Facts:

The case involves Ace Publication, Inc. as the petitioner against the Commissioner of Customs and the Collector of Customs as respondents. The events transpired between March 1959 and February 1960, during which Ace Publication, Inc., a publisher of various magazines including Filipino, Especial, and Hiwaga Comics, imported several rolls and packages of newsprint intended exclusively for the publication of these magazines under Republic Act No. 785. The Collector of Customs, however, erroneously assessed and collected a total of P86,000.00 in customs duties on these imports. In response, the petitioner sent multiple letters requesting refunds for the overpaid amounts, including letters dated April 18, 1959, November 17, 1959, May 11, 1959, February 2, 1960, and February 26, 1960, totaling various amounts. All these requests went unanswered, prompting the petitioner to escalate the matter to the Commissioner of Customs in a letter dated May 27, 1960, seeking a review of the as...

Facts:

Background of the Case

• Between March 1959 and February 1960, ACE Publication, Inc., publisher of several magazines (Filipino, Especial, and Hiwaga Comics, and Tagalog Classics), imported rolls and packages of newsprints for the exclusive use in its publications under the provisions of Rep. Act No. 785.
• The imported newsprints were subject to customs duties, fees, or other money charges as assessed by the Collector of Customs.

Refund Requests and Inaction

• The petitioner sent several letters requesting refunds for amounts allegedly erroneously and/or illegally collected by the Collector of Customs:
• April 18, 1959 and November 17, 1959 – refund of P5,286.95;
• May 11, 1959 – refund of P5,112.00;
• November 17, 1959 – refund of P18,934.00;
• February 2, 1960 – refund of P18,454.00 and P18,934.00;
• February 26, 1960 – refund of P19,386.00.
• These refund requests were not acted upon by the Collector of Customs despite repeated communications.

Escalation to the Commissioner of Customs and Further Action

• Due to the lack of response from the Collector of Customs, the petitioner subsequently forwarded a letter dated May 27, 1960 to the Commissioner of Customs, asking for a review of the alleged erroneous and/or illegal assessments and to authorize the refund.
• The Commissioner's inaction on the matter further compelled the petitioner to file a Petition for Review with the Court of Tax Appeals (CTA) on February 9, 1961, containing six causes of action for the respective refund amounts.

Procedural Developments Before the CTA

• On March 2, 1961, the respondents, through the Office of the Solicitor General, filed a Motion (Ex-Parte) for Extension of Time to File an Answer.
• On April 3, 1961, the Solicitor General instead presented a Motion to Dismiss, citing:
• The lack of jurisdiction of the CTA to review the petition for review since there had been no formal decision by either the Collector or the Commissioner of Customs on the refund claims.
• A reference to the requirement in the previous law governing the Board of Tax Appeals that a decision by the official concerned must precede any review action.
• Procedural irregularity arose when the motion to dismiss, although stamped on April 3, was postmarked April 18 and received on April 21, 1961—six days after the scheduled hearing on April 15.
• On April 22, 1961, the petitioner, through counsel, filed an Omnibus Motion to:
• Strike out the Motion to Dismiss dated April 3, 1961; and
• Declare respondents in default.
• On May 29, 1961, the CTA issued a resolution dismissing the petition for review without prejudice, primarily on the ground of the court’s lack of jurisdiction due to the absence of a decision by the Customs officials.

Petitioner's Arguments on Appeal

• The petitioner contended that the CTA did have jurisdiction over its Petition for Review, relying on the precedent in College of Oral and Dental Surgery vs. CTA & Coll. of Int. Rev., and drawing analogies from Sec. 306 of the Internal Revenue Code.
• It further argued that the dismissal was erroneous on two additional counts:
• The motion to dismiss was itself filed out of time.
• The CTA’s dismissal of the petition motu proprio was incorrect.

Issue:

Jurisdiction of the Court of Tax Appeals

• Whether the CTA had jurisdiction to entertain the petitioner’s Petition for Review in a case where no decision by the Collector or Commissioner of Customs had been rendered.
• Whether the administrative remedy of awaiting an official decision was a mandatory prerequisite before filing a petition for review.

Procedural Validity and Timeliness

• Whether the motion to dismiss, although received late, could be considered valid.
• Whether the petitioner’s failure to raise jurisdictional issues earlier affected the proper course of the remedy.

Applicability of Precedents and Statutory Analogies

• Whether the ruling in College of Oral and Dental Surgery vs. CTA & Coll. of Int. Rev. could extend to cases under Rep. Act No. 1125.
• Whether the analogy drawn between Sec. 306 of the Internal Revenue Code and Sec. 7, Paragraph 2 of Rep. Act No. 1125 was legally sustainable.

Ruling:

• (Subscriber-Only)

Ratio:

• (Subscriber-Only)

Doctrine:

• (Subscriber-Only)