10/11/2017 G.R. No.

178759

FIRSTDIVISION

CHEVRONPHILIPPINES,INC.,G.R.No.178759
Petitioner,
Present:

PUNO,C.J.,Chairperson,
CARPIO,
versusAUSTRIAMARTINEZ,*
CORONAand
LEONARDODECASTRO,JJ.

COMMISSIONEROFTHE
BUREAUOFCUSTOMS,
Respondent.Promulgated:

August11,2008

xx


DECISION

CORONA,J.:


[1] [2] [3]
Thisisapetitionforreviewoncertiorari ofthedecision andresolution oftheCourtofTax
Appeals(CTA)enbancdatedMarch1,2007andJuly5,2007,respectively,inCTAEBNos.121and
122whichreversedthedecisionoftheCTAFirstDivisiondatedApril5,2005inCTACaseNo.6358.
[4]
PetitionerChevronPhilippines,Inc. isengagedinthebusinessofimporting,distributingand
marketing of petroleum products in the Philippines. In 1996, the importations subject of this case
arrivedandwerecoveredbyeightbillsoflading,summarizedasfollows:
ARRIVAL
PRODUCTDATEVESSEL

66,229,960litersExMT
NanHaiCrudeOil3/8/1996BonaSpray
6,990,712litersExMT
Reformate3/18/1996OrientTiger

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/august2008/178759.htm 1/22
10/11/2017 G.R. No. 178759
16,651,177litersExMT
FCCUFeedStock3/21/1996ProboBoaning

236,317,862liters
Oman/DubaiExMT
CrudeOil3/26/1996Violet

51,878,114litersExMT
[5]
ArabCrudeOil4/10/1996CrownJewel


The shipments were unloaded from the carrying vessels onto petitioners oil tanks over a period of
threedaysfromthedateoftheirarrival.Subsequently,theimportentrydeclarations(IEDs)werefiled
and 90% of the total customs duties were paid. The import entry and internal revenue declarations
(IEIRDs)oftheshipmentswerethereafterfiledonthefollowingdates:


ENTRY PRODUCT ARRIVAL IED IEIRD
NO. DATE
60696 66,229,960liters 3/8/1996 3/12/1996 5/10/1996
NanHaiCrudeOil
60496 6,990,712liters 3/18/1996 3/26/1996 5/10/1996
Reformate
60596 16,651,177liters 3/21/1996 3/26/1996 5/10/1996
FCCUFeedStock
60096 236,317,862liters 3/26/1996 3/28/1996 5/10/1996
60196 Oman/DubaiCrudeOil
60296
60396
81896 51,878,114liters 4/10/1996 4/10/1996 6/21/1996
ArabCrudeOil

[6]
Theimportationswereappraisedatadutyrateof3%asprovidedunderRA8180 and petitioner
[7]
paidtheimportdutiesamountingtoP316,499,021. PriortotheeffectivityofRA8180onApril16,
1996,therateofdutyonimportedcrudeoilwas10%.
Three years later, then Finance Secretary Edgardo Espiritu received a letter (with annexes)
dated June 10, 1999 from a certain Alfonso A. Orioste denouncing the deliberate concealment,
manipulationandschemeemployedbypetitionerandPilipinasShellintheimportationofcrudeoil,

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/august2008/178759.htm 2/22
10/11/2017 G.R. No. 178759

therebyresultinginhugelossesofrevenueforthegovernment.ThisletterwasendorsedtotheBureau
[8]
ofCustoms(BOC)forinvestigationonJuly19,1999.

OnJanuary28,2000,petitionerreceivedasubpoenaducestecum/adtestificandumfromConradoM.
Unlayao,ChiefoftheInvestigationandProsecutionDivision,CustomsIntelligenceandInvestigation
Service (IPDCIIS) of the BOC, to submit pertinent documents in connection with the subject
shipments pursuant to the investigation he was conducting thereon. It appeared, however, that the
LegalDivisionoftheBOCwasalsocarryingoutaseparateinvestigation.Atty.RobertoMadrid(of
the latter office) had gone to petitioners Batangas Refinery and requested the submission of
informationanddocumentsonthesameshipments.Thispromptedpetitionertoseekthecreationofa
[9]
unifiedteamtoexclusivelyhandletheinvestigation.

OnAugust1,2000,petitionerreceivedfromtheDistrictCollectorofCustomsofthePortofBatangas
(DistrictCollector)ademandletterrequiringtheimmediatesettlementoftheamountofP73,535,830
representing the difference between the 10% and 3% tariff rates on the shipments. In response,
petitioner wrote the District Collector to inform him of the pending request for the creation of a
unifiedteamwiththeexclusiveauthoritytoinvestigatethematter.Furthermore,petitionerobjectedto
thedemandforpaymentofcustomsdutiesusingthe10%dutyrateandreiterateditspositionthatthe
3% tariff rate should instead be applied. It likewise raised the defense of prescription against the
assessmentpursuanttoSection1603oftheTariffandCustomsCode(TCC).Thus,itprayedthatthe
[10]
assessmentfordeficiencycustomsdutiesbecancelledandthenoticeofdemandbewithdrawn.
[11]
InaletterpetitionerreceivedonOctober12,2000,respondentCommissioneroftheBOC
statedthatitwastheIPDCIISwhichwasauthorizedtohandletheinvestigation,totheexclusionof
[12]
theLegalDivisionandtheDistrictCollector.

The IPDCIIS, through Special Investigator II Domingo B. Almeda and Special Investigator III
Nemesio C. Magno, Jr., issued a finding dated February 2, 2001 that the import entries were filed
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/august2008/178759.htm 3/22
10/11/2017 G.R. No. 178759

beyondthe30daynonextendibleperiodprescribedunderSection1301oftheTCC.Theyconcluded
thattheimportationswerealreadyconsideredabandonedinfavorofthegovernment.Theyalsofound
[13]
thatfraudwascommittedbypetitionerincollusionwiththeformerDistrictCollector.

[14]
Thereafter,respondent wrotepetitioneronOctober29,2001informingitofthefindingsof
irregularityinthefilingandacceptanceoftheimportentriesbeyondtheperiodrequiredbycustoms
lawandinthereleaseoftheshipmentsafterthesamehadalreadybeendeemedabandonedinfavorof
thegovernment.PetitionerwasorderedtopaytheamountofP1,180,170,769.21representingthetotal
[15]
dutiablevalueoftheimportations.

This prompted petitioner to file a petition for review in the CTA First Division on November 28,
[16]
2001,askingforthereversalofthedecisionofrespondent.

InadecisionpromulgatedonApril5,2005,theCTAFirstDivisionruledthatrespondentwascorrect
whenheaffirmedthefindingsoftheIPDCIISontheexistenceoffraud.Therefore,prescriptionwas
not applicable. Ironically, however, it also held that petitioner did not abandon the shipments. The
shipments should be subject to the 10% rate prevailing at the time of their withdrawal from the
custody of the BOC pursuant to Sections 204, 205 and 1408 of the TCC. Petitioner was therefore
[17]
liablefordeficiencycustomsdutiesintheamountofP105,899,569.05.
PetitionersoughtreconsiderationoftheApril5,2005decisionwhilerespondentlikewisefiled
hismotionforpartialreconsideration.BothmotionsweredeniedinaresolutiondatedSeptember9,
[18]
2005.
AfterbothrespondentandpetitionerhadfiledtheirpetitionsforreviewwiththeCTAenbanc,
docketedasCTAEBNo.121andCTAEBNo.122,respectively,thepetitionswereconsolidated.

InadecisiondatedMarch1,2007,theCTAenbancheldthatitwasthefilingoftheIEIRDs
thatconstitutedentryundertheTCC.Sincethesewerefiledbeyondthe30dayperiod,theywerenot

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/august2008/178759.htm 4/22
10/11/2017 G.R. No. 178759

seasonably entered in accordance with Section 1301 in relation to Section 205 of the TCC.
Consequently,theyweredeemedabandonedunderSections1801and1802oftheTCC.Italsoruled
that the notice required under Customs Memorandum Order No. 1594 (CMO 1594) was not
necessaryinviewofpetitionersactualknowledgeofthearrivaloftheshipments.Itlikewiseagreed
withtheCTADivisionsfindingthatpetitionercommittedfraudwhenitfailedtofiletheIEIRDwithin
the 30day period with the intent to evade the higher rate. Thus, petitioner was ordered to pay
[19]
respondentthetotaldutiablevalueoftheoilshipmentsamountingtoP893,781,768.21.

Hencethispetition.

Therearethreeissuesforourresolution:
1. whetherentryunderSection1301inrelationtoSection1801oftheTCCreferstothe
IEDortheIEIRD
2.whetherfraudwasperpetratedbypetitionerand
3.whethertheimportationscanbeconsideredabandonedunderSection1801.
ENTRYINSECTIONS1301AND1801OFTHE
TCCREFERSTOBOTHTHEIEDANDIEIRD

UnderSection1301oftheTCC,importedarticlesmustbeenteredwithinanonextendibleperiodof
30daysfromthedateofdischargeofthelastpackagefromavessel.Otherwise,theBOCwilldeem
theimportedgoodsimpliedlyabandonedunderSection1801.Thus:
Section1301.PersonsAuthorizedtoMakeImportEntry.Importedarticlesmustbeentered
inthecustomhouseattheportofentrywithinthirty(30)days,whichshallnotbeextendiblefrom
date of discharge of the last package from the vessel or aircraft either (a) by the importer, being
holderofthebilloflading,(b)byadulylicensedcustomsbrokeractingunderauthorityfromaholder
of the bill or (c) by a person duly empowered to act as agent or attorneyinfact for each holder:
Provided,Thatwheretheentryisfiledbyapartyotherthantheimporter,saidimportershallhimselfbe
requiredtodeclareunderoathandunderthepenaltiesoffalsificationorperjurythatthedeclarationsand
statementscontainedintheentryaretrueandcorrect:Provided,further,Thatsuchstatementsunderoath
shall constitute prima facie evidence of knowledge and consent of the importer of violation against
applicableprovisionsofthisCodewhentheimportationisfoundtobeunlawful.(Emphasissupplied)

Section1801.Abandonment,KindsandEffectof.Animportedarticleisdeemed abandoned under
anyofthefollowingcircumstances:

xxxxxxxxx

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/august2008/178759.htm 5/22
10/11/2017 G.R. No. 178759
b.Whentheowner,importer,consigneeorinterestedpartyafterduenotice,failstofileanentry
within thirty (30) days, which shall not be extendible, from the date of discharge of the last
package from the vessel or aircraft, or having filed such entry, fails to claim his importation within
fifteen(15)days,whichshallnotlikewisebeextendible,fromthedateofpostingofthenoticetoclaim
suchimportation.(Emphasissupplied)

Petitioner argues that the IED is an entry contemplated by these sections. According to it, the
congressionaldeliberationsonRA7651whichamendedtheTCCtoprovideanonextendible30day
periodshowthelegislativeintenttoexpeditetheprocedurefordeclaringimportationsasabandoned.
FilinganentryservesasnoticetotheBOCoftheimporterswillingnesstocompletetheimportation
andtopaythepropertaxes,dutiesandfees.Conversely,thenonfilingoftheentrywithintheperiod
connotestheimportersdisinterestandenablestheBOCtoconsiderthegoodsasabandoned.Sincethe
IED is a BOC form that serves as basis for payment of advance duties on importation as required
[20] [21]
underPD1853, itsufficesasanentryunderSections1301and1801oftheTCC.
Wedisagree.

The term entry in customs law has a triple meaning. It means (1) the documents filed at the
customshouse(2)thesubmissionandacceptanceofthedocumentsand(3)theprocedureofpassing
[22]
goodsthroughthecustomshouse.
TheIEDservesasbasisforthepaymentofadvancedutiesonimportationswhereastheIEIRD
evidencesthefinalpaymentofdutiesandtaxes.Thequestionis:wasthefilingoftheIEDsufficientto
constituteentryundertheTCC?

Thelawitself,inSection205,definesthemeaningofthetechnicaltermenteredasusedinthe
TCC:

Section205.Entry,orWithdrawalfromWarehouse,forConsumption.Importedarticlesshall
bedeemedenteredinthePhilippinesforconsumptionwhenthespecifiedentryformisproperly
filedandaccepted,togetherwithanyrelateddocumentsregainedbytheprovisionsofthisCodeand/or
regulationstobefiledwithsuchformatthetimeofentry,attheportorstationbythecustomsofficial
designatedtoreceivesuchentrypapersandanyduties,taxes,feesand/orotherlawfulchargesrequired
to be paid at the time of making such entry have been paid or secured to be paid with the customs
official designated to receive such monies, provided that the article has previously arrived within the
limitsoftheportofentry.

xxxxxxxxx
(Emphasissupplied)
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/august2008/178759.htm 6/22
10/11/2017 G.R. No. 178759

Clearly,theoperativeactthatconstitutesentryoftheimportedarticlesattheportofentryisthe
filingandacceptanceofthespecifiedentryformtogetherwiththeotherdocumentsrequiredbylaw
and regulations. There is no dispute that the specified entry form refers to the IEIRD. Section 205
definestheprecisemomentwhentheimportedarticlesaredeemedentered.
[23]
Moreover,intheoldcaseofGoHoLimv.TheInsularCollectorofCustoms, weruledthat
the word entry refers to the regular consumption entry (which, in our current terminology, is the
IEIRD)andnottheprovisionalentry(theIED):

Itisdisputedbythepartieswhethertheapplicationforthespecialpermit.ExhibitA,containing
themisdeclaredweightofthe800casesofeggs,comeswithinthemeaningoftheword"entry"usedin
section1290oftheRevisedAdministrativeCode,orsaidword"entry"meansonlythe"originalentry
andimporter'sdeclaration."ThecourtbelowreversedthedecisionoftheInsularCollectorofCustoms
on the ground that the provisions of section 1290 of the Revised Administrative Code refer to the
regularconsumptionentryandnottoaprovisionaldeclarationmadeinanapplicationforaspecial
permit,astheonefiledbytheappellee,toremovethecasesofeggsfromthecustomhouse.

Thiscourtisoftheopinionthatcertainlytheapplication,ExhibitA,cannotbeconsideredasa
finalregularentryoftheweightofthe800casesofeggsimportedbytheappellee,takingintoaccount
the fact that said application sought the delivery of said 800 cases of eggs "from the pier after
examination," and the special permit granted, Exhibit E, provided for "delivery to be made after
examinationbytheappraiser."Alltheforegoing,togetherwiththecircumstancethattheappelleehadto
filetheregularconsumptionentrywhichheboundhimselftodo,asshownbytheapplication,Exhibit
A,logicallyleadtotheconclusionthatthedeclarationoftheweightofthe800casesofeggsmadein
said application, is merely a provisional entry, and as it is subject to verification by the customhouse
examiner,itcannotbeconsideredfraudulentforthepurposeofimposingasurchargeofcustomsduties
[24]
upontheimporter. (Emphasissupplied)

[25]
The congressional deliberations on House Bill No. 4502 which was enacted as RA 7651
amendingtheTCClaydownthepolicyconsiderationsforthenonextendible30dayperiodforthe
filingoftheimportentryinSection1301:

MR.JAVIER(E.).

xxxxxxxxx

[26]
Under Sections 1210 and 1301 of the [TCC], Mr. Speaker, import entries for imported
articlesmustbefiledwithinfivedaysfromthedateofdischargeofthelastpackagefromthevessel.
Thefivedayperiod,however,Mr.Speaker,issubjecttoanindefiniteextensionatthediscretion of
the collector of customs, which more often than not stretches to more than three months, thus
resultinginconsiderabledelayinthepaymentofdutiesandtaxes.
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/august2008/178759.htm 7/22
10/11/2017 G.R. No. 178759
This bill, Mr. Speaker, seeks to amend Sections 1210 and 1301 by extending the fiveday
periodtothirtydays,whichwillnolongerbeextendible,withinwhichimportentriesmustbefiled
forimportedarticles.Moreover, to give the importer reasonable time, the bill prescribes a period of
fifteendayswhichmaynotbeextendedwithinwhichtoclaimhisimportationfromthetimehefiled
the import entry. Failure to file an import entry or to claim the imported articles within the period
prescribed under the proposed measure, such imported articles will be treated as abandoned and
declaredasipsofactothepropertyofthegovernmenttobesoldatpublicauction.
Under this new procedure, Mr. Speaker, importers will be constrained under the threat of
having their importation declared as abandoned and forfeited in favor of the government to file
importentriesandclaimtheirimportationasearlyaspossiblethusacceleratingthecollectionof
dutiesandtaxes.Butprovidingforanonextendibleperiodof30dayswithinwhichtofileanimport
entry, an appeal of fifteen days within which to claim the imported article, the bill has removed the
discretion of the collector of Customs to extend such period thus minimizing opportunity for graft.
Moreover, Mr. Speaker, with these nonextendible periods coupled with the threat of declaration of
abandonmentofimportedarticles,boththe[BOC]andtheimporterareunderpressuretoworkforthe
early release of cargo, thus decongesting all ports of entry and facilitating the release of goods and
therebypromotingtradeandcommerce.

Finally,Mr.Speaker,thespeedyreleaseofimportedcargocoupledwiththesanctionsofdeclarationof
[27]
abandonment and forfeiture will minimize the pilferage of imported cargo at the ports of entry.
(Emphasissupplied)
ThefilingoftheIEIRDshasseveralimportantpurposes:toascertainthevalueoftheimported
articles,collectthecorrectandfinalamountofcustomsdutiesandavoidsmugglingofgoodsintothe
[28]
country. Petitioners interpretation would have an absurd implication: the 30day period applies
only to the IED while no deadline is specified for the submission of the IEIRD. Strong issues of
publicpolicymilitateagainstpetitionersinterpretation.ItistheIEIRDwhichaccompaniesthefinal
paymentofdutiesandtaxes.ThesedutiesandtaxesmustbepaidinfullbeforetheBOCcanallowthe
releaseoftheimportedarticlesfromitscustody.
Taxes are the lifeblood of the nation. Tariff and customs duties are taxes constituting a
significantportionofthepublicrevenuewhichenablesthegovernmenttocarryoutthefunctionsit
[29]
hasbeenordainedtoperformforthewelfareofitsconstituents. Hence,theirpromptandcertain
[30] [31]
availabilityisanimperativeneed andtheymustbecollectedwithoutunnecessaryhindrance.
Clearly,andperhapsforthatreasonalone,thesubmissionoftheIEIRDcannotbelefttotheexclusive
discretionorwhimoftheimporter.

[32]
Wehold,therefore,thatundertherelevantprovisionsoftheTCC, boththeIEDandIEIRD
should be filed within 30 days from the date of discharge of the last package from the vessel or

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/august2008/178759.htm 8/22
10/11/2017 G.R. No. 178759

aircraft. As a result, the position of petitioner, that the import entry to be filed within the 30day
periodreferstotheIEDandnottheIEIRD,hasnolegalbasis.

THEEXISTENCEOFFRAUD
WASESTABLISHED

Petitioneralsodeniesthecommissionoffraud. It maintains that it had no predetermined and
deliberateintentionnottocomplywiththe30dayperiodinordertoevadethepaymentofthe10%
rateofduty.ItssolereasonforthedelayedfilingofIEIRDswasallegedlyduetothelatearrivalofthe
originalcopiesofthebillsofladingandcommercialinvoiceswhichitssupplierscouldsendonlyafter
thelattercomputedtheaveragemonthlypriceofcrudeoilbasedonworldwidetrading.Itclaimsthat
theBOCrequiredtheseoriginaldocumentstobeattachedtotheIEIRD.

Petitionersargumentslackmerit.

Fraud,initsgeneralsense,isdeemedtocompriseanythingcalculatedtodeceive,includingall
acts, omissions, and concealment involving a breach of legal or equitable duty, trust or confidence
justly reposed, resulting in the damage to another, or by which an undue and unconscionable
[33]
advantageistakenofanother. Itisaquestionoffactandthecircumstancesconstitutingitmustbe
[34]
allegedandprovedinthecourtbelow. Thefindingofthelowercourtastotheexistenceornon
[35]
existenceoffraudisfinalandcannotbereviewedhereunlessclearlyshowntobeerroneous. In
this case, fraud was established by the IPDCIIS of the BOC. Both the CTA First Division and en
bancagreedcompletelywiththisfinding.

TheevidenceshowedthatpetitionerbideditstimetofiletheIEIRDsoastoavailofalower
rateofduty.(Atoraboutthetimethesedevelopmentsweretakingplace,thebillloweringthedutyon
theseoilproductsfrom10%to3%wasalreadyunderintensediscussioninCongress.)Therewasa
calculatedandpreconceivedcourseofactionadoptedbypetitionerpurposelytoevadethepaymentof
the correct customs duties then prevailing. This was done in collusion with the former District

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/august2008/178759.htm 9/22
10/11/2017 G.R. No. 178759

Collector,whoallowedtheacceptanceofthelateIEIRDsandthecollectionofdutiesusingthe3%
declaredrate.Aclearindicationofpetitionersdeliberateintentiontodefraudthegovernmentwasits
nondisclosureofdiscrepanciesonthedutiesdeclaredintheIEDs(10%)andIEIRDs(3%)covering
[36]
theshipments.
It was not by sheer coincidence that, by the time petitioner filed its IEIRDs way beyond the
mandatedperiod,therateofdutyhadalreadybeenreducedfrom10%to3%.BoththeCTADivision
andenbancfoundtheexplanationofpetitioner(foritsdelayinfiling)untruthful.Thebillsoflading
and corresponding invoices covering the shipments were accomplished immediately after loading
[37]
ontothevessels. Notably,thememorandumofadistrictcollectorcitedbypetitionerasbasisfor
[38]
itsassertionthatoriginalcopieswererequiredbytheBOCwasdatedOctober30,2002. Thereis
noshowingthatin1996,thetimepertinentinthiscase,thiswasinfactarequirement.

More importantly, the absence of supporting documents should not have prevented petitioner
fromcomplyingwiththemandatoryandnonextendibleperiod,speciallysincetheconsequencesof
delayedfilingwereextremelyserious.In addition, these supporting documents were not conclusive
[39]
on the government. If this kind of excuse were to be accepted, then the collection of customs
dutieswouldbeatthemercyofimporters.

Hence,duetothepresenceoffraud,theprescriptiveperiodofthefinalityofliquidationunder
Section1603wasinapplicable:

Section1603.FinalityofLiquidation.Whenarticleshavebeenenteredandpassedfreeofduty
or final adjustments of duties made, with subsequent delivery, such entry and passage free of duty or
settlements of duties will, after the expiration of one (1) year, from the date of the final payment of
duties,intheabsenceoffraudorprotestorcomplianceauditpursuanttotheprovisionsofthisCode,
befinalandconclusiveuponallparties,unlesstheliquidationoftheimportentrywasmerelytentative.
[40]

THEIMPORTATIONSWEREABANDONED
INFAVOROFTHEGOVERNMENT

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/august2008/178759.htm 10/22
10/11/2017 G.R. No. 178759

Thelawisclearandexplicit.Itgivesanonextendibleperiodof30daysfortheimportertofilethe
entrywhichwehavealreadyruledpertainstoboththeIEDandIEIRD.ThusunderSection1801in
relationtoSection1301,whentheimporterfailstofiletheentrywithinthesaidperiod,heshallbe
deemedtohaverenouncedallhisinterestsandpropertyrightstotheimportationsandtheseshallbe
consideredimpliedlyabandonedinfavorofthegovernment:
Section1801.Abandonment,KindsandEffectof.

xxxxxxxxx

Anypersonwhoabandonsanarticleorwhofailstoclaimhisimportationasprovidedforin
the preceding paragraph shall be deemed to have renounced all his interests and property rights
therein.

Accordingtopetitioner,theshipmentsshouldnotbeconsideredimpliedlyabandonedbecausenoneof
its overt acts (filing of the IEDs and paying advance duties) revealed any intention to abandon the
[41]
importations.

Unfortunatelyforpetitioner,itwasthelawitselfwhichconsideredtheimportationabandoned
whenitfailedtofiletheIEIRDswithintheallottedtime.Beforeitwasamended,Section1801was
wordedasfollows:

Sec.1801.Abandonment,KindsandEffectof.Abandonmentisexpresswhenitismadedirect
totheCollectorbytheinterestedpartyinwritinganditisimpliedwhen,fromtheactionoromission
oftheinterestedparty,anintentiontoabandoncanbeclearlyinferred.Thefailureofanyinterested
party to file the import entry within fifteen days or any extension thereof from the discharge of the
vesseloraircraft,shallbeimpliedabandonment.Animpliedabandonmentshallnotbeeffectiveuntil
the article is declared by the Collector to have been abandoned after notice thereof is given to the
interestedpartyasinseizurecases.

Any person who abandons an imported article renounces all his interests and property rights
[42]
therein.

After it was amended by RA 7651, there was an indubitable shift in language as to what could be
consideredimpliedabandonment:

Section1801.Abandonment,KindsandEffectof.Animportedarticleisdeemedabandoned
underanyofthefollowingcircumstances:

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/august2008/178759.htm 11/22
10/11/2017 G.R. No. 178759
a. When the owner, importer, consignee of the imported article expressly signifies in writing to the
CollectorofCustomshisintentiontoabandonor

b.Whentheowner,importer,consigneeorinterestedpartyafterduenotice,failstofileanentrywithin
thirty(30)days,whichshallnotbeextendible,fromthedateofdischargeofthelastpackagefrom
thevesseloraircraftxxxx


From the wording of the amendment, RA 7651 no longer requires that there be other acts or
omissionswhereanintenttoabandoncanbeinferred.Itisenoughthattheimporterfailstofilethe
requiredimportentrieswithinthereglementaryperiod.Thelawmakerscouldhaveeasilyretainedthe
[43]
words used in the old law (with respect to the intention to abandon) but opted to omit them. It
wouldbeerroronourparttocontinueapplyingtheoldlawdespitetheclearchangesintroducedby
theamendment.
NOTICEWASNOTNECESSARYUNDER
THECIRCUMSTANCESOFTHISCASE

Petitioner also avers that the importations could not be deemed impliedly abandoned because
respondentdidnotgiveitanynoticeasrequiredbySection1801oftheTCC:

Sec.1801.Abandonment,KindsandEffectof.Animportedarticleisdeemedabandonedunder
anyofthefollowingcircumstances:

xxxxxxxxx

b.Whentheowner,importer,consigneeorinterestedpartyafterduenotice,failstofileanentrywithin
thirty(30)days,whichshallnotbeextendible,fromthedateofdischargeofthelastpackagefromthe
vesseloraircraftxxx(Emphasissupplied)
Furthermore,itclaimsthatnoticeandabandonmentproceedingswererequiredundertheBOCs
guidelinesonabandonment(CMO1594):

SUBJECT:REVISEDGUIDELINESONABANDONMENT

xxxxxxxxx

B.ADMINISTRATIVEPROVISIONS

xxxxxxxxx

B.2Impliedabandonmentoccurswhen:

B.2.1Theowner,importer,consignee,interestedpartyorhisauthorizedbroker/representative,afterdue
notice,failstofileanentrywithinanonextendibleperiodofthirty(30)daysfromthedateofdischarge
oflastpackagefromthecarryingvesseloraircraft.
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/august2008/178759.htm 12/22
10/11/2017 G.R. No. 178759

xxxxxxxxx

Due notice to the consignee/importer/owner/interested party shall be by means of posting of a
notice to file entry at the Bulletin Board seven (7) days prior to the lapse of the thirty (30) day
periodbytheEntryProcessingDivisionlistingtheconsigneeswho/whichhavenotfiledtherequired
import entries as of the date of the posting of the notice and notifying them of the arrival of their
shipment,thenameofthecarryingvessel/aircraft,Voy.No.Reg.No.andtherespectiveB/LNo./AWB
No., with a warning, as shown by the attached form, entitled: URGENT NOTICE TO FILE ENTRY
whichisattachedheretoasAnnexAandmadeanintegralpartofthisOrder.

xxxxxxxxx

C.OPERATIONALPROVISIONS

xxxxxxxxx

C.2OnImpliedAbandonment:

C.2.1Whennoentryisfiled

C.2.1.1Within twentyfour (24) hours after the completion of the boarding
formalities,theBoardingInspectormustsubmitthemanifests to
the Bay Service or similar office so that the Entry Processing
Divisioncopymaybeputtousebysaidofficeassoonaspossible.

C..2.1.2Withintwentyfour(24)hoursafterthecompletionoftheunloading
ofthevessel/aircraft,theInspectorassignedinthevessel/aircraft,
shall issue a certification addressed to the Collector of Customs
(Attention: Chief, Entry Processing Division), copy furnished
Chief,DataMonitoringUnit,specificallystatingthetimeanddate
ofdischargeofthelastpackagefromthevessel/aircraftassignedto
him.SaidcertificatemustbeencodedbyDataMonitoringUnitin
theManifestClearanceSystem.

C.2.1.3Twentythree (23) days after the discharge of the last package from
thecarryingvessel/aircraft,theChief,DataMonitoringUnitshall
causetheprintingoftheURGENTNOTICETOFILEENTRY
in accordance with the attached form, Annex A hereof, sign the
URGENTNOTICEandcauseitspostingcontinuouslyforseven
(7)daysattheBulletinBoardforthepurposeuntilthelapseof
thethirty(30)dayperiod.

C.2.1.4The Chief, Data Monitoring Unit, shall submit a weekly report to the
CollectorofCustomswithalistingbyvessel,RegistryNumberof
shipments/ importations which shall be deemed abandoned for
failure to file entry within the prescribed period and with
certificationthatperrecordsavailable,thethirty(30)dayperiod
within which to file the entry therefore has lapsed without the
consignee/importerfilingtheentryandthattheproperpostingof
noticeasrequiredhasbeencompliedwith.

xxxxxxxxx
C.2.1.5Uponreceiptofthereport,theCollectorofCustomsshallissueanorder
totheChief,AuctionandCargoDisposalDivision,todispose of
the shipment enumerated in the report prepared by the Chief,
DataMonitoringUnitonthegroundthatthoseareabandonedand
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/august2008/178759.htm 13/22
10/11/2017 G.R. No. 178759
ipsofactodeemedthepropertyoftheGovernmenttobedisposed
ofasprovidedbylaw.

[44]
xxxxxxxxx (Emphasissupplied)

Wedisagree.

Under the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case, due notice was not necessary. The
shipments arrived in 1996. The IEDs and IEIRDs were also filed in 1996. However, respondent
discovered the fraud which attended the importations and their subsequent release from the BOCs
custodyonlyin1999.Obviously,thesituationherewasnotanordinarycaseofabandonmentwherein
theimportermerelydecidednottoclaimitsimportations.Fraudwasestablishedagainstpetitionerit
colluded with the former District Collector. Because of this, the scheme was concealed from
respondent. The government was unable to protect itself until the plot was uncovered. The
government cannot be crippled by the malfeasance of its officials and employees. Consequently, it
wasimpossibleforrespondenttocomplywiththerequirementsundertherules.

Bythetimerespondentlearnedoftheanomaly,theentrieshadalreadybeenbelatedlyfiledand
the oil importations released and presumably used or sold. It was a fait accompli. Under such
circumstances,itwouldhavebeenagainstalllogictorequirerespondenttostillpostanurgentnotice
tofileentrybeforedeclaringtheshipmentsabandoned.
The minutes of the deliberations in the House of Representatives Committee on Ways and
MeansontheproposedamendmenttoSection1801oftheTCCshowthatthephraseafterduenotice
was intended for owners, consignees, importers of the shipments who live in rural areas or distant
places far from the port where the shipments are discharged, who are unfamiliar with customs
proceduresandneedthehelpandadviceofpeopleonhowtofileanentry:



xxxxxxxxx

MR. FERIA. 1801, your Honor. The question that was raised here in the last hearing was
whether notice is required to be sent to the importer. And, it has been brought forward that we can
dispensewiththenoticetotheimporterbecausetheshippingcompaniesarenotifyingtheimporterson

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/august2008/178759.htm 14/22
10/11/2017 G.R. No. 178759
the arrival of their shipment. And, so that notice is sufficient to . . . sufficient for the claimant or
importertoknowthattheshipmentshavealreadyarrived.
Second, your Honor, the legitimate businessmen always have . . . they have their agents with the
shippingcompanies,andsotheyshouldknowthearrivaloftheirshipment.

xxxxxxxxx

HON. QUIMPO. Okay. Comparing the two, Mr. Chairman, I cannot help but notice that in the
substitution now there is a failure to provide the phrase AFTER NOTICE THEREOF IS GIVEN TO
THEINTERESTEDPARTY,whichwasintheoriginal.Nowinthesecond,inthesubstitution,ithas
beendeleted.Iwasfirstwonderingwhetherthiswouldbenecessaryinordertoprovidefordueprocess.
Imthinkingofcertaincases,Mr.Chairman,wheretheownermightnothaveknown.Thisisnowon
impliedabandonmentnottheexpressabandonment.

xxxxxxxxx

HON. QUIMPO. Because Im thinking, Mr. Chairman. Im thinking of certain situations where the
importereventhough,youknow,inthenormalcourseofbusinesssometimestheyfailtokeepupthe
dateorsomethingtothateffect.

THECHAIRMAN.Sometimestheircargoesgetlost.

HON.QUIMPO.Sojustto,youknow...anyway,thisisonlyanoticetobesenttothemthatthey
haveacargothere.

xxxxxxxxx

MR.PARAYNO.Your Honor, I think as a general rule, five days [extendible] to another five
days is a good enough period of time. But we cannot discount that there are some consignees of
shipments located in rural areas or distant from urban centers where the ports are located to
cometothe[BOC]andtoaskforhelpparticularlyifashipconsignmentismadetoanindividual
whoisuninitiatedwithcustomsprocedures.Hewillprobablyhavetheproblemofcomingoverto
the urban centers, seek the advice of people on how to file entry. And therefore, the five day
extendibletoanotherfivedaysmightreallybeatightperiodforsome.But the majority of our
importersareknowledgeableofprocedures.Andinfact,itisintheirinteresttofiletheentryeven
beforethearrivaloftheshipment.Thatswhywehaveaprocedureinthebureauwherebyimporterscan
[45]
filetheirentriesevenbeforetheshipmentarrivesinthecountry. (Emphasissupplied)

xxxxxxxxx

Petitioner, a regular, largescale and multinational importer of oil and oil products, fell under
thecategoryofaknowledgeableimporterwhichwasfamiliarwiththegoverningrulesandprocedures
inthereleaseofimportations.

Furthermore,noticetopetitionerwasunnecessarybecauseitwasfullyawarethatitsshipments
had in fact arrived in the Port of Batangas. The oil shipments were discharged from the carriers
dockedinitsprivatepierorwharf,intoitsshoretanks.Fromthenon,petitionerhadactualphysical
possession of its oil importations. It was thus incumbent upon it to know its obligation to file the
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/august2008/178759.htm 15/22
10/11/2017 G.R. No. 178759

IEIRDwithinthe30dayperiodprescribedbylaw.As a matter of fact, importers such as petitioner

can,underexistingrulesandregulations,fileinadvanceanimportentryevenbeforethearrivalofthe
shipmenttoexpeditethereleaseofthesame.However, it deliberately chose not to comply with its
obligationunderSection1301.

ThepurposeofpostinganurgentnoticetofileentrypursuanttoSectionB.2.1ofCMO1594is
only to notify the importer of the arrival of its shipment and the details of said shipment. Since it
alreadyhadknowledgeofsuch,noticewassuperfluous.Besides, the entries had already been filed,
albeitbelatedly.Itwouldhavebeenoppressivetothegovernmenttodemandaliteralimplementation
ofthisnoticerequirement.

ANABANDONEDARTICLESHALLIPSOFACTOBEDEEMEDTHE
PROPERTYOFTHEGOVERNMENT

Section1802oftheTCCprovides:
Sec. 1802. Abandonment of Imported Articles. An abandoned article shall ipso facto be
deemedthepropertyoftheGovernmentandshallbedisposedofinaccordancewiththeprovisionsof
thisCode.(Emphasissupplied)

The term ipso facto is defined as by the very act itself or by mere act. Probably a closer
[46]
translation of the Latin term would be by the fact itself. Thus, there was no need for any
affirmativeactonthepartofthegovernmentwithrespecttotheabandonedimportedarticlessincethe
law itself provides that the abandoned articles shall ipso facto be deemed the property of the
government. Ownership over the abandoned importation was transferred to the government by
operationoflawunderSection1802oftheTCC,asamendedbyRA7651.

AhistoricalreviewofthepertinentprovisionsoftheTCCdispelsanyviewthatiscontraryto
theautomatictransferofownershipoftheabandonedarticlestothegovernmentbythemerefactofan
importersfailuretofiletherequiredentrieswithinthemandatedperiod.

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/august2008/178759.htm 16/22
10/11/2017 G.R. No. 178759

[47]
Under the former Administrative Code, Act 2711, Section 1323 of Article XV thereof
provides:
Sec.1323.When implied abandonment takes effect NoticeAn implied abandonment shall not
takeeffectuntilafterthepropertyshallbedeclaredbythecollectortohavebeenabandonedandnotice
tothepartyininterestasinseizurecases.


[48]
Thereafter,RA1937 wasenacted.Section1801thereofprovides:

Sec.1801.Abandonment,KindsandEffectof.Abandonmentisexpresswhenitismadedirect
totheCollectorbytheinterestedpartyinwritinganditisimpliedwhen,fromtheactionoromissionof
theinterestedparty,anintentiontoabandoncanbeclearlyinferred.Thefailureofanyinterestedparty
tofiletheimportentrywithinfifteendaysoranyextensionthereoffromthedischargeofthevesselor
aircraft,shallbeimpliedabandonment.Animpliedabandonmentshallnotbeeffectiveuntilthearticle
isdeclaredbytheCollectortohavebeenabandonedafternoticethereofisgiventotheinterestedparty
asinseizurecases.

Any person who abandons an imported article renounces all his interests and property rights
therein.


[49]
PD1464 didnotamendtheprovisionsoftheTCConabandonment.Thelatestamendment
wasintroducedbySection1802ofRA7651whichprovides:

Sec.1802.AbandonmentofImportedArticles.Anabandonedarticleshallipsofactobedeemed
thepropertyoftheGovernmentandshallbedisposedofinaccordancewiththeprovisionsofthisCode.


Theamendatorylaw,RA7651,deletedtherequirementthattheremustbeadeclarationbythe
CollectorofCustomsthatthegoodshavebeenabandonedbytheimportersandthatthelattershallbe
givennoticeofsaiddeclarationbeforeanyabandonmentofthearticlesbecomeseffective.

Nodoubt,byusingthetermipsofactoinSection1802asamendedbyRA7651,thelegislature
removedtheneedforabandonmentproceedingsandforadeclarationthattheimportedarticleshave
[50]
beenabandonedbeforeownershipthereofcanbetransferredtothegovernment.

Petitioner claims it is arbitrary, harsh and confiscatory to deprive importers of their property
rights just because of their failure to timely file the IEIRD. In effect, petitioner is challenging the

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/august2008/178759.htm 17/22
10/11/2017 G.R. No. 178759

constitutionality of Sections 1801 and 1802 by contending that said provisions are violative of
substantiveandproceduraldueprocess.Wedisallowthiscollateralattackonapresumablyvalidlaw:

Wehaveruledtimeandagainthattheconstitutionalityorvalidityoflaws,orders,orsuchother
ruleswiththeforceoflawcannotbeattackedcollaterally.Thereisalegalpresumptionofvalidityof
theselawsandrules.Unlessalaworruleisannulledinadirectproceeding,thelegalpresumptionofits
[51]
validitystands.


Besides,

[a]lawisdeemedvalidunlessdeclarednullandvoidbyacompetentcourtmoresowhenthe
issuehasnotbeendulypleadedinthetrialcourt.Thequestionofconstitutionalitymustberaisedatthe
earliestopportunity.xxxThesettledruleisthatcourtswillnotanticipateaquestionofconstitutionallaw
[52]
inadvanceofthenecessityofdecidingit.

Be that as it may, the intent of Congress was unequivocal. Our policy makers wanted to do
awaywithlengthyproceedingsbeforeanimportationcanbeconsideredabandoned:
xxxxxxxxx
MR. PARAYNO. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The proposed amendment to Section 1801 on the
abandonment, kinds and effects. This aimed to facilitate, Mr. Chairman, the process by which this
activity is being acted upon at the moment. The intention, Mr. Chairman, is for the Customs
Administrationtobeabletomaximizetherevenuethatcanbederivedfromabandonedgoods,andthe
problemthatweareencounteringatthemomentisthatwehavetogothroughalengthyprocesssimilar
toaseizureproceedingstobeabletofinallydeclarethecargo,theabandonedcargoforfeitedinfavorof
the government and therefore, may be disposed of pursuant to law.And that therefore, the proposed
amendment particularly on the implied abandonment as framed here will do away with the
lengthyprocessofseizureproceedingsandtherefore,enableustodisposeoftheshipmentsthrough
publicauctionandothermodesofdisposalasearlyaspossible.
THECHAIRMAN.Inotherwords,Commissioner,therellbenoneedforaseizureinthecase
[53]
ofabandonmentbecauseundertheproposedbillitsconsideredtobegovernmentproperty.

xxxxxxxxx



CONCLUSION

Petitionersfailuretofiletherequiredentrieswithinanonextendibleperiodofthirtydaysfrom
dateofdischargeofthelastpackagefromthecarryingvesselconstitutedimpliedabandonmentofits
oilimportations.Thismeansthatfromtheprecisemomentthatthenonextendiblethirtydayperiod
lapsed,theabandonedshipmentsweredeemed(thatis,theybecame)thepropertyofthegovernment.

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/august2008/178759.htm 18/22
10/11/2017 G.R. No. 178759

Therefore, when petitioner withdrew the oil shipments for consumption, it appropriated for itself
properties which already belonged to the government. Accordingly, it became liable for the total
dutiablevalueoftheshipmentsofimportedcrudeoilamountingtoP1,210,280,789.21reducedbythe
total amount of duties paid amounting to P316,499,021.00 thereby leaving a balance of
P893,781,768.21.

Bytheverynatureofitsfunctions,theCTAisahighlyspecializedcourtspecificallycreatedfor
the purpose of reviewing tax and customs cases. It is dedicated exclusively to the study and
considerationofrevenuerelatedproblemsandhasnecessarilydevelopedanexpertiseonthesubject.
Thus, as a general rule, its findings and conclusions are accorded great respect and are generally
upheldbythisCourt,unlessthereisaclearshowingofareversibleerrororanimprovidentexercise
ofauthority.Thereisnosuchshowinghere.

WHEREFORE, the petition is hereby DENIED. Petitioner Chevron Philippines, Inc. is
ORDERED to pay the amount of EIGHT HUNDRED NINETY THREE MILLION SEVEN
HUNDRED EIGHTY ONE THOUSAND SEVEN HUNDRED SIXTY EIGHT PESOS AND
TWENTYONE CENTAVOS (P893,781,768.21) plus six percent (6%) legal interest per annum
accruingfromthedateofpromulgationofthisdecisionuntilitsfinality.Uponfinalityofthisdecision,
the sum so awarded shall bear interest at the rate of twelve percent (12%) per annum until its full
satisfaction.

Costsagainstpetitioner.

SOORDERED.



RENATOC.CORONA
AssociateJustice


WECONCUR:


http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/august2008/178759.htm 19/22
10/11/2017 G.R. No. 178759

REYNATOS.PUNO
ChiefJustice
Chairperson



ANTONIOT.CARPIOMA.ALICIAM.AUSTRIAMARTINEZ
AssociateJusticeAssociateJustice



TERESITAJ.LEONARDODECASTRO
AssociateJustice

CERTIFICATION

Pursuant to Section 13, Article VIII of the Constitution, I certify that the conclusions in the above
decisionhadbeenreachedinconsultationbeforethecasewasassignedtothewriteroftheopinionof
theCourtsDivision.


REYNATOS.PUNO
ChiefJustice

*AsreplacementofJusticeAdolfoS.AzcunawhoisonofficialleaveperSpecialOrderNo.510.
[1]
UnderRule45oftheRulesofCourtinrelationtoRule16oftheRevisedRulesoftheCourtofTaxAppeals.
[2]
Penned by Associate Justice Juanito C. Castaeda and concurred in by Associate Justices Erlinda P. Uy, Caesar A. Casanova and Olga
PalancaEnriquez.PresidingJusticeErnestoD.AcostaandAssociateJusticeLovellR.Bautistadissented.Rollo,pp.86133.
[3]
Id.,pp.134138.
[4]
FormerlyknownasCaltex(Philippines),Inc.
[5]
Rollo,p.88.
[6]
OtherwiseknownastheDownstreamOilIndustryDeregulationActof1996.
[7]
Rollo,p.121.
[8]
Id.,p.89.
[9]
Id.

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/august2008/178759.htm 20/22
10/11/2017 G.R. No. 178759
[10]
Id.,pp.89,142145.
[11]
ThroughCommissionerRenatoA.Ampil.
[12]
Rollo,pp.90,146.
[13]
Id.,pp.9093.ThenameofthisformerDistrictCollectordoesnotappearintherollo.
[14]
ThroughCommissionerTitusB.Villanueva.
[15]
Rollo,pp.93,147.
[16]
Id.,pp.93,149157.TheOctober29,2001demandletterisadecisionwithinthepurviewofSection7,RA1125(AnActCreatingthe
CTA[1954]).AccordingtothedecisionoftheCTAFirstDivision,theBOCsentanotherletter,datedDecember28,2001,demanding
payment of the deficiency customs duties.Since petitioner did not pay, the BOC instituted a civil case for collection of a sum of
moneydocketedascivilcaseno.02103239intheRegionalTrialCourt,Manila,Branch25onApril11,2002.(Id.,p.167.)
[17]
Thisincludesa25%surchargeduetofraudid.,p.180.
[18]
Id.,pp.236240.
[19]
ThetotalamountofdutiespaidamountingtoP316,499,021wassubtractedfromthetotaldutiablevalueoftheshipmentsamountingto
P1,210,280,789.21id.,p.121.
[20]
PD 1853 was the law that took effect on January 1, 1983, requiring deposits of duties upon the opening of letters of credit to cover
imports.Section2thereofstates:
Section2.Theamountofthedutiesdueshallbebasedonthedeclarationoftheapplicantfortheletterofcredit/importer,subjectto
thepenaltiesprescribedunderSec.2503ofthe[TCC]of1978,asamended.
[21]
Rollo,pp.3236.
[22]
Rodriguezv.CA,G.R.No.115218,18September1995,248SCRA288,297,citingtheTariffandCustomsCode,Section1201andIV
Tejam,CommentariesontheRevisedTariffandCustomsCode2230[1987].
[23]
64Phil.64(1937).
[24]
Id.,pp.6667.SeeCommissionerofInternalRevenuev.HantexTradingCo.,Inc.,G.R.No.136975,31March2005,454SCRA301,304.
[25]
AnActtoRevitalizeandStrengthentheBureauofCustoms,AmendingforthePurposeCertainSectionsoftheTariffandCostomsCode
ofthePhilippines,asAmended(ApprovedonJune4,1993).
[26]
Section1210.DispositionofImportedArticlesRemainingonVesselAfterTimeforUnlading.Importedarticlesremainingonboardany
vesselaftertheexpirationofthesaidperiodfordischargeandnotreportedfortransshipmenttoanotherport,maybeunladenbythe
customsauthoritiesandstoredatthevesselsexpense.
Unlesspreventedbycausesbeyondthevesselscontrol,suchasportcongestion,strikes,riotsorcivilcommotions,failureofvesselsgear,bad
weather,andsimilarcauses,articlessostoredshallbeenteredwithinthirty(30)days,whichshallnotbeextendible,fromthedateof
discharge of the last package from the vessel or aircraft and shall be claimed within fifteen (15) days, which shall not likewise be
extendiblefromthedateofpostingofthenoticetoclaiminconspicuousplacesinthe[BOC].Ifnotenteredornotclaimed,itshallbe
disposedofinaccordancewiththeprovisionsofthisCode.
[27]
SponsorshipSpeechofExequielB.Javier,March22,1993.
[28]
Rollo,p.176.
[29]
Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Court of Tax Appeals, G.R. No. 106611, 21 July 1994, 234 SCRA 348, 356 Commissioner of
Customsv.Makasiar,G.R.No.79307,29August1989,177SCRA27,34.AccordingtothenSenatorGloriaMacapagalArroyo(now
PresidentoftheRepublicofthePhilippines):
The[BOC]isoneofthepremierrevenuecollectingarmsoftheGovernment,whotogetherwiththeBureauoftheInternalRevenueaccounts
forthecollectionofmorethaneightypercent(80%)ofgovernmentrevenue.(March29,1993,ExplanatoryNoteofSenateBillNo.
451,p.14)
[30]
Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Goodrich International Rubber Co., G.R. No. L22265, 27 March 1968, 22 SCRA 1256, 1257
CommissionerofInternalRevenuev.Pineda,G.R.No.L22734,15September1967,21SCRA105,110.
[31]
PhilexMiningCorporationv.CommissionerofInternalRevenue,G.R.No.125704,28August1998,294SCRA687,696.
[32]
Sections205,1301and1801.
[33]
CommissionerofInternalRevenuev.EstateofBenignoP.Toda,Jr.,G.R.No.147188,14September2004,438SCRA290,300,citing
CommissionerofInternalRevenuev.CA,327Phil.1,33(1996).
[34]
CommissionerofInternalRevenuev.AyalaSecuritiesCorporation,G.R.No.L29485,31March1976,70SCRA205,209.

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/august2008/178759.htm 21/22
10/11/2017 G.R. No. 178759
[35]
Id.,pp.209210,citationsomitted.
[36]
Rollo,p.178.
[37]
Id.,pp.108109.
[38]
Id.,p.68.
[39]
Caltex(Philippines),Inc.v.CA,G.R.No.104781,10July1998,292SCRA273,284285.
[40]
BeforeitwasamendedbyRA9135(AnActAmendingCertainProvisionsofPD1464,OtherwiseKnownastheTCCofThePhilippines,
asAmended,andforOtherPurposes[2001]).
[41]
Rollo,p.40.
[42]
RA1937entitledAnActtoReviseandCodifytheTariffandCustomsLawsofthePhilippines(ApprovedonJune22,1957).

[43]
SeeParrasv.LandRegistrationCommission,108Phil.1142,1146(1960)andPhil.PackingCorp.v.Coll.ofInternalRev.,100Phil.545,
553(1956).
[44]
DatedApril29,1994rollo,pp.4951.
[45]
October21,1992,pp.II1toII4,III2.
[46]
WordsandPhrases,PermanentEdition,Volume22A(1958),p.446.
[47]
AnActAmendingtheAdministrativeCode(March10,1917).
[48]
Supranote42.
[49]
ADecreetoConsolidateandCodifyAllTariffandCustomsLawsofthePhilippines(ApprovedonJune11,1978).
[50]
IntheSponsorshipSpeechofSenatorHerrera,hestated:
Specifically, [Senate Bill No. 451] seeks to speed up the movement of the imported goods byclarifying when imported articles are being
abandoned.(March29,p.20.)
[51]
Tanv.Bausch&Lomb,Inc.,G.R.No.148420,15December2005,478SCRA115,123124,citingOlsenandCo.,v.Aldanese,43Phil.
259(1922)SanMiguelBreweryv.Magno,128Phil.328(1967).
[52]
PhilippineNationalBankv.Palma,G.R.No.157279,9August2005,466SCRA307,323,citationsomitted.
[53]
MinutesoftheDeliberationsintheHouseofRepresentativesCommitteeonWaysandMeans,October21,1992,pp.I2toI3.

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/august2008/178759.htm 22/22