Criminal Procedure 2E

TOPIC Republic Act 9282- Court of tax Appeals DATE September 8, 2015

CASE TITLE Bureau of Customs v. Devanadera (Acting secretary of DOJ) GR NO 193253

DOCTRINE The elementary rule is that the CA has jurisdiction to review the resolution of the DOJ through a petition
for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court on the ground that the Secretary of Justice committed
grave abuse of his discretion amounting to excess or lack of jurisdiction. However, with the enactment of
Republic Act (R.A.) No. 9282, amending R.A. No. 1125 by expanding the jurisdiction of the CTA, enlarging
its membership and elevating its rank to the level of a collegiate court with special jurisdiction, it is no
longer clear which between the CA and the CTA has jurisdiction to review through a petition for certiorari
the DOJ resolution in preliminary investigations involving tax and tariff offenses.
FACTS Private respondent UNIOIL Petroleum Philippines, Inc. is engaged in marketing, distribution, and sale of
petroleum, oil and other products, while its correspondent OILINK International, Inc. is engaged in
manufacturing, importing, exporting, buying, selling, or otherwise dealing in at wholesale and retails of
petroleum, oil, gas and of any and all refinements and by-products thereof.

On January 30, 2007, Commissioner Napoleon L. Morales of petitioner Bureau of Customs (BOC) issued
Audit Notification Letter (ANL) informing the President of OILINK that the Post Entry Audit Group (PEAG)
of the BOC will be conducting a compliance audit, of all pertinent records of OILINK’s import transactions
for the past three (3)-year period counted from the said date.

Upon recommendation, Commissioner approved the filing of an administrative case against OILINK for
failure to comply with the audit required documents.

UNIOIL requested the District Collector to allow it to withdraw the base oils from OILINK’s temporarily
closed terminal. This was granted by the Commissioner.

In a complaint-affidavit dated December 15, 2008, Atty. Balmyrson M. Valdez, a member of the
petitioner BOC’s Anti-Oil Smuggling Coordinating Committee that investigated the illegal withdrawal by
UNIOIL of oil products consigned to OILINK, accused the private respondents of violation of Tariff and
Customs Code of the Philippines (TCCP)

The complaint-affidavit was dismissed for lack of probable cause. Dissatisfied, the BOC filed a motion for
reconsideration which was denied by the public respondent, the Acting Secretary of Justice Agnes VST
Devanadera.

ISSUE/S Whether or not the CTA, and not the CA, has jurisdiction over the petition assailing the DOJ resolution
involving tax and tariff offenses

Note: Although the question of jurisdiction over the subject matter was not raised at bench by either of the
parties, the Court addressed such question.

RATIO Yes. Xxx while there is no express grant of such power, with respect to the CTA, Section 1, Article VIII of the
RULING 1987 Constitution provides, nonetheless, that judicial power shall be vested in one Supreme Court and in
such lower courts as may be established by law and that judicial power includes the duty of the courts of
justice to settle actual controversies involving rights which are legally demandable and enforceable, and to
determine whether or not there has been a grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of
jurisdiction on the part of any branch or instrumentality of the Government.
1
 Criminal Procedure 2E

On the strength of the above constitutional provisions, it can be fairly interpreted that the power of the CTA
includes that of determining whether or not there has been grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or
excess of jurisdiction on the part of the RTC in issuing an interlocutory order in cases falling within the
exclusive appellate jurisdiction of the tax court. It, thus, follows that the CTA, by constitutional mandate, is
vested with jurisdiction to issue writs of certiorari in these cases.

The elementary rule is that the CA has jurisdiction to review the resolution of the DOJ through a petition for
certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court on the ground that the Secretary of Justice committed grave
abuse of his discretion amounting to excess or lack of jurisdiction. However, with the enactment of Republic
Act (R.A.) No. 9282, amending R.A. No. 1125 by expanding the jurisdiction of the CTA, enlarging its
membership and elevating its rank to the level of a collegiate court with special jurisdiction, it is no longer
clear which between the CA and the CTA has jurisdiction to review through a petition for certiorari the DOJ
resolution in preliminary investigations involving tax and tariff offenses.

If the Court were to rule that jurisdiction over a petition for certiorari assailing such DOJ resolution lies with
the CA, it would be confirming the exercise by two judicial bodies, the CA and the CTA, of jurisdiction over
basically the same subject matter — precisely the split-jurisdiction situation which is anathema to the
orderly administration of justice. The Court cannot accept that such was the legislative intent, especially
considering that R.A. No. 9282 expressly confers on the CTA, the tribunal with the specialized competence
over tax and tariff matters, the role of judicial review over local tax cases without mention of any other
court that may exercise such power.

NOTES