Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1968 > September 1968 Decisions > G.R. No. L-25150 September 30, 1968 - ANICIA CADIZ v. SECRETARY OF NATIONAL DEFENSE, ET AL.:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

EN BANC

[G.R. No. L-25150. September 30, 1968.]

ANICIA CADIZ, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. THE SECRETARY OF NATIONAL DEFENSE and THE CHIEF, GENERAL AFFAIRS OFFICE, DEPARTMENT OF NATIONAL DEFENSE, JOHN DOE, Defendants-Appellees.

Conrado S. Felix, for Plaintiff-Appellant.

Solicitor General for Defendants-Appellees.


SYLLABUS


1. REMEDIAL LAW; APPEALS; RECORD ON APPEAL; NON-INCLUSION THEREIN OF NECESSARY DATA TO SHOW TIMELINESS OF APPEAL, FATAL. — The appeal should not be entertained, because the order appealed from has not been included in the record on appeal and the same does not contain "such data as will show that the appeal was perfected on time," in violation of Section 6, Rule 41, of the Rules of Court.

2. TAXATION; COURT OF TAX APPEALS; JURISDICTION OVER VALIDITY OF WARRANT OF SEIZURE BY CUSTOMS AUTHORITIES. — The issue in this case is the validity of the warrant of seizure issued by the Collector of Customs for alleged violation of the Revised Tariff and Customs Code and of the provisions of the National Internal Revenue Code, and the determination of such issue is within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Court of Tax Appeals." Respondent Calalang no doubt has the right to question the legality of the seizure action commenced by the Customs authorities. For this however she must go to the proper court, namely, the Court of Tax Appeals, since its jurisdiction to review seizure cases necessarily includes all questions affecting the legality or illegality of a seizure. Since the Court of First Instance was without jurisdiction to entertain the petition of respondent Calalang in the first place, it could not validly issue the ancillary writ of preliminary mandatory injunction therein applied for.


D E C I S I O N


CONCEPCION, C.J.:


Appeal from an order of the Court of First Instance of Rizal dismissing the complaint in this case, lifting a writ of replevin therein issued and ordering plaintiff herein, Anicia Cadiz, to turn over the car involved in the case to the Collector of Customs.

The subject-matter hereof is a 1962 Chrysler car, which had been imported, tax-free, pursuant to the PI-US Military Bases Agreement, by T/Sgt. John A. Cheffler, a member of the United States Air Force stationed at Clark Air Base, Pampanga. On June 22, 1964, Cheffler sold the car to one Leonardo Alcantara, who is not tax-exempt. The ownership of the car seems to have passed subsequently to other persons, none of whom appears to be tax free. Up to now, the duties for the importation of said car have not been paid.

On April 22, 1965, upon the application of representatives of the General Affairs Administration, Department of National Defense, as duly authorized agents of the Bureau of Customs, the Collector of Customs for the Port of Manila, issued, therefore, a Warrant of Seizure and Detention in Manila Seizure Identification No. 8585, pursuant to which said car was seized from one, Carlos Robes, who was in possession thereof, by said agents of the Collector of Customs, for alleged violation of Section 2530 m(1) to (5), in relation to Section 2301, of Republic Act 1937, and Section 190, in relation to Section 6, of Commonwealth Act No. 466, as amended, as well as the Motor Vehicle Law. Soon, thereafter, or on May 11, 1965, Anicia Cadiz — hereinafter referred to as Plaintiff — commenced, in the Court of First Instance of Rizal, the present action for replevin, against the Secretary of National Defense and the Chief, General Affairs Administration, Department of National Defense upon the ground that she is the owner of said car. Upon the posting of a P28,000 bond, the lower court issued the corresponding writ of replevin on May 12, 1965, and petitioner secured possession of the car. Presently, or on May 26 and 27, 1965, the Collector of Customs sought leave to intervene and filed a motion to dismiss and to lift the writ of replevin, upon the ground that the trial court has no jurisdiction over the case and that plaintiff has no cause of action, for failure to exhaust administrative remedies. Despite plaintiff’s opposition, the lower court granted said motion and dismissed the complaint. A reconsideration of the order to this effect having been denied, plaintiff interposed the present appeal.

The same should not be entertained, however, because the order appealed from has not been included in the record on appeal 1 and the same does not contain "such data as will show that the appeal was perfected on time," in violation of Section 6, Rule 41, of the Rules of Court. 2

At any rate, the issue in this case is the validity of the warrant of seizure issued by the Collector of Customs for alleged violation of the Revised Tariff Customs Code 3 and of the provisions of the National Internal Revenue Code, and the determination of such issue is within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Court of Tax Appeals. 4 Indeed, under circumstances practically identical to those obtaining in the case at bar, this Court held in Acting Collector of Customs v. Caluag: 5

"The petition, raising the fundamental issue of jurisdiction, is meritorious. The suit filed with respondent Judge was ‘to review and nullify whatever has already been done by respondent (herein petitioner) without and/or in excess of their jurisdiction,’ namely, the issuance of the warrant of seizure and detention, and the execution thereof by the NBI agents.

x       x       x


"Respondent Calalang no doubt has the right to question the legality of the seizure action commenced by the Customs authorities. For this however she must go to the proper court, namely, the Court of Tax Appeals, since its jurisdiction to review seizure cases necessarily includes all questions affecting the legality or illegality of a seizure. Since the Court of First Instance was without jurisdiction to entertain the petition of respondent Calalang in the first place, it could not validly issue the ancillary writ of preliminary mandatory injunction therein applied for.

"Respondent however submits the argument, sanctioned by the trial court, that Sec. 7 of Republic Act No. 1125 is not applicable, considering that there is no decision yet of the Commissioner of Customs which can be subject of appeal to the Court of Tax Appeals. The submission is not only without merit but even argues against respondent’s cause. In Acting Collector v. De la Rama, L-26076, February 26, 1965, ruling on the same contention, We held that such absence only shows that the party affected did not exhaust administrative remedies. . . . Furthermore, some additional remedies were immediately available to respondent: (1) to secure the release of the seized car upon the filing of a sufficient bond with the Customs Collector and/or (2) to file a protest with the Customs Collector . . ." 6

WHEREFORE, the decision appealed from is hereby affirmed, with costs against the plaintiff. It is so ordered.

Reyes, J.B.L., Makalintal, Sanchez, Castro, Angeles, Fernando and Capistrano, JJ., concur.

Dizon and Zaldivar, JJ., took no part.

Endnotes:



1. Shell Co. v. Santos, L-21989, November 12, 1966.

2. Jocson v. Robles, L-23433, February 10, 1968; Atlas Consolidated Mining and Development Corporation v. Progressive Labor Association, L-27125, Res. September 25, 1967; Araneta v. Madrigal & Co., Et Al., L-26227-28, October 25, 1966; Development Bank of the Philippines v. Santos, Et Al., L-26387, Res. September 27, 1966; and the Government of the Philippines v. Antonio, L-23736, October 19, 1965.

3. Republic Act No. 1937.

4. Section 7 of Republic Act No. 1125; Millarez v. Amparo, L-8364, June 30, 1955; Namarco v. Macadaeg, L-10030, January 18, 1956; Govt. of the Phil. I v. Gale, 24 Phil. 95, 99; Commissioner of Customs v. Encarnacion, 50 O.G. 3560.

5. L-23925. May 24, 1967.

6. Emphasis ours.




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






September-1968 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. L-20977 September 7, 1968 - JOAQUIN P. NEMENZO v. BERNABE SABILLANO

  • G.R. No. L-28470 September 19, 1968 - REAL MONASTERIO v. DOMINGO FABIAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-24498 September 21, 1968 - TANGLAW NG PAGGAWA v. COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-24687 September 21, 1968 - IN RE: FONG CHOY v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-25135 September 21, 1968 - PHILIPPINE MEDICAL ASSOCIATION v. BOARD OF MEDICAL EXAMINERS

  • G.R. No. L-25484 September 21, 1968 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. SERVILLANO MA. MODESTO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-29417 September 21, 1968 - EDILBERTA P. ANOTA, ET AL. v. EDUARDO BERMUDO, JR., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-21303 September 23, 1968 - REPUBLIC BANK v. COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-21942 September 23, 1968 - ELIZALDE & CO., INC. v. COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-25791 September 23, 1968 - CARLOS B. GONZALES v. EULOGIO SERRANO

  • G.R. No. L-24833 September 23, 1968 - FIELDMEN’S INSURANCE CO., INC. v. MERCEDES VARGAS VDA. DE SONGCO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-24202 September 23, 1968 - C.A. CHIONG SHIPPING CO., ET AL. v. WORKMEN’S COMPENSATION COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-21070 September 23, 1968 - REPUBLIC TELEPHONE CO., INC. v. PHILIPPINE LONG DISTANCE TELEPHONE CO., INC., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-21402 September 23, 1968 - NATIONAL POWER CORPORATION v. JOSE ARAÑAS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-24303 September 23, 1968 - BEATRIZ C. ARAGONES, ET AL. v. ABELARDO SUBIDO

  • G.R. No. L-26137 September 23, 1968 - EUGENIO V. VILLANUEVA, JR. v. JOSE R. QUERUBIN

  • G.R. No. L-18010 September 25, 1968 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. TEOFILO CABILTES, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-24656 September 25, 1968 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL. v. NUMERIANO C. ESTENZO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-25031 September 25, 1968 - ISIDORO GEVEROLA v. VICENTE N. CUSI, JR., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-25379 September 25, 1968 - JOSE L. LACHICA, ET AL. v. JUAN E. YAP

  • G.R. No. L-22733 September 25, 1968 - SALVADOR BENEDICTO, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-23302 September 25, 1968 - ALEJANDRO RAS v. ESTELA SUA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-25132 September 25, 1968 - FRANCISCO DUQUE v. GAVINA CRUZ, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-28927 September 25, 1968 - LAGUNA COLLEGE v. COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-29193 September 26, 1968 - CIPRIANO P. MALIWANAG v. AMEURFINA MELENCIO-HERRERA

  • G.R. No. L-25531 September 26, 1968 - ELENO T. SANGALANG, SR. v. HUGO H. CAINGAT

  • G.R. No. L-21299 September 27, 1968 - ANSELMA PENDON, ET AL. v. JOSE R. CABATUANDO

  • G.R. No. L-21183 September 27, 1968 - VICTORIAS MILLING, CO., INC. v. MUNICIPALITY OF VICTORIAS

  • G.R. No. L-23991 September 27, 1968 - UNITED SEAMEN’S UNION OF THE PHILIPPINES v. COMPAÑIA MARITIMA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-25222 September 27, 1968 - BESSIE M. GRAY, ET AL. v. VICENTE C. KIUNGCO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-25226 September 27, 1968 - ISABELO PINZA v. TEOFILO ALDOVINO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-25790 September 27, 1968 - JOSE A. GARCIA v. ADELAIDA CRUZ

  • G.R. No. L-28493 September 27, 1968 - AGRIPINA J. VALDEZ, ET AL. v. ESTELA DIZON, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-29362 September 27, 1968 - DOMESTIC INSURANCE COMPANY OF THE PHILIPPINES v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-23958 September 28, 1968 - EASTERN PAPER MILLS EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION-NATU v. EASTERN PAPER MILLS, INC., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-24489 September 28, 1968 - AUGUSTIN GRACILLA v. COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-24503 September 28, 1968 - IN RE: LO BENG HA ONG v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-24934 September 28, 1968 - J.M. TUASON & CO., INC. v. RAYMUNDO FAMILARA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-25359 September 28, 1968 - ARADA LUMUNGO, JUHURI DAWA, ET AL. v. ASAAD USMAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-25511 September 28, 1968 - PATRICIO S. CUNANAN v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-28246 September 28, 1968 - ROGELIO PUREZA, ET AL. v. ALBERTO AVERIA

  • G.R. No. L-29532 September 28, 1968 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MARIANO OANDASAN

  • G.R. No. L-20993 September 28, 1968 - RIZAL LIGHT & ICE CO., INC. v. MUNICIPALITY OF MORONG, RIZAL, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-22110 September 28, 1968 - CRISTOBAL MARCOS, ET AL. v. MARIA JESUS DE ERQUIAGA DE BANUVAR, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-23312 September 28, 1968 - JULIO GATLABAYAN, ET AL. v. EMILIANO C. RAMIREZ

  • G.R. No. L-23370-71 September 28, 1968 - TERESA FERRER, ET AL. v. CESARIO C. GOLEZ

  • G.R. No. L-23832 September 28, 1968 - PROCESO APOLEGA v. PERSEVERANDA HIZON, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-24155 September 28, 1968 - DELFIN SANTOS, ET AL. v. ROBERTO E. CHICO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-25133 September 28, 1968 - JOSE SANTIAGO v. CELSO ALIKPALA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-25361 September 28, 1968 - LEONARDO NAVARRO v. LUIS L. LARDIZABAL, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-29026 September 28, 1968 - PANTALEON PACIS v. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-29471 September 28, 1968 - PHILIPPINE ASSOCIATION OF FREE LABOR UNIONS v. JOAQUIN M. SALVADOR, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-21544 September 30, 1968 - J.M TUASON & CO., INC. v. ATANACIO MUNAR

  • G.R. No. L-25051 September 30, 1968 - JOSE B. ROXAS, ET AL. v. PEDRO BERMUDEZ, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-25150 September 30, 1968 - ANICIA CADIZ v. SECRETARY OF NATIONAL DEFENSE, ET AL.