GR L 20980; (November, 1965) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-20980 November 29, 1965
PHILIPPINES INTERNATIONAL SURETY COMPANY, INC., petitioner, vs. COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, respondent.
FACTS
On August 17, 1955, 187 bales of cotton textiles consigned to Rosol Dry Goods arrived at the Port of Manila. The cargoes lacked the required consular invoice and Central Bank release certificate. Consequently, the goods were subjected to seizure proceedings. They were released from customs custody under a bond with the Philippines International Surety Company, Inc. as surety. The Collector of Customs declared the goods subject to seizure, forfeited the bonds, and ordered Rosol Dry Goods and the surety company to pay jointly and severally the appraised value of P247,952.15. Both appealed to the Commissioner of Customs, who affirmed the decision. Only the surety company appealed further to the Court of Tax Appeals. The Commissioner moved to dismiss the surety’s appeal, arguing it lacked legal capacity as it was not “adversely affected” under Section 11 of Republic Act 1125. The Court of Tax Appeals granted the motion and dismissed the petition.
ISSUE
Whether a surety of a claimant-consignee in a seizure proceeding can appeal from the decision of the Commissioner of Customs to the Court of Tax Appeals.
RULING
Yes. The Supreme Court reversed the resolution of the Court of Tax Appeals and remanded the case for further proceedings. The Court held that the surety company, having been declared jointly and severally liable for a substantial sum, was “adversely affected” by the decision within the meaning of Section 11 of Republic Act 1125. The law does not limit the right of appeal to importers, consignees, or claimants; its broad wording includes any person adversely affected. Since the bonds were forfeited in place of the seized goods, the surety was directly and pecuniarily affected. Disallowing the appeal would deprive the surety of its day in court and its property without due process. A previous case cited by the respondent was distinguished, as it involved a surety’s failure to appeal from the Collector’s decision, making it final, which was not the situation here.