Pilipinas Shell Case 2017
Pilipinas Shell Case 2017
Neither
can such unrecognized proof be assigned any evidentiary weight
and value. It must be stressed that there is a significant distinction
June 19, 2017
between identification of documentary evidence and its formal
offer. The former is done in the course of the pre-trial, and trial is
G.R. No. 195876 accompanied by the marking of the evidence as an exhibit; while
PILIPINAS SHELL PETROLEUM CORPORATION, Petitioner the latter is done only when the party rests its case. The mere fact
vs. that a particular document is identified and marked as an exhibit
COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, Respondent does not mean that it has already been offered as part of the
evidence. It must be emphasized that any evidence which a party
desires to submit for the consideration of the court must formally
RESOLUTION be offered by the party; otherwise, it is excluded and rejected.
(emphasis added)
VELASCO, JR., J.:
Resultantly, no scintilla of proof was ever offered in evidence by
Acting on the Omnibus Motion (For Reconsideration and Referral to respondent Commissioner of Customs to substantiate the claim
the Court En bane) dated January 20, 2017 filed by public that Pilipinas Shell acted in a fraudulent manner. At best, the
respondent Commissioner of Customs, the Court DENIES the allegation of fraud on the part of Pilipinas Shell is mere conjecture
same for lack of merit. The arguments raised by respondent in this and purely speculative. Settled is the rule that a court cannot rely
pending incident are the very same arguments raised in the on speculations, conjectures or guesswork, but must depend upon
petition, which have already been evaluated, passed upon, and competent proof and on the basis of the best evidence obtainable
considered in the assailed December 5, 2016 Decision. Ergo, the under the circumstances. We emphasize that litigations cannot be
Court rejects these arguments on the same grounds discussed in properly resolved by suppositions, deductions, or even
the challenged Decision, and denies, as a matter of course, the presumptions, with no basis in evidence, for the truth must have to
pending motion. be determined by the hard rules of admissibility and proof. 3
The absence of fraud not only allows the finality of the liquidations,
x x x Documents which may have been identified and marked as it also calls for the strict observance of the requirements for the
exhibits during pre-trial or trial but which were not formally offered
doctrine of ipso facto abandonment to apply. Sec. 1801 of the TCC Under public respondent's Customs Memorandum Order No. (CMO)
pertinently provides: 15-94, otherwise known as the Revised Guidelines on
Abandonment in force at that time, due notice is served upon the
importer through the following measures:
Section 1801. Abandonment, Kinds and Effect of - An imported
article is deemed abandoned under any of the following
circumstances: SUBJECT: REVISED GUIDELINES ON ABANDONMENT
x x xx xxxx
b. When the owner, importer, consignee or interested party after B. ADMINISTRATIVE PROVISIONS
due notice, fails to file an entry within thirty (30) days, which shall
not be extendible, from the date of discharge of the last package
xxxx
from the vessel or aircraft, or having filed such entry, fails to claim
his importation within fifteen (15) days, which shall not likewise be
extendible, from the date of posting of the notice to claim such B.2 Implied abandonment occurs when:
importation. (emphasis supplied)
B.2.1 The owner, importer, consignee, interested party or his
As expressly provided in Sec.1801(b) of the TCC, the failure to file authorized broker/representative, after due notice, fails to file an
the IEIRD within 30 days from entry is not the only requirement for entry within a nonextendible period of thirty (30) days from the
the doctrine of ipso facto abandonment to apply. The law date of discharge of last package from the carrying vessel or
categorically requires that this be preceded by due notice aircraft.
demanding compliance.
xxxx
To recapitulate, the notice in this case was only served upon
petitioner four (4) years after it has already filed its
IEIRD.1âwphi1 Under this circumstance, the Court cannot rule that Due notice to the consignee/importer/owner/interested party shall
due notice was given, for when public respondent served the notice be by means of posting of a notice to file entry at the Bulletin Board
demanding payment from petitioner, it no longer had the right to seven (7) days prior to the lapse of the thirty (30) day period by
do so. By that time, the prescriptive period for liquidation had the Entry Processing Division listing the consignees who/which have
already elapsed, and the assessment against petitioner's shipment not filed the required import entries as of the date of the posting of
had already become final and conclusive. Consequently, Sec. the notice and notifying them of the arrival of their shipment, the
1801(b) failed to operate in favor of the government for failure to name of the carrying vessel/aircraft, Voy. No. Reg. No. and the
demand payment for the discrepancy prior to the finality of the respective BIL No./AWB No., with a warning, as shown by the
liquidation. The government cannot deem the imported articles as attached form, entitled: URGENT NOTICE TO FILE ENTRY which is
abandoned without due notice. attached hereto as Annex A and made an integral part of this Order.
Under the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case, due notice C.2 On Implied Abandonment:
was not necessary. The shipments arrived in 1996. The IEDs and
IEIRDs were also filed in 1996. However, respondent discovered C.2.1 When no entry is filed
the fraud which attended the importations and their subsequent
release from the BOC's custody only in 1999. Obviously, the
situation here was not an ordinary case of abandonment wherein C.2.1.1 Within twenty-four (24) hours after the completion
the importer merely decided not to claim its importations. Fraud of the boarding formalities, the Boarding Inspector must submit
was established against petitioner; it colluded with the former the manifests to the Bay Service or similar office so that the Entry
District Collector. Because of this, the scheme was concealed from Processing Division copy may be put to use by said office as soon
respondent. The government was unable to protect itself until the as possible.
plot was uncovered. The government cannot be crippled by the
malfeasance of its officials and employees. Consequently, it was C.2.1.2 Within twenty-four (24) hours after the completion
impossible for respondent to comply with the requirements under of the unloading of the vessel/aircraft, the Inspector assigned
the rules. By the time respondent learned of the anomaly, the in the vessel/aircraft, shall issue a certification addressed to the
entries had already been belatedly filed and the oil importations Collector of Customs (Attention: Chief, Entry Processing Division),
released and presumably used or sold. It was a fait accompli. Under copy furnished Chief, Data Monitoring Unit, specifically stating the
such circumstances, it would have been against all logic to require time and date of discharge of the last package from the
respondent to still post an urgent notice to file entry before vessel/aircraft assigned to him. Said certificate must be encoded
declaring the shipments abandoned. (emphasis added) by Data Monitoring Unit in the Manifest Clearance System.
Hence, it does not suffice that petitioner is a multinational, large C.2.1.3 Twenty-three (23) days after the discharge of the
scale importer presumed to be familiar with importation rules and last package from the carrying vessel/aircraft, the Chief, Data
procedures for the ipso facto abandonment doctrine to apply. Monitoring Unit shall cause the printing of the URGENT NOTICE
Under the peculiar facts and circumstances of Chevron, the TO FILE ENTRY in accordance with the attached form, Annex A
existence of fraud was the primary element established to warrant hereof, sign the URGENT NOTICE and cause its posting
the application of the doctrine. Without this continuously for seven (7) days at the Bulletin Board for the
element, Chevron cannot be treated at par with the case at bar. purpose until the lapse of the thirty (30) day period.
The statutorily required due notice should still have been timely
served upon petitioner before the imported oil shipments could
have been deemed abandoned. C.2.1.4 The Chief, Data Monitoring Unit, shall submit a weekly
report to the Collector of Customs with a listing by vessel, Registry
Number of shipments/ importations which shall be deemed
abandoned for failure to file entry within the prescribed period
and with certification that per records available, the thirty (30)
day period within which to file the entry therefore has lapsed
without the consignee/importer filing the entry and that the proper
posting of notice as required has been complied with.
xxxx
SO ORDERED.