Lopez and Sons Case Digest

Download as docx, pdf, or txt
Download as docx, pdf, or txt
You are on page 1of 2

G.R. No.

L-9274 February 1, 1957


RUFINO LOPEZ & SONS, INC., petitioner, vs. THE COURT OF TAX APPEALS,
respondent.

NATURE OF THE CASE: Petition for review by certiorari of a decision of the Court
of Tax of Appeals

SC RULING: Appeal is dismissed.

FACTS:

 Lopez & Sons imported hexagonal wire netting ex from Hamburg, Germany.
The Manila Collector of Customs assessed the corresponding customs duties
on the importation on the basis of consular and suppliers invoices. Said
customs duties were paid and the shipments were released. Subsequently,
however, the Collector reassessed the dollar value of the cost and freight of
said wire netting and as a result of the reassessment, additional customs duties
in the amount of P1,966.59 were levied and imposed upon petitioner.
 Failing to secure a reconsideration of the reassessment and levy of additional
customs duties, Lopez & Sons appealed to the Court of Tax Appeals. Acting
upon a motion to dismiss the appeal, filed by the Solicitor General on the ground
of lack of jurisdiction, the Tax Court, by its resolution of May 23, 1955, dismissed
the appeal on the ground that it had no jurisdiction to review decisions of the
Collector of Customs of Manila, citing section 7 of Republic Act No. 1125,
creating said tax court..

ISSUES:
 Whether or not the Court Tax of Appeals has Jurisdiction over the appeal by
Lopez & Sons? (NO)

RULING:

 Section 7 of Republic Act No. 1125 specifically provides that the court of Tax
Appeals has appellate jurisdiction to review decisions of the Commissioner of
Customs. On the other hand, Section 11 of the enumerates the persons and
entities who may appeal mentions among others, those affected by a decision
or ruling of the Collector of Customs, and fails to mention the Commissioner of
Customs. While there is really a discrepancy between the two sections, it is
more reasonable and logical to hold that in section 11 of the Act, the Legislature
meant and intended to say, the Commissioner of Customs, instead of Collector
of Customs.
 If persons affected by a decision of the Collector of Customs may appeal
directly to the Court of Tax Appeals, then the supervision and control of the
Commissioner of Customs over his Collector of Customs, under the Customs
Law found in sections 1137 to 1419 of the Revised Administrative Code, and
his right to review their decisions upon appeal to him by the persons affected
by said would, not only be gravely affected but even destroyed. In thus holding,
the Courts are not exactly indulging in judicial legislation. They are merely
endeavoring to rectify and correct a clearly clerical error in the wording of a
statute, in order to give due course and carry out the evident intention of the
legislature.
 The jurisdiction of the Commissioner of Customs to review the decisions of
the Collector of Customs under section 1380 of the Revised Administrative
Code is not concurrent with the Court of Tax Appeals. An appeal to the
Commissioner of Customs is purely administrative; whereas, appeal to the
Court of Tax Appeals is manifestly judicial. And it is a sound rule that before
one resorts to the Courts, the administrative remedy provided by law should
first be exhausted.

You might also like