Facts:

1.) Pilipinas Shell Petroleum Corporation (Shell) was assessed and issued
a demand letter by the District Collector of Customs in the Port of
Batangas for deficiency excise and value-added tax (VAT) payments
plus penalties on its importation of catalytic cracked gasoline for the
years 2006-2008 in the amount of Php21,419,603,310.00.

2.) The District Collector issued another demand letter reiterating the
demand for payment of the assessed tax and penalties due. Shell
appealed the same before the Commissioner of customs who ordered
the District Collector to observe the status quo.

3.) The Commissioner of Customs later denied Shells appeal and ordered
the latter to settle the unpaid taxes so that the Bureau would not
exercise its power to seize all imported articles by Shell and to sell the
same in order to apply the proceeds to the Shells outstanding balance
with the Bureau. (Section 1508, TCCP)

4.) Shell moved for the reconsideration of the Commissioners decision but
the same was denied so Shell was prompted to assail the
Commissioners letter-decision file a Petition for Review with the Court
of Tax Appeals (CTA).

5.) Shell also filed with the CTA a Verified Motion for issuance of a
Suspension Order to enjoin the collection of taxes with issuance of a
Temporary restraining Order (TRO).

6.) The CTA First Division issued a resolution granting Shell a 60-day TRO.
However, after due hearing on the Verified Motion for issuance of a
Suspension Order, the same was denied.

7.) Thus, the District Collector of the Port of Batangas issued a

Memorandum ordering the personnel of the BOC Port of Batangas to
hold the delivery of all import shipment of Shell to satisfy its excise tax
liability. (Section 1508, TCCP)
8.) Shell filed with the RTC of Batangas a complaint for Injunction with
prayer for issuance of a 72-hour TRO to enjoin the implementation of
the District Collectors Memorandum. In said complaint, it was
disclosed by the VP for Finance and the Treasurer of Shell that there is
a pending appealed case with the CTA involving Shell and the Bureau
of Customs.

9.) The 72-hour TRO was granted by Branch 3 of RTC Batangas so the
Bureau of Customs filed cases against Shells officers (1) for Direct
Contempt for engaging in forum-shopping and (2) for Perjury.
 10.) The CTA denied the motion to cite Shells officers in contempt so
the Bureau of Customs elevated the same to the Supreme Court.

Issue:

Do the Petition for Review case filed with the CTA and the case for
Injunction against the implementation of the District Collectors
Memorandum filed with the RTC involve the same issues?

Held:

No.

The subject matter in the CTA case is the alleged unpaid taxes for
the years 2006-2008 which is sought to be collected by the Bureau of
Customs while the subject matter of the Batangas injunction is the 13
importations/shipments of Shell which is being threatened to be seized (Sec.
1508, TCCP) by the Bureau of Customs by virtue of the District Collectors
Memorandum.

The cause of action in the CTA case is based on the Letter-Decisions of

the Commissioner of Customs denying Shells protest while the cause of
action in the RTC Batangas injunction case is the Memorandum dated Feb. 9,
2010, ordering the personnel of BOC in the Port of Batangas to hold the
delivery of all import shipments of Shell.

The issues are not the same. The Batangas injunction case is
grounded upon the fact that the Bureau of Customs no longer have
jurisdiction over the importations as the same have been discharged and
placed in Shells Batangas refinery since 90% of the import duties have
already been paid. This is on the theory that for Section 1508 to apply, the
BOC must have physical custody of the goods sought to be held which is not
present in the case.

The reliefs prayed for are not the same.

a) The Petition for Review filed with the CTA prays for the nullification
of the Letter-Decision dated 11 November 2009 and Letter-Decision
dated 26 November 2009 issued by the Commissioner of Customs
and render a new Decision finding Shell not liable for excise tax and
VAT demanded by the BOC.

b) The Verified Motion for Suspension Order prays for the issuance of
an Order ordering, commanding and directing the BOC, their
officers, subordinates, personnel and agents and/or any person
 acting on their behalf or authority, to refrain or stop from exercising
any action described in, under, or pursuant to, Sec. 1508 of the
TCCP x x x
c) The RTC injunction case prays for the issuance of an Order
restraining BOC, their assigns, agents, employees, representatives
or any person under their direction and/or control from entering the
Refinery or property of Shell and/or seize or confiscate or forcibly
take possession of the imported shipments of Shell that are already
in Shells physical custody and possession.

Since the subject matter, cause of action and issue raised and the
reliefs prayed for are not the same, Respondents are not guilty of forum-
shopping. Accordingly the CTA did not err in denying the Motion to Cite
respondents in Direct Contempt of Court.