Title
Ace Publication, Inc. vs. Commissioner of Customs
Case
G.R. No. L-18808
Decision Date
May 29, 1964
Ace Publication sought refunds for erroneously collected customs duties on imported newsprints. CTA dismissed the petition for lack of jurisdiction, citing no prior decision from customs officials. Supreme Court affirmed, ruling the petition premature.
Font Size:

Case Digest (G.R. No. L-18808)

Facts:

Importation of Newsprints

  • Between March 1959 and February 1960, Ace Publication, Inc., the petitioner, imported several rolls and packages of newsprints for the exclusive use in the publication of its magazines, including Filipino, Especial, Hiwaga Comics, and Tagalog Classics. These imports were made under the provisions of Republic Act No. 785.

Erroneous Assessment and Collection of Duties

  • The respondent Collector of Customs erroneously and/or illegally assessed and collected an aggregate amount of P86,000.00 on the imported newsprints.

Requests for Refund

  • The petitioner wrote several letters to the Collector of Customs requesting refunds for the amounts paid:
    1. Letters dated April 18, 1959, and November 17, 1959, for a refund of P5,286.95.
    2. Letter dated May 11, 1959, for a refund of P5,112.00.
    3. Letter dated November 17, 1959, for a refund of P18,934.00.
    4. Letter dated February 2, 1960, for refunds of P18,454.00 and P18,934.00.
    5. Letter dated February 26, 1960, for a refund of P19,386.00.
  • These requests were unheeded by the Collector of Customs.

Appeal to the Commissioner of Customs

  • On May 27, 1960, the petitioner wrote to the Commissioner of Customs, asking for a review of the erroneous assessments and collections and requesting authorization for the refund. This letter also went unanswered.

Petition to the Court of Tax Appeals (CTA)

  • On February 9, 1961, the petitioner filed a Petition for Review with the CTA, seeking refunds for the various amounts paid. The petition cited Section 306 of the Internal Revenue Code and the ruling in College of Oral and Dental Surgery vs. Court of Tax Appeals and Collector of Internal Revenue (102 Phil. 912) as the basis for the claim.

Respondents' Motion to Dismiss

  • On March 2, 1961, the respondents, through the Office of the Solicitor General, filed a Motion for Extension of Time to File an Answer, which was set to expire on April 3, 1961. However, on April 3, 1961, the Solicitor General filed a Motion to Dismiss instead, arguing that the CTA lacked jurisdiction because there was no decision by either the Collector or Commissioner of Customs to review.

CTA's Resolution

  • On May 29, 1961, the CTA dismissed the petition for review without prejudice, ruling that it lacked jurisdiction because there was no decision from the Collector or Commissioner of Customs to review. The CTA also noted that the motion to dismiss was filed late but did not address the merits of the case.

Motion for Reconsideration

  • The petitioner filed a Motion for Reconsideration, which was denied by the CTA on August 12, 1961. The petitioner then appealed to the Supreme Court.

Issue:

  1. Whether the Court of Tax Appeals erred in finding that it had no jurisdiction over the petitioner's Petition for Review.
  2. Whether the Court of Tax Appeals erred in dismissing the petition motu proprio.
  3. Whether the Court of Tax Appeals erred in not finding that the respondents' Motion to Dismiss was filed out of time.

Ruling:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Ratio:

  • (Subscriber-Only)


Jur is an AI-powered legal research platform in the Philippines for case digests, summaries, and jurisprudence. AI-generated content may contain inaccuracies; please verify independently.