G.R. No. L-10940; September 25, 1959
AMPANG TAN, petitioner, vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS AND COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS FOR THE PORT OF JOLO, respondents.

RAMON ROCES, INC., petitioner, vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS and COLLECTOR FOR THE PORT OF MANILA, respondents.

FACTS

1. In G.R. No. L-10940 (Ampang Tan), the Commissioner of Customs, in a decision dated February 23, 1953, sustained the forfeiture of cigarettes ordered by the Collector of Customs of Jolo. The petitioner appealed to the defunct Board of Tax Appeals, which affirmed the decision. The case was then appealed to the Supreme Court, which dismissed it without prejudice following the ruling in U.S.T. vs. Board of Tax Appeals.
2. On April 19, 1954, petitioner Ampang Tan filed a petition for review of the Commissioner’s decision with the Court of First Instance of Manila. However, he failed to pay the required docketing fee in that court. His subsequent motion for reinstatement with the Supreme Court was denied on February 11, 1955.
3. The Court of Tax Appeals, in a resolution dated March 2, 1955, reinstated a petition for review (filed October 26, 1954) on condition that the docketing fee be paid. The fee was paid on March 8, 1955.
4. In G.R. No. L-10942 (Ramon Roces, Inc.), parallel proceedings occurred. The Commissioner of Customs affirmed the Collector’s decision on October 6, 1952. The Board of Tax Appeals affirmed it on October 23, 1952. An appeal to the Supreme Court was dismissed without prejudice on April 29, 1954.
5. After the Supreme Court’s dismissal, Ramon Roces, Inc. filed a notice of appeal with the Commissioner of Customs for review by the Court of First Instance but similarly failed to pay the docketing fee in court. A petition for review was filed with the Court of Tax Appeals on October 26, 1954, which was later dismissed but reinstated on March 2, 1955, conditioned on payment of the docketing fee. The Court of Tax Appeals ultimately dismissed the petition for review.
6. The Court of Tax Appeals dismissed both cases, ruling that the appeals from the decisions of the Commissioner of Customs were not perfected within the prescribed time due to the failure to pay the docketing fee essential to perfect an appeal, citing Lazaro vs. Endencia.

ISSUE

Did the petitioners perfect their appeals from the decisions of the Commissioner of Customs within the time prescribed by law?

RULING

No. The Supreme Court affirmed the resolutions of the Court of Tax Appeals dismissing the appeals.
1. The filing of a notice of appeal with the Commissioner of Customs and the subsequent payment of the docketing fee in the Court of First Instance (or the Court of Tax Appeals, which succeeded it for this purpose under Republic Act No. 1125) are both essential steps to perfect an appeal and confer jurisdiction upon the reviewing court.
2. In both cases, the petitioners filed their notices of appeal but failed to pay the required docketing fee in the court within the statutory period. The offer or payment made much later (on March 8, 1955, in Ampang Tan’s case) did not cure the jurisdictional defect, as the appeal was not perfected in time.
3. The petitioners’ argument—that the Supreme Court’s dismissal of their earlier appeals “without prejudice” should have kept the appeals alive or automatically transferred them to the Court of First Instance—was rejected. Their own act of filing a new notice of appeal with the Commissioner of Customs after the dismissal demonstrated that they recognized the need to initiate a new appeal process.
4. Since the appeals were not perfected within the legal period, the Court of Tax Appeals correctly held that it had no jurisdiction to entertain them. The resolutions of dismissal were affirmed, with costs against the petitioners.