G.R. No. 193253 September 8, 2015
BUREAU OF CUSTOMS, Petitioner, vs. THE HONORABLE AGNES VST DEVANADERA, ACTING SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE; HONORABLE JOVENCITO R. ZUNO, PEDRITO L. RANCES, ARMAN A. DE ANDRES, PAUL CHI TING CO, KENNETH PUNDANERA, MANUEL T. CO, SALLY L. CO, STANLEY L. TAN, ROCHELLE E. VICENCIO, LIZA R. MAGAWAY, JANICE L. CO, VIVENCIO ABANO, GREG YU, EDWIN AGUSTIN, VICTOR D. PIAMONTE, UNIOIL PETROLEUM PHILIPPINES, INC., and OILINK, INTERNATIONAL, INC., Respondents.

FACTS

The Bureau of Customs (BOC) issued an Audit Notification Letter to respondent OILINK International, Inc. for a post-entry audit of its import transactions. OILINK failed to fully comply with the BOC Audit Team’s requests for documents, leading to an administrative case. The BOC Legal Service rendered a Decision finding OILINK liable for violating Customs Administrative Order No. 4-2004 and ordered it to pay an administrative fine of Php 2,764,859,304.80. A Hold Order was subsequently issued against all shipments of OILINK. Due to a Terminalling Agreement, UNIOIL Petroleum Philippines, Inc. had products stored at OILINK’s terminal. UNIOIL requested and was granted permission by the BOC Commissioner to withdraw its products, subject to conditions. A Warrant of Seizure and Detention was issued for OILINK’s oil tanks. UNIOIL then requested the District Collector of Mariveles, Bataan, to allow the release of its specific products, which was approved via a handwritten note. Following this, the BOC filed a criminal complaint for violation of the Tariff and Customs Code against the private respondents before the Department of Justice (DOJ). The DOJ, through its panel of prosecutors, issued a Joint Resolution finding no probable cause. The BOC’s motion for reconsideration was denied by the Acting Secretary of Justice. The BOC filed a petition for certiorari with the Court of Appeals, which was dismissed for being filed out of time. The BOC’s motion for reconsideration was also denied.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals erred in dismissing the BOC’s petition for certiorari for being filed out of time.

RULING

No, the Court of Appeals did not err. The Supreme Court affirmed the dismissal. The period to file a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 is 60 days from notice of the judgment, order, or resolution sought to be assailed. The BOC received the Secretary of Justice’s Resolution denying its motion for reconsideration on August 17, 2009. It filed its petition with the Court of Appeals on October 20, 2009, which was 64 days later, and therefore four days beyond the reglementary period. The Supreme Court held that the reglementary period is mandatory and jurisdictional. The BOC’s claim of “fresh period” rule application was rejected, as that rule applies to appeals under Rule 41, not to special civil actions under Rule 65. Furthermore, the BOC failed to substantiate its claim of timely filing through a registry receipt or other competent evidence. The Court also found that the DOJ did not commit grave abuse of discretion in finding no probable cause for the complex crime of smuggling with tax evasion, as the BOC’s evidence was insufficient to establish all the elements of the offenses charged.