Source: http://lawlibrary.chanrobles.com/index.php?option=com_content&amp;view=article&amp;id=49861:gr-172051-2007&amp;catid=1494&amp;Itemid=566
Timestamp: 2019-04-19 14:15:57+00:00

Document:
G.R. No. 172051 & 173813 - Afgha Inc. v. Hon. Court of Tax Appeals, et al./Afgha Inc. v. Hon. Court of Tax Appeals, et al.
AGFHA INCORPORATED, Petitioner, v. HON. COURT OF TAX APPEALS AND COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, Respondents.
AGFHA INCORPORATED, Petitioner, v. HON. COURT OF TAX APPEALS (EN BANC) AND COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, Respondents.
On December 12, 1992, a shipment of bales of "text grey cloth" arrived at the Manila International Container Port. The shipment was later placed under a Hold Order, following which forfeiture proceedings were taken for alleged violation of Section 2530 (f) and (1) (3-5) of the Tariff and Customs Code.
Agfha Incorporated (petitioner), claiming to be the lawful owner of the shipment, filed a motion for intervention.
By Decision dated September 5, 1994, the District Collector of Customs ordered the forfeiture of the shipment in favor of the government, drawing petitioner to lodge an appeal to the Commissioner of Customs (respondent) who, however, denied the same.
On October 16, 2000, the Second Division of the CTA issued a writ of execution3 directing respondent to effect the immediate release of the shipment to petitioner. The writ was not implemented, however.
Petitioner thus filed before the CTA a motion4 for respondent to show cause why he should not be punished for contempt for defying the writ of execution.
In his Explanation with Motion for Clarification,5 respondent sought guidance from the CTA since the writ of execution could no longer be carried out due to the "loss" of the shipment.
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Bureau of Customs is adjudged liable to petitioner AGFHA, INC. for the value of the subject shipment in the amount of ONE HUNDRED SIXTY THOUSAND THREE HUNDRED FORTY EIGHT AND 08/100 US DOLLARS (US$160,348.08). The Bureau of Custom's liability may be paid in Philippine Currency, computed at the exchange rate prevailing at the time of actual payment, with legal interests thereon at the rate of 6% per annum computed from February 1993 up to the finality of this Resolution. In lieu of the 6% interest, the rate of legal interest shall be 12% per annum upon finality of this Resolution until the value of the subject shipment is fully paid.
The payment shall be taken from the sale or sales of the goods or properties which were seized or forfeited by the Bureau of Customs in other cases.
Both parties moved for partial reconsideration of the above resolution.
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Bureau of Customs is adjudged liable to petitioner AGFHA, Inc. for the value of the subject shipment in the amount of ONE HUNDRED SIXTY THOUSAND THREE HUNDRED FORTY EIGHT and 08/100 US Dollars (US$160,348.08), subject, however, to the payment of the prescribed taxes and duties, at the time of the importation.The Bureau of Customs' liability may be paid in Philippine Currency, computed at the exchange rate prevailing at the time of actual payment, with legal interests thereon at the rate of 6% per annum computed from February 1993 up to the finality of this Resolution. In lieu of the 6% interest, the rate of legal interest shall be 12% per annum upon finality of this Resolution until the value of the subject shipment is fully paid.
Petitioner AGFHA, Inc.'s "Motion For Partial Reconsideration" is hereby DENIED for lack of merit.
A. RESPONDENT IS ENTITLED TO BE PAID ONE HUNDRED SIXTY THOUSAND THREE HUNDRED FORTY EIGHT AND 08/100 US DOLLARS (US$160,348.08) PAYABLE IN PHILIPPINE CURRENCY, TO BE COMPUTED AT THE EXCHANGE RATE PREVAILING AT THE TIME OF ACTUAL PAYMENT.
Petitioner, instead of filing its Comment to the Petition for Review, filed a motion to dismiss,17 arguing that a Petition for Review is not the proper remedy to challenge interlocutory orders and/or orders of execution.
mandates the dismissal by the CTA of respondent's appeal.
Petitioner's contentions do not lie.
Acting on the motion filed by petitioner for a determination of the amount respondent should pay on account of the loss of the shipment, the CTA issued the May 17, 2005 Resolution and the assailed resolution adjudging respondent liable for the commercial value thereof in the amount of US$160,348.08.
Sec. 18. Appeal to the Court of Tax Appeals En Banc. - No civil proceedings involving matters arising from the National Internal Revenue Code or the Local Government Code shall be maintained, except as herein provided, until and unless an appeal has been previously filed with the CTA and disposed of in accordance with the provisions of this Act.
Clearly, it was well within the CTA's power of review to entertain respondent's appeal. The present petition for certiorari, G.R. No. 173813, must thus be dismissed.
Respecting G.R. No. 172051, the same must be dismissed too on the ground that petitioner failed to show that it has no plain, speedy and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law against its perceived grievance. Appeal was not only available. It was a speedy and adequate remedy.
On the merits, petitioner raises the issue of whether the CTA erred in ordering petitioner to pay taxes and duties and in ruling that the interest should be computed from the finality of its May 17, 2005 Resolution. Even assuming that the findings of the CTA are incorrect, the error is not one of jurisdiction, but of law which is reviewable by timely appeal.
Grave abuse of discretion generally refers to capricious or whimsical exercise of judgment as is equivalent to lack of jurisdiction, and the abuse of discretion must be so patent and gross as to amount to an evasion of a positive duty or virtual refusal to perform a duty imposed by law or to act in contemplation of law or where the power is exercised in an arbitrary and despotic manner by reason of passion and hostility.
Simply because the CTA allegedly misapplied the law, no grave abuse of discretion may be attributed to it.
WHEREFORE, the consolidated petitions for certiorari, G.R. No. 173813 and G.R. No. 172051, are DISMISSED for lack of merit.
1 Rollo (G.R. No. 172051), p. 90.
2 Id. at 125, Entry of Judgment.
16 Rollo (G.R. No. 173813), p. 318.
17 Rollo (G.R. No. 172051), pp. 404-409.
21 Rollo (G.R. No. 173813), p. 14.
22 Rollo (G.R. No. 172051), p. 426.
23 City of Butuan v. Hon. Ortiz, et al. citing De La Costa v. Cleofas, (67 Phil. 686-693 ), 113 Phil. 636, 639 (1961).
24 Republic of the Philippines v. Unimex Micro-Electronics GnBh, G.R. NOS. 166309-10, March 9, 2007.
25 AN ACT CREATING THE COURT OF TAX APPEALS.
26 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 OR REPUBLIC ACT NO. 1125, AS AMENDED, OTHERWISE KNOWN AS THE LAW CREATING THE COURT OF TAX APPEALS, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.