Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1960 > November 1960 Decisions > G.R. No. L-14217 November 29, 1960 - LUZ H. COLOMA v. COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS

110 Phil 145:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

EN BANC

[G.R. No. L-14217. November 29, 1960.]

LUZ H. COLOMA, Petitioner, v. COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS and COURT OF TAX APPEALS, Respondents.

J. Paredes, Coloma & Millado for Petitioner.

Asst. Solicitor General J.P. Alejandro and Solicitor F.C. Zaballero for Respondents.


SYLLABUS


SHIPS AND SHIPPING; ALL VESSELS INCLUDING PHILIPPINE NAVY REQUIRED TO PRESENT MANIFEST UPON ARRIVAL; EXCEPTION. — All vessels whether private or government owned, including ships of the Philippine Navy, coming from a foreign port, with the possible exception of war vessels or vessels employed by any foreign government not engaged in the transportation of merchandise in the way of trade, as provided for in the second paragraph of Sec. 1221 of the Revised Administrative Code, are required to prepare and present a manifest to the customs authorities upon arrival at any Philippine port.


D E C I S I O N


LABRADOR, J.:


Petition to review a decision of the Court of Tax Appeals, dated March 10, 1958, affirming a decision of the Collector of Customs, dated March 18, 1955, ordering the confiscation of 180 cases of merchandise covered by Seizure Identification Nos. 1956 and 1956-A.

On September 2, 1954, the Philippine Navy vessel RPS Misamis Oriental arrived in Manila from Japan carrying, as cargo, 180 packages of various dutiable merchandise. The shipment consisted of three groups (1) 137 packages consigned to the Philippine Army Post Exchange; (2) 23 packages, to the PNOB commissary; and (3) those belonging to individual persons, including officers of the Philippine Army and Navy. The customs authorities received no manifest for this cargo, and discovered it only when a policeman of the Bureau of Customs intercepted the truck carrying the cargo.

The Collector of Customs ordered the forfeiture of the merchandise because they are unmanifested cargo; were imported without permit from the Central Bank; and were not covered by the requisite consular invoice. On appeal to the Court of Tax Appeals, this Court sustained the forfeiture only for the reason that no consular invoice has been presented, in violation of Section 17 and 18 of the Philippine Tariff Act of 1909. Said court declared, however, that Philippine Navy vessels are not required to present a manifest, but if one is required, the RPS Misamis Oriental has substantially complied with the requirements, and that there is no violation of Central Bank regulations because the importation did not involve sale of foreign exchange.

Before this Court, the petitioner assails the decision of the lower court on the ground that lack or absence of consular invoice is not a cause for forfeiture, but that the importer should be given reasonable time to secure the consular verification, or to file a bond for the production of the said invoice.

On the other hand, the Solicitor General calls the attention of this Court to the error of the lower court in holding that Philippine Navy vessels are not required to submit a manifest to the customs authorities.

In Commissioner of Customs v. Relunia, 105 Phil., 875, and Commissioner of Customs v. Brillo, G.R. No. L-11902, June 29, 1959, we declared that merchandise brought from Japan on board RPS Misamis Oriental, a Philippine vessel, must be covered by a manifest and that as none was presented, the Commissioner of Customs correctly decreed the forfeiture of the goods.

In the first case, this Court thru Mr. Justice Montemayor, said:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"The Tax Court took the view that under said Article VI of the Customs Law including the different sections of the Administrative Code under it, only vessels engaged in foreign trade are required to submit manifests upon entering any Philippine port. The Tax Court apparently overlooked the reason behind the requirement of presenting a manifest and allowed itself to be swayed by the title of the law. . . .

"The Tax Court also overlooked or failed to give due consideration to the provisions of Section 1228 which requires that every vessel from a foreign port or place must have on board complete written or typewritten manifests of all her cargoes. Said provision is quite comprehensive, if not all inclusive, with the exception perhaps of vessels mentioned in the second paragraph of Section 1221, namely, war vessels or vessels employed by any foreign government. This is presumably out of international courtesy. In our opinion all other vessels coming from foreign ports, whether or not engaged in foreign trade, arriving or touching upon any port in the Philippines should be provided with manifest which must be presented to the custom authorities. . . .

"We therefore believe and hold that the RPS ‘Misamis Oriental’ was required to present a manifest upon its arrival in Manila on September 2, 1954. . . .

"In conclusion, we hold that all vessels whether private or government owned, including ships of the Philippine Navy, coming from a foreign port, with the possible exception of war vessels or vessels employed by any foreign government, not engaged in the transportation of merchandise in the way of trade, as provided for the second paragraph of Section 1221 of the Revised Administrative Code, are required to prepare and present a manifest to the customs authorities upon arrival at any Philippine port."cralaw virtua1aw library

The decision of the Court of Tax Appeals in the case at bar is hereby affirmed on the ground that the cargo in question is unmanifested. This resolution renders unnecessary the determination of the other questions raised in the petition. Costs against the petitioner.

Paras, C.J., Bengzon, Padilla, Bautista Angelo, Concepción, Reyes, J.B.L., Barrera, Gutiérrez David, Paredes and Dizon, JJ., concur.




Back to Home | Back to Main




















chanrobles.com





ChanRobles On-Line Bar Review

ChanRobles Internet Bar Review : www.chanroblesbar.com

ChanRobles MCLE On-line

ChanRobles Lawnet Inc. - ChanRobles MCLE On-line : www.chanroblesmcleonline.com






November-1960 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. L-11001 November 23, 1960 - FORTUNATO V. BORROMEO v. GOVERNMENT SERVICE INSURANCE SYSTEM

    110 Phil 1

  • G.R. No. L-12125 November 23, 1960 - LUIS G. ABLAZA v. AMANCIO SYCIP

    110 Phil 4

  • G.R. No. L-13251 November 23, 1960 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL. v. ALTO SURETY & INSURANCE CO., INC.

    110 Phil 9

  • G.R. No. L-14223 November 23, 1960 - SABINA SANTIAGO v. J. M. TUASON & CO., INC.

    110 Phil 16

  • G.R. No. L-14569 November 23, 1960 - BENITO CODILLA v. JOSE L. MARTINEZ

    110 Phil 24

  • G.R. No. L-14641 November 23, 1960 - DIRECTOR OF LANDS v. EUSTAQUIO DE LUNA

    110 Phil 28

  • G.R. No. L-14764 November 23, 1960 - CENON VILLANUEVA v. BARBER WILHELMSEN LINE

    110 Phil 34

  • G.R. No. L-14864 November 23, 1960 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JUANITO SOLON

    110 Phil 39

  • G.R. No. L-14897 November 23, 1960 - JESUS NEPOMUCENO v. REHABILITATION FINANCE CORPORATION

    110 Phil 42

  • G.R. No. L-15904 November 23, 1960 - ELIZALDE PAINT & OIL FACTORY, INC. v. JOSE S. BAUTISTA

    110 Phil 49

  • G.R. No. L-16022 November 23, 1960 - NATALIA B. NICOMEDES v. CHIEF OF CONSTABULARY

    110 Phil 52

  • G.R. No. L-13114 November 25, 1960 - ELENITA LEDESMA SILVA v. ESTHER PERALTA

    110 Phil 57

  • G.R. No. L-15276 November 28, 1960 - EPIFANIO J. ALANO v. CLARO CORTES

    110 Phil 74

  • G.R. No. L-7330 November 29, 1960 - JOSE BENARES v. CAPITOL SUBDIVISION, INC.

    110 Phil 79

  • G.R. No. L-10508 November 29, 1960 - PO ENG TRADING v. COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS

    110 Phil 83

  • G.R. No. L-10810 November 29, 1960 - JOSEFINA RUIZ DE LUZURIAGA BLANCO v. COMPANIA GRAL. DE TABACOS DE FILIPINAS

    110 Phil 87

  • G.R. No. L-10836 November 29, 1960 - IN RE: PROCOPY MOSCAL v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

    110 Phil 99

  • G.R. No. L-11325 November 29, 1960 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. BOTO BALONTO

    110 Phil 102

  • G.R. No. L-11482 November 29, 1960 - ESTEBAN T. BUMANGLAG v. JOSE FERNANDEZ

    110 Phil 107

  • G.R. No. L-11837 November 29, 1960 - MAGDALENA G. VDA. DE CUAYCONG v. CRISTETA L. VDA. DE SENGBENGCO

    110 Phil 113

  • G.R. No. L-12275 November 29, 1960 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. TEOTIMO RUBINIAL

    110 Phil 119

  • G.R. No. L-12508 November 29, 1960 - JOSE L. LAGRIMAS v. ROBERTO ZURBANO

    110 Phil 127

  • G.R. Nos. L-13107-08 November 29, 1960 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. DIO DELMAS

    110 Phil 132

  • G.R. No. L-13173 November 29, 1960 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ALFREDO SORIO

    110 Phil 138

  • G.R. No. L-14217 November 29, 1960 - LUZ H. COLOMA v. COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS

    110 Phil 145

  • G.R. No. L-14274 November 29, 1960 - COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS v. SERREE INVESTMENT COMPANY

    110 Phil 148

  • G.R. No. L-14283 November 29, 1960 - GIL BALBUNA v. SECRETARY OF EDUCATION

    110 Phil 150

  • G.R. No. L-14382 November 29, 1960 - REMEDIOS CUENCO VDA. DE BORROMEO v. COURT OF APPEALS

    110 Phil 155

  • G.R. No. L-14559 November 29, 1960 - REYNALDO MADRIÑAN v. VICENTE G. SINCO

    110 Phil 160

  • G.R. No. L-14567 November 29, 1960 - ELENA PERALTA VDA. DE CAINA v. COURT OF APPEALS

    110 Phil 164

  • G.R. No. L-14594 November 29, 1960 - SEVERINO CAÑGAS v. TAN CHUAN LEONG

    110 Phil 168

  • G.R. No. L-14611 November 29, 1960 - EVANGELINO LASERNA v. MARIA JAVIER

    110 Phil 172

  • G.R. No. L-14656 November 29, 1960 - PHILIPPINE LAND-AIR-SEA LABOR UNION (PLASLU) v. COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS

    110 Phil 176

  • G.R. No. L-14682 November 29, 1960 - FRANCISCO EVARISTO v. OLEGARIO LASTRILLA

    110 Phil 181

  • G.R. No. L-14690 November 29, 1960 - JESUS S. DIZON v. JOSE T. GARCIA, SR.

    110 Phil 186

  • G.R. No. L-14769 November 29, 1960 - LAURO P. LEVISTE v. EUSEBIO F. RAMOS

    110 Phil 190

  • G.R. No. L-14780 November 29, 1960 - POMPEYO L. PALARCA v. RESTITUTA BAROL DE ANZON

    110 Phil 194

  • G.R. Nos. L-14785 & L-14923 November 29, 1960 - FELIX ABE v. FOSTER WHEELER CORPORATION

    110 Phil 198

  • G.R. No. L-14983 November 29, 1960 - AGRIPINA VDA. DE ALBURO v. FILOMENA VDA. DE UMBAO

    110 Phil 210

  • G.R. No. L-15231 November 29, 1960 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ARTEMIO PERVEZ

    110 Phil 214

  • G.R. No. L-15271 November 29, 1960 - ONG YET MUA HARDWARE CO. v. MANILA RAILROAD CO.

    110 Phil 219

  • G.R. No. L-15312 November 29, 1960 - IN RE: JUAN TACDORO v. JESUS ARCENAS

    110 Phil 222

  • G.R. No. L-15439 November 29, 1960 - ISAAC PERAL BOWLING ALLEY v. UNITED EMPLOYEES WELFARE ASSN.

    110 Phil 227

  • G.R. No. L-15551 November 29, 1960 - DAVID CONSUNJI v. MANILA PORT SERVICE

    110 Phil 231

  • G.R. No. L-15593 November 29, 1960 - MARIA BALDO v. PEDRO GUERRERO

    110 Phil 235

  • G.R. Nos. L-15618, L-16000 & L-16116 November 29, 1960 - ATLANTIC MUTUAL INSURANCE CO. v. MANILA PORT SERVICE

    110 Phil 240

  • G.R. No. L-15671 November 29, 1960 - AMERICAN PRESIDENT LINES, LTD. v. RICHARD A. KLEPPER

    110 Phil 243

  • G.R. No. L-15804 November 29, 1960 - SANCHO B. DE LEON v. ESTANISLAO FAUSTINO

    110 Phil 249

  • G.R. No. L-15925 November 29, 1960 - ESTELA FRANCISCO DE LASALA v. PEDRO SARNATE

    110 Phil 255

  • G.R. No. L-16028 November 29, 1960 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL. v. DALMACIO URTULA

    110 Phil 262

  • G.R. No. L-16030 November 29, 1960 - SEGUNDA INOCANDO v. JUAN INOCANDO

    110 Phil 266

  • G.R. No. L-16068 November 29, 1960 - CONSUELO S. CALALANG v. INTESTATE ESTATE OF GERVACIO TANJANGCO

    110 Phil 270

  • G.R. No. L-16093 November 29, 1960 - LOCAL 7, PRESS & PRINTING FREE WORKERS v. EMILIANO TABIGNE

    110 Phil 276

  • G.R. No. L-16406 November 29, 1960 - PRIMO QUETULIO v. DELFIN B. FLORES

    110 Phil 284

  • G.R. Nos. L-16409 & L-16416 November 29, 1960 - ALEJANDRO L. GUMPAL v. MANUEL ARRANZ

    110 Phil 287

  • G.R. No. L-16523 November 29, 1960 - LUIS G. PERALTA v. FELIXBERTO SERRANO

    110 Phil 301