1

STATCON G03 | ATTY. NOGRALES

CADIZ | CAMINADE | CORDOVEZ | CUNANAN | FERRARIS | KO| OCAMPO | TAN |YU

Lopez Sons vs Court of Tax Appeals GR No. L-9274 Feb. 1, 1957 Topic: Legislative Intent Facts: Petitioner, Rufino Lopez & Sons, is appealing the resolution of the Court of Tax Appeals for dismissing its appeal from a decision of the Collector of Customs for the Port of Manila.  Petitioner imported hexagonal wire netting from .  The Manila Collector of Customs assessed the corresponding customs duties to which petitioners paid said amount.  Subsequently, the Collector reassessed the dollar value of the cost and freight and as a result, an additional amount of P1,966.59 was levied and imposed upon petitioner.  Because the petitioner failed to secure a reconsideration of the reassessment and levy of the additional customs duties, petitioner appealed to the Court of Tax Appeals.  Court of Tax Appeals dismissed the appeal on the ground that it had no jurisdiction to review the decisions of the Collector of Customs of Manila, citing Sec. 7 of RA 1125.  Petitioner then filed present case seeking for reversal of said resolution of dismissal, invoking Sec. 11 of RA 1125. Issue:

WON the Court of Tax Appeals has jurisdiction to review the decisions of the Collector of Customs of Manila Held: NO. Sec. 7 of the RA 1125 specifically provides that the Court of Tax Appeals has appellate jurisdiction to review the decisions of the Commissioner of Customs. On the other hand, Sec. 11, which enumerates the persons and entities who may appeal (those affected by a decision or ruling of the Collector of Customs), fails to mention the Commissioner of Customs. There is then a clear discrepancy between the two.

If taken literally, a person affected by a decision of the Collector of Customs may appeal to the Court of Tax Appeals. And since no mention is made about the decision of the Commissioner of Customs, a person affected by said decision may not appeal to the Court of Tax Appeals. In other words, the provision conferring appellate jurisdiction on the CTA to review decisions of the Commissioner of Customs (Sec. 7) would be empty, meaningless and unenforceable because under Sec. 11, no person affected by the decision of the Commissioner of Customs may appeal to the CTA. The SC, together with the Tax Court and Solicitor General, then said that a clerical error was committed in Sec. 11, as Sec. 11 was meant to further complement Sec. 7. And that it would be more reasonable and logical to hold that in Sec. 11 of RA 1125, the Legislature meant and intended to say Commissioner of Customs and not Collector of Customs. They further said that if they follow the literal meaning and wording of Sec. 11, then the supervision and control of the Commissioner of Customs over his Collector of Customs, and his right to review their decisions, would not only be gravely effected, but even destroyed. The court believes that such was not the intention of the Legislature in ing RA. 1125. Likewise, SC contends that they are not exactly indulging in judicial legislation but 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. Under the rules of Statcon, it is not the letter but rather the spirit of the law and intention of the Legislature that is important. When the interpretation based on its exact and literal import of words would lead to absurd or mischievous results, or would contravene the clear purposes of the Legislature, it should be construed according to its spirit and reason, disregarding the letter of the law. Court rules that under RA 1125 and the Customs Law, the Court of Tax Appeals has no jurisdiction to review the decisions of the Collector of Customs. Appealed order of dismissal is affirmed. Costs against petitioner.