Cited Laws
Accordingly, petitioner's Petition was denied for lack of jurisdiction and the Suspension Order was lifted. [29] On the strength of the doctrine in British American Tobacco v. Sec. Camacho, et al. , [30] as reiterated in succeeding cases, [31] the CTA Second Division agreed with the respondent that jurisdiction over a question of the validity and constitutionality of rules and regulations, such as Revenue Memorandum Circular No. 17-2013, lies with the regular courts and not the CTA. [32] It also declared that it could not rule on the validity of the BIR's apprehension and detention of petitioner's copper concentrates since this would necessarily depend on the validity or invalidity of the assailed Revenue Memorandum Circular. [33] Petitioner moved for reconsideration, [34] but this was denied in the Resolution [35] dated September 1, 2014. Thus, petitioner filed an appeal before the CTA En Banc . [36] In the challenged Decision, the CTA En Banc denied petitioner's appeal and affirmed the assailed rulings of its Second Division. [37] The CTA En Banc declared that with the promulgation of the case of The Philippine American Life and General Insurance Co. v. The Secretary of Finance , [38] there was no longer any doubt that the CTA, through its power to issue writs of certiorari , had appellate jurisdiction to rule on the validity of a particular administrative rule or regulation. [39] Nonetheless, the CTA En Banc maintained that it could not take proper cognizance of the case for petitioner's failure to exhaust administrative remedies before it sought judicial relief. [40] Petitioner should have raised the validity of Revenue Memorandum Circular No. 17-2013 before the Secretary of Finance pursuant to the first paragraph of Section 4 of the National Internal Revenue Code (Tax Code); [41] its failure to do so was fatal to its cause. The CTA En Banc also echoed the sentiment that the resolution on the validity of the apprehension, seizure, and detention of the copper concentrates in this case cannot be cleaved from the determination of the validity of the assailed Revenue Memorandum Circular. [42] Petitioner's bid for reconsideration [43] of the foregoing Decision having been denied in the impugned Resolution, it lodged the present Petition before this Court. Petitioner argues that the true matter elevated for the CTA's resolution is not Revenue Memorandum Circular No. 17-2013 but rather respondent's apprehension, seizure, and detention of its copper concentrates. [44] Petitioner advances the theory that the BIR revenue officers' act of enforcing the collection of excise taxes by apprehending, seizing, and detaining petitioner's copper concentrates, pursuant to Sections 171 and 172 of the Tax Code, constitutes a decision on "other matters," which is directly appealable to the CTA. [45] In any event, even assuming that the main issue is the validity of Revenue Memorandum Circular No. 17-2013, the CTA still has jurisdiction over the case pursuant to the