G.R. No. L-8811; October 31, 1957
THE ACTING COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS, petitioner, vs. THE COURT OF TAX APPEALS, and THE COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, respondents. PHILIPPINE EDUCATION CO., INC., intervenor-respondent.

FACTS

The Philippine Education Co., Inc. imported 1,463 copies of the October 1953 issue of “Pageant” magazine, which contained an article entitled “Check Your Sex-Life Against the New Kinsey Report.” The Acting Collector of Customs, upon recommendation of the Board of Censors, rendered a decision holding the article obscene and indecent under Section 3-(b) of the Philippine Tariff Act of 1909 and ordered the seizure, forfeiture, and burning of the magazines. The importer appealed to the Commissioner of Customs, who reversed the Collector’s decision and ordered the release of the magazines. Upon instruction from the Secretary of Finance, the Commissioner transmitted the record to the Court of Tax Appeals for review, but the Court returned it, stating it could not review decisions motu proprio. The Acting Collector of Customs then filed a notice of appeal and a petition for review with the Court of Tax Appeals. The Commissioner of Customs and the intervenor-importer moved to dismiss, arguing that the Collector lacked legal capacity to appeal and that the Court of Tax Appeals had no jurisdiction, as the case did not involve the collection of taxes. The Court of Tax Appeals dismissed the petition, holding that only persons, associations, or corporations whose pecuniary interests are adversely affected may appeal, and that the Secretary of Finance’s power under Section 1386 of the Revised Administrative Code to order removal of records for review was impliedly repealed by Republic Act No. 1125 . The Acting Collector of Customs appealed this resolution to the Supreme Court.

ISSUE

1. Whether the jurisdiction of the Court of Tax Appeals to review decisions of the Commissioner of Customs is limited only to cases involving disputed assessments and payments of duties and charges.
2. Whether the Collector of Customs, in his official capacity, can institute an appeal from a decision of the Commissioner of Customs to the Court of Tax Appeals, even if directed by the Secretary of Finance.

RULING

1. No. The Supreme Court held that the jurisdiction of the Court of Tax Appeals is not limited to cases involving disputed assessments and payments of duties. Section 7 of Republic Act No. 1125 explicitly confers upon the Court of Tax Appeals exclusive appellate jurisdiction to review, among others, decisions of the Commissioner of Customs in cases involving “seizure, detention, or release of property affected” and “other matters arising under the Customs Law or other law or part of law administered by the Bureau of Customs.” The case at bar, involving the seizure and forfeiture of allegedly obscene magazines, clearly falls within this jurisdiction.
2. No. The Supreme Court held that the Collector of Customs cannot appeal the decision of his superior, the Commissioner of Customs. The Court explained that under the administrative structure, the Commissioner’s decision is final unless appealed by the party adversely affected—in this case, the importer. The Collector, as a subordinate official, must execute the Commissioner’s decision. The power of the Secretary of Finance under Section 1386 of the Revised Administrative Code to certify matters to the Court of First Instance was deemed impliedly repealed by Republic Act No. 1125 , which established a specific procedure and forum for appeals. Therefore, neither the Secretary’s directive nor the Collector’s own initiative could validly initiate an appeal. The proper party to appeal an adverse decision of the Commissioner is the importer, not the government agency whose head has already ruled. The resolution of the Court of Tax Appeals dismissing the petition was affirmed.