PHILIPPINES INTERNATIONAL SURETY CO., INC., PETITIONER, VS. THE COURT OF TAX APPEALS AND THE COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, RESPONDENTS.

On December 13, 1954 one package of fresh water pea­nuts and 23
packages of various merchandise arrived in the Port of Manila from Hongkong
consigned to J.D. Salva.  For lack of
release certificate and import license re­quired by Central Bank Circulars 44 and
45, the Collec­tor of Customs of Manila instituted seizure proceedings against
said goods.  Later, however, the goods
were released to the consignee after he posted Surety Bonds Nos. 174 and 175 of
the Philippines International Surety Co., Inc.

In a decision dated April 20, 1955 the Collector of Customs of
Manila declared the importation forfeited and ordered the payment of
P4,733.00.  J.D.  Salva, claimant, appealed to the Commissioner
of Customs who in turn affirmed the decision of the Collector.  Said claimant did not appeal from the
Commissioner’s decision.  The Philip­pines
International Surety Co., Inc. moved for reconside­ration.  The motion was denied and said surety
appealed to the Court of Tax Appeals.

On a stipulation of facts, the Court of Tax Appeals rendered a
decision dismissing the petition for review. 
Said court upheld the validity of Central Bank Circulars 44 and 45 and declared petitioner
Philippines Internatio­nal Surety Co., Inc. without personality to appeal, it
being merely a surety.  A motion for
reconsideration was denied, hence the instant appeal.

The decision under review herein is predicated upon two separate
grounds, procedural and substantial. 
Regarding the procedural question of personality to appeal, the record
shows that petitioner failed to appeal from the de­cision of the Collector of
Customs to the Commissioner of Customs. 
And thus, assuming it had personality to appeal,^[1]
the same was lost.^[2]
Against this conclusion, however, pe­titioner lays stress on the alleged fact that
it could not have appealed from the Collector’s decision because it was not
notified thereof.

The Commissioner of Customs, on the other hand, sta­ted in his
answer filed in the Court of Tax Appeals that notice of the decision in
question was in fact served on appellant on April 30, 1955.

We observe that in forwarding the Customs record in this case to
the Commissioner of Customs, the chief of the law division of the Bureau of
Customs listed the documents composing the record.  Document No. 2 in said list is a letter dated
April 23, 1955 addressed to
Atty. C. Soriano, counsel for claimant; document No. 3 is a letter dated April 27, 1955 addressed to the Philippines International Surety Co.,
Inc.; and, document No. 4 is the
decision of the Collector of Customs dated April 20, 1955.  We presume the chef
of the law division performed his duties regularly.^[3] Said documents, therefore, must be
deemed to have existed.  Since documents
Nos. 2 and 3, in point of time,
come immediately after the decision of the Collector (do­cument No. 4), and
since both are addressed to the parties affected, it is reasonable to consider
that they were ac­tually transmittal letters of copies of the decision.

Moreover, in its motion for reconsideration dated July 27, 1960
filed in the office of the Commissioner of Customs, appellant never mentioned
that it was not fur­nished a copy of the decision of the Collector of
Customs.  Twice it made mention of the
Collector’s decision, yet it never intimated, even only as a reminder, lack of
notice thereof.  It was only in its
petition for review filed in the Court of Tax Appeals that it first pleaded the
alleged omission.  This behavior of
appellant does not reflect the natural reaction of a party left without notice of a
decision adversely affecting him.

Appellant prays in its reply brief that this case be returned to
the Court of Tax Appeals for hearing on the merits of its petition for review
filed therein.  The fact, however, is
that the Court of Tax Appeals likewise fully considered said petition for
review on the merits, upon submission by the parties of the case for decision
on the merits.^[4] Precisely its decision resolved the
substantive question of the validity of Central Bank Circulars 44 and 45, sustaining them.  And in a long
line of decision, this Court has repeatedly upheld the validity and constitutio­nality
of the same Central Bank Circulars 44 and 45.^[5]

WHEREFORE, the decision appealed from is hereby af­firmed.  With costs against appellant.

SO ORDERED.

Concepcion, C.J., Reyes, Dizon, Regala, Makalintal, Zaldivar,
Sanchez and Castro, JJ., concur.

^[1]
Philippines International Surety Co., Inc. v. Commissioner of Customs,
L-20980, Nov. 29, 1965.

^[2]
Sampaguita Shoe and Slipper Factory v. Commissioner of Customs, L-10285,
Jan. 14, 1958; Philippine
Interna­tional Surety Co., Inc. v. Commissioner of Customs, L-18291,
Jan. 31, 1964.

^[3]
Sec. 5(m), Rule 131, Rules of Court.

^[4]
Cf. CTA Minutes for March 30, 1963, p. 40,
CTA record.

^[5]
Commissioner of Customs v. Serree Investment Co., L-12007, May 16, 1960;
Po Eng Trading v. Commissioner of Cus­toms, L-10508, Nov. 29, 1960;
Commissioner of Customs v. Eastern Sea Trading, L-14279, Oct. 31, 1961;
Com­missioner of Customs v. Santos, L-11911, March 30, 1962;
Commissioner of Customs v. Nepomuceno, L-11126, March 31, 1962; Pascual v.
Commissioner of Customs, L-12219, April 25, 1962; Serree Investment Co. v.
Com­missioner of Customs, L-19564, Nov. 28, 1964; Bombay Department Store v.
Commissioner of Customs, L-20460, Sept. 30, 1965; Serree Investment Co. v. Commissioner of Customs,
L-21217, Nov. 29, 1965; Lazaro v. Commis­sioner of Customs, L-21790
& L-21794, Dec. 24, 1965.