GR L 22420; (March, 1967) (Digest)
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.
FACTS
On December 13, 1954, a shipment of goods consigned to J.D. Salva arrived in Manila from Hongkong. Due to a lack of the required release certificate and import license under Central Bank Circulars 44 and 45, the Collector of Customs of Manila initiated seizure proceedings. The goods were later released to the consignee after he posted surety bonds from the Philippine International Surety Co., Inc. On April 20, 1955, the Collector of Customs declared the importation forfeited and ordered the payment of P4,733.00. J.D. Salva appealed to the Commissioner of Customs, who affirmed the Collector’s decision. Salva did not appeal further. The surety company, Philippine International Surety Co., Inc., moved for reconsideration, which was denied. The surety then appealed to the Court of Tax Appeals. The Court of Tax Appeals dismissed the petition, upholding the validity of Central Bank Circulars 44 and 45 and ruling that the surety company lacked the personality to appeal, being merely a surety. The surety’s motion for reconsideration was denied, prompting this appeal.
ISSUE
1. Whether the petitioner, Philippine International Surety Co., Inc., had the personality to appeal and properly perfected its appeal from the decision of the Collector of Customs.
2. Whether Central Bank Circulars 44 and 45 are valid.
RULING
The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the Court of Tax Appeals.
1. On the procedural issue, the Court found that the petitioner failed to appeal from the decision of the Collector of Customs to the Commissioner of Customs. The record indicated that notice of the Collector’s decision was served on the surety company. The Court presumed regularity in the performance of official duty by the chief of the law division of the Bureau of Customs, who listed transmittal letters, including one addressed to the surety company, following the decision. Furthermore, the surety company’s failure to mention lack of notice in its motion for reconsideration before the Commissioner of Customs, only raising it later in the Court of Tax Appeals, undermined its claim. Thus, even assuming it had personality to appeal, such right was lost due to the failure to perfect the appeal.
2. On the substantive issue, the Court upheld the validity of Central Bank Circulars 44 and 45, citing a long line of decisions that have repeatedly sustained their validity and constitutionality. The Court of Tax Appeals had already fully considered the petition on the merits and sustained the circulars. The Supreme Court saw no reason to depart from its established jurisprudence. The decision was affirmed with costs against the petitioner.