holding the principal importer liable on the bond subscribed by the surety for the amount covered therein, within the period required by law, said decision became final and executory, hence, said surety lost its standing to institute an appeal to the Court of Tax Appeals.


D E C I S I O N


BARRERA, J.:


From the resolution of the Court of Tax Appeals (in CTA Case No. 745) dismissing its petition for review, of the decision of respondent Commissioner of Customs, petitioner Philippine International Surety Co., Inc., brought the present appeal.

On December 22, 1954, 7 cases of candy arrived at the Port of Manila from San Francisco, California, U.S.A. aboard the S.S. "Doña Nati", consigned to Manuel Santos. The merchandise was accompanied by proper shipping documents, such as a bill of lading and a commercial invoice, but was short of a Central Bank release certificate and consular invoices. For being, allegedly, violative of Central Bank Circulars Nos. 44 and 45, in relation to Sections 1363 (f) and 1250 of the Revised Administrative Code, the merchandise was seized by the Collector of Customs.

During the pendency of the seizure proceedings (Seizure Identification No. 2428), the Collector of Customs released the merchandise seized to the consignee Manuel Santos, upon the posting by the latter of a surety bond (No. 194), subscribed by petitioner (as surety of the principal Manuel Santos), in the sum of P1,785.05, "representing the local appraised value of the merchandise to guaranty the payment of the amount that the Bureau of Customs or the courts of the Philippines may decide to collect, depending upon the outcome of the seizure-proceedings."cralaw virtua1aw library

Subsequently, or on April 30, 1955, the Collector of Customs rendered a decision in the seizure case, the dispositive part of which, reads:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"WHEREFORE, by authority of Section 1379 of the Revised Administrative Code, it is ordered and decreed that the seven (7) cases of candy covered by Seizure Identification No. 2428 be, as they are hereby declared forfeited in favor of the Government of the Republic of the Philippines. As it appears that this shipment of candies was released under Surety Bond No. 194, date January 13, 1955, issued by the Philippine International Surety Co., Inc. filed for the release of the same, it is hereby ordered that the claimant be required to pay in cash the amount of ONE THOUSAND SEVEN HUNDRED EIGHTY-FIVE AND 05/100 (P1,785.05) covered by the bond, and if said amount is not paid within thirty (30) days from the date of the demand for payment, action should be filed in court to effect collection thereof."cralaw virtua1aw library

Both Manuel Santos and herein petitioner were furnished copies of said decision on October 4, 1955.

Manuel Santos appealed from said decision of the Collector of Customs to respondents Commissioner of Customs; not to the herein petitioner surety company.

On January 14, 1960, respondent Commissioner of Customs affirmed said decision of the Collector of Customs, in this wise:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"WHEREFORE, by authority of Section 1380 of the Revised Administrative Code, in relation to Section 3702 of the Tariff and Customs Code of the Philippines, the Philippine International Surety Co., Inc. Bond No. 194, dated January 13, 1955, which was filed for the release of the articles in question, is hereby confiscated and the principal, Manuel Santos, as well as the aforesaid surety are hereby ordered to pay in cash, jointly and severally, the amount of ONE THOUSAND SEVEN HUNDRED EIGHTY-FIVE & 05/ 100 PESOS (P1,785.05), Philippine currency, to the Bureau of Customs within thirty (30) days from receipt of a copy of this decision in accordance with the terms of the said bond."cralaw virtua1aw library

Copies of said decision were furnished both Manuel Santos and herein petitioner on January 14, 1960.

On February 1, 1960, petitioner filed with the Court of Tax Appeals a petition for review. 1 Answering said petition (on March 3, 1960), respondent Commissioner of Customs (represented by the Solicitor General) alleged as special defenses, inter alia, that "petitioner has no legal capacity to sue", since it "did not appeal from the decision (dated April 30, 1955) of the Collector of Customs of Manila" ; and that "the petition states no cause of action, because it does not state that the petitioner had previously appealed from the decision of the Collector of Customs"

On March 24, 1960, Manuel Santos filed with the Court of Tax Appeals a petition for inclusion as party petitioner, to enable him to present a common defense (with petitioner) to the seizure proceedings, which petition was duly opposed by respondent Commissioner of Customs, on the ground that Manuel Santos, due to laches, "has lost his remedy to appeal" to the Court of Tax Appeals. On July 11, 1960, the Court of Tax Appeals issued a resolution denying said petition of Manuel Santos for inclusion as co-petitioner, as the decision of the Commissioner of Customs has become final with respect to him for his failure to appeal.

Thereafter, the Court of Tax Appeals proceeded to consider the special defenses raised by respondent Commissioner of Customs. On January 12, 1961, said Court issued a resolution dismissing petitioner’s petition for review holding that "petitioner does not fall within the purview of Section 11 of Republic Act No. 1125 and, consequently, does not have the legal capacity to institute the instant petition for review before this Court."cralaw virtua1aw library

Its motion for reconsideration of said resolution of the Court of Tax Appeals having been denied, petitioner appealed to us.

The appeal is unmeritorious. Note that the decision of the Collector of Customs in the seizure proceedings (Seizure Identification No. 2428) against Manuel Santos, which specifically states:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"As it appears that this shipment of candies was released under Surety Bond No. 194 dated January 13, 1935, issued by the Philippine International Surety Co., Inc. filed for the release of the same, it is hereby ordered that the claimant be required to pay in cash the amount of ONE THOUSAND SEVEN HUNDRED EIGHTY-FIVE and 05/100 (P1,785.05) covered by the bond, and if said amount is not paid within thirty (30) days from the date of the demand for payment, action should be filed in court in effect collection thereof." (Emphasis supplied)

in effect, holds herein petitioner jointly and severally liable with the principal Manuel Santos for the amount covered by the bond (P1,785.05) furnished by petitioner as his surety, because should Santos fail to pay said amount, said bond furnished by petitioner will surely answer for said obligation in an action filed in court to enforce its collection. Now, Petitioner, although duly notified (on October 4, 1955) of said decision, failed to appeal therefrom to herein respondent Commissioner of Customs as required by law (Section 1380, Rev. Adm. Code). Having failed to do so, said decision became final and executory as to petitioner and, consequently, it lost its standing to institute the present petition for review (appeal) in the Court of Tax Appeals. In the case of Sampaguita Shoe & Slipper Factory v. Commissioner of Customs, Et Al., (G.R. No. L-10285, prom. January 14, 1958), involving a similar question, we held:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"As petitioner herein did not interpose an appeal to the Commissioner of Customs from the decision of the Collector of Customs of Cebu within the period of 15 days prescribed by law, said decision of the latter became final and executory; hence, petitioner cannot take its case on appeal to the Court of Tax Appeals."cralaw virtua1aw library

Note also that petitioner, in its brief, expressly admits that it was a party to the seizure proceeding aforementioned, to wit:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"Although petitioner surety was not an original party in the seizure proceeding, it, however, became a party thereto when and from the moment the seized merchandise was released to the importer Manuel Santos in consideration of petitioner’s having put up and underwritten the bond No. 194, which was accepted by the Collector of Customs in substitution of the goods, so much so that when judgment was finally rendered in the case, it could no longer be taken against the goods, because they had already been long released to the importer, but that judgment had to be rendered against petitioner’s surety bond, which was ordered confiscated and the petitioner, together with the importer Manuel Santos was ordered jointly and severally to pay the amount of said bond. Now, as one of the parties held jointly and severally liable under the judgment, petitioner surety has every legitimate, legal right, to appeal therefrom, being a party directly prejudiced aggrieved, or ‘adversely affected’ thereby." (Pages 8-9, Petitioner’s Brief.)

If it was such party as it expressly admits, "when and from the moment the seized merchandise was released to the importer Manuel Santos in consideration of petitioner’s having put up and underwritten the bond No. 194, which was accepted by the Collector of Customs in substitution of the goods", by reasons of which it was always notified of the seizure proceedings, then petitioner should have appealed from said decision of the Collector of Customs, to protect its interest as surety of the principal (importer Manuel Santos), considering that it was duly notified of said decision. It chose, however, not to appeal. It has no one, therefore, to blame but itself for its own laches.

Needless to say, claimant Manuel Santos (principal in the bond furnished by herein petitioner as surety) appealed from said decision of the Collector of Customs, but respondent Commissioner affirmed said decision holding both Santos and petitioner jointly and solidarily liable to pay the sum of P1,785.05 covered by the bond furnished by petitioner. In other words, the appeal was unsuccessful. Such result bound the surety, herein petitioner, in much the same way that had it been successful, the success would have inured to its (petitioner’s) benefit. Note, finally, that Santos, the principal, did not appeal from the decision of the Commissioner of Customs to the Court of Tax Appeals.

WHEREFORE, the resolution appealed from is hereby affirmed, with costs against the petitioner. So ordered.

Bengzon, C.J., Padilla, Bautista Angelo, Labrador, Concepcion, Reyes, J.B.L., Paredes, Dizon, Regala and Makalintal, JJ., concur.

Endnotes:



1. Manuel Santos did not appeal.




Back to Home | Back to Main




















chanrobles.com





ChanRobles On-Line Bar Review

ChanRobles Internet Bar Review : www.chanroblesbar.com

ChanRobles MCLE On-line

ChanRobles Lawnet Inc. - ChanRobles MCLE On-line : www.chanroblesmcleonline.com






January-1964 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. L-17605 January 22, 1964 - POBLETE CONSTRUCTION CO. ET AL v. SOCIAL SECURITY COMMISSION, ET AL

  • G.R. No. L-18511 January 22, 1964 - IGNACIO VERDERA, ET AL v. JAIME HERNANDEZ, ET AL

  • G.R. No. L-15894 January 30, 1964 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL. v. EQUITABLE BANKING CORP.

  • G.R. No. L-16490 January 30, 1964 - PANGASINAN TRANS. CO., INC. v. WORKMEN’S COMPENSATION COM., ET AL

  • G.R. No. L-18345 January 30, 1964 - PAN-AM WORLD AIRWAYS v. PAA EMPLOYEES’ ASSO., ET AL

  • G.R. No. L-18506 January 30, 1964 - IN RE: AO LIN v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-18516 January 30, 1964 - IN RE: YAP CHUN v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-18521 January 30, 1964 - IN RE: KWAN KWOCK HOW v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-18611 January 30, 1964 - CITY LUMBER, INC. v. HON. MELECIO R. DOMINGO, ET AL

  • G.R. No. L-18776 January 30, 1964 - URBANO SAPICO, ET AL. v. MANILA OCEANIC LINES, INC., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-19377 January 30, 1964 - MANILA RAILROAD CO. v. WORKMEN’S COMPENSATION COM. ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-19850 January 30, 1964 - VIGAN ELECTRIC LIGHT CO. INC. v. PUBLIC SERVICE CO.

  • G.R. No. L-20416 January 30, 1964 - JUAN N. EVANGELISTA, ET AL v. HON. LUIS B. REYES, ET AL

  • G.R. No. L-14941 January 31, 1964 - NATALIO VENTOSA v. HON. WENCESLAO L. FERNAN, ET AL

  • G.R. No. L-15027 January 31, 1964 - IN RE: JIMMY LEE v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-15334 January 31, 1964 - BOARD OF ASSESSMENT APPEALS, ET AL v. MANILA ELECTRIC CO.

  • G.R. No. 15460 January 31, 1974

    PEDRO SAN DIEGO v. AUDITOR GENERAL

  • G.R. No. L-15645 January 31, 1964 - PAZ P. ARRIETA, ET AL v. NATIONAL RICE & CORN CORP.

  • G.R. No. L-16349 January 31, 1964 - VICENTE J. FRANCISCO v. AUREA MATIAS

  • G.R. No. L-16896 January 31, 1964 - CATALINA B. ALBERCA v. SUPERINTENDENT OF THE CORRECTIONAL INST. FOR WOMEN

  • G.R. No. L-17749 January 31, 1964 - VICENTE TAMAYO v. SAN MIGUEL BREWERY, INC.

  • G.R. No. L-17871 January 31, 1964 - MANILA RAILROAD CO. v. COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS, ET AL

  • G.R. Nos. L-18071-72 January 31, 1964 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. BONIFACIO INDIC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-18236 January 31, 1964 - ANGEL ESLER v. DOMINGO ELLAMA, ET AL

  • G.R. No. L-18237 January 31, 1964 - IRINEO V. BERNARDO v. VICENTE DEL ROSARIO, ET AL

  • G.R. No. L-18291 January 31, 1964 - PHIL. INTERNATIONAL SURETY CO. INC. v. COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS

  • G.R. No. L-18482 January 31, 1964 - MARIA ROA v. HON. JUDGE L. PASICOLAN, ET AL

  • G.R. No. L-18510 January 31, 1964 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ALBERTO M. SABBUN

  • G.R. No. L-18583 January 31, 1964 - VICENTE D. SARMIENTO v. HON. MONTANO A. ORTIZ, ET AL

  • G.R. No. L-18773 January 31, 1964 - CMS ESTATE, INC. v. COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-18788 January 31, 1964 - ROMULO LOPEZ, ET AL. v. LUIS GONZAGA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-18885 January 31, 1964 - CHIENG YEN v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-19064 January 31, 1964 - IN RE: PAZ E. SIGUION TORRES v. CONCHITA TORRES, ET AL

  • G.R. No. L-19065 January 31, 1964 - MANUELA ADVINCULA v. MANUEL ADVINCULA

  • G.R. No. L-19420 January 31, 1964 - PHIL. ASSO. OF FREE LABOR UNION, ET AL v. SERGIO BOGNOT, ET AL

  • G.R. No. L-19554 January 31, 1964 - PURIFICACION PASCUA v. HON. JESUS Y. PEREZ, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-19631 January 31, 1964 - PASTOR D. AGO v. HON. TEOFILO B. BUSLON, ET AL

  • G.R. No. L-19742 January 31, 1964 - LUZON STEVEDORING CO., INC. v. WORKMEN’S COMPENSATION COM. ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-19745 January 31, 1964 - ELISEO FLORA, ET AL. v. VICENTE OXIMANA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-19782 January 31, 1964 - COMMISSIONER OF IMMIGRATION v. HON. HONORIO ROMERO, ET AL

  • G.R. No. L-19881 January 31, 1964 - ALFREDO CERBO v. HON, GREGORIO D. MONTEJO, ET AL

  • G.R. No. L-20025 January 31, 1964 - FAUSTINO CUNETA v. MANUEL CASTAÑEDA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-20242 January 31, 1964 - FRANCISCO ALLAM, ET AL. v. VALENTINA ACOSTA, ET AL

  • G.R. No. L-20741 January 31, 1964 - SOCORRO A. GILLERA v. CORAZON FERNANDEZ, ET AL

  • G.R. No. L-21399 January 31, 1964 - VILLA-REY TRANSIT, INC. v. HON. ELOY B. BELLO, ET AL.