Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

PILIPINAS SHELL PETROLEUM CORPORATION v. REPUBLIC

This case has been cited 2 times or more.

	GR No. 209324 2015-12-09	REPUBLIC v. PILIPINAS SHELL PETROLEUM CORPORATION VILLARAMA, JR., J.
Subsequently, PSPC moved to dismiss Civil Case No. 02-103191 on the ground that the RTC had no jurisdiction over the subject matter and that the complaint for collection was prematurely filed in view of its pending petition for review in the CTA. The RTC denied the motion to dismiss and PSPC eventually filed its answer questioning the RTC's jurisdiction. When the RTC issued a notice of pre-trial, PSPC moved for reconsideration of the order denying its motion to dismiss. The RTC denied the motion for reconsideration, prompting PSPC to elevate the matter to the CA via a petition for certiorari (CA-G.R. SP No. 71756). On October 23, 2003, the CA rendered decision denying PSPC's petition. With the denial of its motion for reconsideration, PSPC sought recourse from this Court in a petition for review on certiorari (G.R. No. 161953). In a Decision[10] dated March 6, 2008, this Court denied PSPC's petition, viz.:Inasmuch as the present case did not involve a decision of the Commissioner of Customs in any of the instances enumerated in Section 7(2) of RA 1125, the CTA had no jurisdiction over the subject matter. It was the RTC that had jurisdiction under Section 19(6) of the Judiciary Reorganization Act of 1980, as amended:
	GR No. 176380 2009-06-18	PILIPINAS SHELL PETROLEUM CORPORATION v. COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS BRION, J.
To be very precise, Shell's petition before the CTA principally questioned the validity of the cancellation of the TCCs - a decision that was made not by the respondent, but by the Center. As the CTA has no jurisdiction over decisions of the Center, Shell's remedy against the cancellation should have been a certiorari petition before the regular courts, not a tax protest case before the CTA. Records do not show that Shell ever availed of this remedy. Alternatively, as we held in Shell v. Republic of the Philippines,[17] the appropriate forum for Shell under the circumstances of this case should be at the collection cases before the RTC where Shell can put up the fact of its payment as a defense.