CTA Case No. 3141 (Resolution)
� REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES COURT OF TAX APPEALS QUE~O CITY LITO JUA SHIPPI G COKPA Y, C.T.A. CASE 0. 31 1 represented by Grane port Corpor tion s sub-agent, Peti t~oner, - versus - COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOM , Responden � X- - - - - - - - - - - - X E S 0 L UT I 0 N A otion to Dismia the petition for revi v in this c w s f~ ed by re pondent on October 2, 980 on the ground th t this Court is allegedly ithout jurisd~ction to tak cognizance nd/or entert in petitioner' appe 1 s1nce it was filed out of time. <C.T.A Records, pp. 3 -36. > ln it Manifestation and Mot1on � led on November 7, 1980, petitioner assailed the Motion t.o Dismiss for lack o� notice o:f hearing and the efore a �mere scrap o:f paper which should b consJ..d ed non-existent. " Petit1oner prayed that r pond n be declared 1n de:fault �or not having �11 d n n wer within the prescribed period. <C.T.A. record , pp.
� RESOLUTION - C.T.A. CASE NO. 3141 - 2- 39-41). Up on manifest ation . o� pe t itioner's counsel in the hea ring o� this case on November 12, 1980, resp ond nt's Motion to D~sm~ss and petationer's Mani fest tion and Mot~on were held ~n abeyance indefin~t ly until such im when the Sup e e Cour has decid d th c e n olv1.n he same p t1. s and p. 42 A otion to Cane 1 issues cc. T � � r cor Hearing and o C n in u pen JOn o� Hear1ngs or to Arc h jv the ~nst nt ca e w Jul y 27, 1' 7 <C.T.A. R cords, pp. 43-44). ithout o bjection on he p r ot r spondent, th1 ourt res olv d to rch~ve w1. ou pr ud~ce h t awa it th deci ~on of e Supre e Cou an th c e on r of u to s v . ~ourt o.:f T pp ala, e t. 1. , G. R. N:os. L.-4888 , 4887 a:nd 8888 � T. A. Cases Nos. 27 1 and 2832) h~ch a pending b ore i an 1nvolv1.ng the same s u s nd similar fac s h l.n an case. In the h n o� hl. c e or August 31, lq9J, petitioner's coun l niJ: sted tha h was al ready a ci i n b the upr me Cour n :tavor o:f pet ition r ~n the fore o ng case ho eve , t w s noted that he C ur h s no y t resolved res pond nt's Mo ion to D1.sm1.ss and pe i ion r's Manifestation and Mot1.on.
� RESOLU':IO C.T.A. C.SE 0. 314~ -3- :he ground re~ied upon by' respondent for moving �or t e d s. ss l of .the petition Ya~ lack of )Urisdict o i.r c !t w a t ed out o time. RespondEnt cl rly �t�blishe ha> follo .i.n ~ 1. On F' �bx u ry 1 , 1(. 77, pet::i t:.'..cme.~ 1.~ece.1.v "'� dec 3ion of the Co m1ssioner of Cu ~o~- d~t d J nu ry 31, 1977 d ~yizg petitA.one: �s pr test aga_n t the col.l cti.on of b rth n chargea �A n x A8 ) aforem_ 1977, pe'it1 ner filed a .;m �ider � t on o:f the Annex "8") 3. 2, 1980, petit1uner :..~ec&l. ved of the Comm~ssioner a{ Custom ., 1980 denyin th~ notion fo r n (An ex �'"'�> 4. On 1, .19 Or petitl.one~ f:i e ei or rev ev <C. 1'. A. Recorda. ...p. From pE"t i tioner. 't-! ecni t o..: the deci :inn on February H:S~ ... S'r! to t "" fill. ncr o.f thP nt::i on :for rPcon ider tic~ en . :rc 19'77 ~ e�tod of y ~-s alr a~y lap ed. P em pe i ioner's rec 1pt of re pond t� ord~r of deni .1 o� the reconsideration on upu 12, 1980 o .hP f1ling o% petition for revie '"'n s pte r 11, lq o,. ~ peri of ~o ~ays h ve lap .d. A t ;at 1 o:f 57 days have el .a'!!'d fro ::.ce:i pt o:f ue ion to he :!ili g of he e.i ion. s r,:,tion 11 of Republic c No. 1125 pro..,ides t t appeal :from d�ui:t:~ion 0 i~ne Commissioner of C11Bto s to t1e Court o:f T X ppeel~
j o. 31. 1 tb 1 d v tiu.n 30 y r r c pt o a ch p "t'on V rl. h v t Ci 0 0 p 0 0 o� ow� n r l. i r 0 n od h
� � 3141 -5 - entitled to hav that ot n r ol ed befor being 1~ Ul.r d t I � .t. ows, th zor , Yh r 0. - r rt d fil d. ot o .o dia.�a, th Court itho t ... olv1 ; Y U....(j he iTICUr C:t to decl e h �. .:.n ct v. " f r his :f ilt ~re �o :fi. e an new r it ld e t n ount to d i .l oi' du~ ( r n ... l c , i.s d of ourt, clum L yeo, o. 1. 2367). I 1 t. c a. at , n netic of he rin o.~ he .ot�on to di :f1l d en Octo:Of?r a otj . 2, 198 � ow v r, Co rt c date :f he r n o� 'b r 2, 1 80 in he Cur�' notic, pe ition r� counse
I .. 1 RESOLUTIO C.T.A. CASE 0. 3141 -6- appe e and rn""nifeated th t n dec:tsion on th �oreg n~ 1 ::.t:too.� s !:> h 1 ~yence inde~initely <C. � A ~ _c r � p. 42 >� The . u �po 0 notjce of tion i~ t b-1ng the p y into Cou ... the t me t.h 10 ion~ thereby ":'nabling h-'m to ppe r and conte~�t +h o~ <F.o nc:t o,. Rev1se mot..:. n .l. he ire ... do Rule o.f c :f c Volu l, p 856 cit.:i 'l . Am Jur., 0 ) hp po of th in r :rl.ng a thre -d y notic o� h- a ring :t moti to it.: "to id ri.,E::s u th 0 0 i�a . ;rty 1<. t. giv 0 t .... tt r to nd Tile thG' r ue t 0 0 io .( nc v. 1. � Janu l~y .. 0, 19&2>, .as ith. Fe-, plaJ. ti:f:fs be n yc pl.&.:.d ha - d t ch nc. to e ent nd n i'oc::t v rt .. c on to th& y did e their 0 otion t:.o d smis.... H rJ..ng on t otion t.o d~ 1 IE th \I!' b co uperflu' y. a surplus e. The> end of justice h ve be n S\: seJ�v d. nd the cou t� J.l r to note th t, on th d te o:f esrin 0 id p ... i n t i .i..s h d no no� ic~ her c. f. of rr r tho t r&,udi d ( nt 'o. 96o, 16 SCRA 2:7 .� h re r n 7 4J.
� RESOLUriOM - C.T~ ~ CASE RO~ 3 41 - "1 h ocnnot later complain that sufficient notice thereof aa not given him~ His action oonstit t&a a waiver o:t his right to due notice 'FranCJ..SCO, ~evised Rules o� Court Volu e l~ p. 859 citlng Southern Kut.o:t" ,. l:ru:.1orporated va. Gaw,. et. .1., � f.1. 15 c"'"'. Sup � --~:.3). In '! ca. "", hal the J.aw prohiuits is n t ~h bsence of pr~�ious nat~ce, Dut absol t~ ab �nee thareaf ~nd lac: o� opportunity to . 1 Phil. 72{ c ting Borja V' � 1'c n, 9"' Ph-.L. l"enol:i.o,. 93 Phl. � 782 >. In v:i. w o� the :for goJ.ng, We :find that the lr..c o.f no l. e o hesrinA ol r spondent'a mcti_n to o� heaiing is ued by this Co~rt in a~~ordance wito it Peti toner respondent's otio to by . t s man~�estat1on nd �atiun oppo~ing hP mo\ion to d.;.smisa nd th o;f peti. t1.oner' co' "sel in the h aring eL for the purpose w ere it was menJ.:f""s ed ha. decisio on said mot ona he d~f~rred. ol im t it no now ledge 0 respond .- t � no1~ i � a not ~eard .1n c ,u t. ~1 4 2
ESULUTI � � � 41 -8 - H REFO E, the inata t petition �or review is he b ord d di �o lack f juri diction,. h Yl.l' t l d b yond th r le nt ~Y riod. OJlJ)EREJ>. zon Ci y, :ro Man J , C!epte 4, 993. Pr J. � GRUB .Judg '?4:)
More in CTA Resolutions
- MILLIONSTAR GRAINS CORP., Represented by its President/General Manager, MS. JAENA BAUTISTA-MANUNTAG v. HON. DISTRICT COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS and HON. REY LEONARDO B. GUERERRO, COMMISSIONER OF BUREAU OF CUSTOMS(CTA Case No. 10770)
- T SHUTTLE Services Inc., v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, Revenue District Officer (RDO), Collection Supervisor and Collection Officers of Revenue District Office 57 (RDO-57) Bi?an and San Pedro, Laguna.(CTA Case No. 8650)
- SANKYU-ATS CONSORTIUM - B v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE(CTA Case No. 10768)
- CTA Case No. 4652 (Resolution)(CTA Case No. 4652)
- CTA Case No. 1832 (Resolution)(CTA Case No. 1832)
- TRIDHARMA MARKETING CORPORATION, INC. v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE(CTA Case No. 8833)
- Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. San Miguel Brewery Inc.(CTA Case No. EB 2834)
- SUGAR CRAFTS, INC. v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE(CTA Case No. 8738)
Want an analysis of this document?
Ask ASG Legal AI to summarize it, compare it with other rulings, or explain how it applies to your situation — it researches from this same library.