Case Digest: AGFHA INCORPORATED v. COURT OF TAX APPEALS AND COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS

AGFHA INCORPORATED v. COURT OF TAX APPEALS AND
COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS

              Agfha owned a shipment of bales of “text grey cloth” which arrived at the Manila International Container Port and was later placed under a Hold Order, following a forfeiture proceedings for alleged violation of the Tariff and Customs Code.

              The District Collector of Customs ordered the forfeiture of the shipment in favor of the government which prompted Agfha to lodge an appeal to the Commissioner of Customs. Commissioner of Customs denied the same. On appeal, Court of Tax Appeals (CTA) ordered the release of the shipment in favor of Agfha. Commissioner of Customs appealed to the Court of Appeals (CA) and then to the Supreme Court (SC). In both instances, the CTA‘s decision was affirmed.

                CTA issued a writ of execution to release the shipment to Agfha but it was not implemented. Agfha filed before the CTA a motion to set case for hearing to determine the amount Commissioner of Customs should pay should the shipment be found to have been actually lost. CTA found the Commissioner of Customs liable for the loss of the shipment and ordered it to pay. On motion for reconsideration by both parties, CTA ordered that the taxes and duties on the shipment be deducted from the amount recoverable by Agfha. It then filed a motion for partial reconsideration of the Resolution which was denied by the CTA. Agfha filed before SC a petition for certiorari. The Commissioner of Customs filed with the CTA en banc a petition for review while Agfha filed a motion to dismiss, arguing that a petition for review is not the proper remedy to challenge an order of execution. The two petitions were consolidated in this petition.

ISSUE:

Whether or not the CTA en banc‘s order of execution is appealable

HELD:

It is well settled that when, after judgment has been rendered and it has become final, facts and circumstances transpire which render its execution impossible or unjust, the interested party may ask for the modification or alteration of the judgment to harmonize the same with justice and the facts.

The loss of the shipment, owing to the Commissioner‘s negligence, rendered impossible the enforcement of this Courts decision dated October 2, 2001 ordering the Commissioner to release the shipment. The loss presented a supervening event warranting the modification of this Courts decision.

Acting on the motion filed by petitioner for a determination of the amount respondent should pay on account of the loss of the shipment, the CTA issued the May 17, 2005 Resolution and the assailed resolution adjudging respondent liable for the commercial value thereof in the amount of US$160,348.08.

Contrary to Agfha view, the assailed resolution is not an interlocutory order since it left nothing to be done by the CTA with respect to the merits of the case. It is a final judgment which fully disposed of the issue appurtenant to respondent‘s liability to petitioner on account of the loss of the shipment. Under Section 18 of Republic Act (R.A.) No. 1125, as amended by R.A. No. 9282, a party adversely affected by a resolution of a Division of the CTA on a motion for reconsideration or new trial, may file a petition for review with the CTA en banc. Rule 8, Section 4, paragraph (b) of the Revised Rules of the CTA also provides the same.