Академический Документы
Профессиональный Документы
Культура Документы
Respondents Contention:
It contended that CMO 27-2003 was issued
without following the mandate of the Revised
Administrative Code on public participation,
prior notice, and publication or registration with
the University of the Philippines Law Center.
Respondent also alleged that the regulation
summarily adjudged it to be a feed grade
supplier
without
the
benefit
of
prior
assessment and examination; thus, despite
having imported food grade wheat, it would be
subjected to the 7% tariff upon the arrival of
the shipment, forcing them to pay 133% more
than was proper.
Issue: Whether or Not the determination of
whether a specific rule or set of rules issued by
an administrative agency contravenes the law
or the constitution is within the jurisdiction of
the regular courts?
Ruling of the Court: The Court upheld that
petitioners violated respondents right to due
process in the issuance of CMO 27-2003 when
they failed to observe the requirements under
the Revised Administrative Code. Petitioners
likewise violated respondents right to equal
protection of laws when they provided for an
unreasonable classification in the application of
the regulation. Finally, petitioner Commissioner
of Customs went beyond his powers of
delegated authority when the regulation
limited the powers of the customs officer to
examine and assess imported articles.Petition
is DENIED.
It is well-settled that rules and regulations,
which are the product of a delegated power to
create new and additional legal provisions that
have the effect of law,
Tariff
and
Customs
Code;
Revised
Administrative Code Customs Memorandum
Order No. 27-2003. Customs Memorandum
Order No. 27-2003 (CMO 23-2007) is invalid.
The Commissioner of Customs (1) violated the
right to due process in the issuance of CMO
HELD:
No. The finality of the first assessment
deprived the petitioner cause of action to
appeal for the second assessment. The CTA
indeed has no jurisdiction to act on the
petitioner's appeal from an assessment that
had already been cancelled because of the
finality of the first assessment. Since the
assessment
no
longer
controversial
or
reviewable, the respondent court has no
justification to rule on the petition except to
dismiss it.
RATIO DECIDENDI:
The first assessment is final and executory,
after the protest was denied by the CTA and no
further action was taken by the estate in
pursuit of the protest within the reglementary
period of 30 days after receipt of notice of
denial. The law firm that lodged the protest
appears to have accepted its denial evidenced
and acknowledged by validity and finality of
the first assessment evidence by the letter of
the estate of Warren Taylor Graham in forming
that said liability has been paid although no
payment had not yet been received.
****
applies
to
(filed
by
Virtucio;
favoured