Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1969 > August 1969 Decisions > G.R. No. L-22263 August 28, 1969 - F. SARE ENTERPRISES v. COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

EN BANC

[G.R. No. L-22263. August 28, 1969.]

F. SARE ENTERPRISES, Petitioner, v. THE COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, Respondent.

De Leon & De Leon and Nicolas V. Benedicto, Jr. for Petitioner.

Solicitor General Arturo A. Alafriz, Assistant Solicitor General Felicisimo R. Rosete and Solicitor Octavio R. Ramirez for Respondent.


SYLLABUS


1. POLITICAL LAW; CENTRAL BANK; CIRCULARS 44 AND 45; FORFEITURE OF GOODS IMPORTED IN VIOLATION THEREOF. — While Central Banks Circulars 44 and 45 do not expressly so provide, the forfeiture of goods imported in violation of those circulars may nevertheless be justified on the basis of Section 1363(f) of the Administrative Code, which authorizes the forfeiture of "Any merchandise of prohibited importation or exportation, the importation or exportation of which is effected or attempted contrary to law." Circulars 44 and 45 should be correlated to Section 1363 of the Administrative Code.

2. ID.; ID.; ID.; GOODS IMPORTED "CONTRARY TO LAW" WITHIN THE MEANING OF SECTION I 363(f) OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE CODE. — While goods imported in violation of Central Bank Circulars 44 and 45 may not be considered "merchandise of prohibited importation," they nevertheless fall within the other category of merchandise imported "contrary to law," because regulations issued pursuant to "customs laws" form part thereof, so that violation of the said regulations can properly be regarded as coming within the purview of Section 1363(f).

3. ID.; ID.; ID.; EFFECT OF CIRCULAR 133 ON SAID CIRCULARS 44 AND 45. — Central Bank Circular 133 has not exactly repealed Central Bank Circular Nos. 44 and 45 but rather it reenacted them w hen it provided therein that all existing regulations not inconsistent with the circulars are deemed incorporated and made integral parts thereof by reference. And it cannot be disputed that both Central Bank Circulars Nos. 44 and 45 and Central Bank Circular No. 133 have common purpose — which is to require the presentation of a release certificate from the Central Bank before any importation may be made to the Philippines.


D E C I S I O N


CASTRO, J.:


The petitioner F. Sare Enterprises’ importations of dried fish, smoked ham, pears, chestnuts, waternuts, dates, oranges, apples, and other foodstuffs from Hongkong, which arrived in Manila in December, 1954 in three shipments, were seized by customs authorities for failure of the petitioner to present the corresponding Central Bank release certificates as required by Central Bank Circulars 44 and 45, and were subsequently delivered to it only upon its posting of three bonds in the amounts of P11,760, P11,455 and P10,344.

After appropriate proceedings, the Collector of Customs on April 1,1955 rendered a decision against the petitioner and ordered it and its surety to pay jointly and severally to the Bureau of Customs the full amounts of the bonds given to secure the release of the goods. On appeal taken by the petitioner, the decision of the Collector of Customs was affirmed first by the Commissioner of Customs on December 14, 1959 and then by the Court of Tax Appeals on July 3, 1963. Hence this petition for review, the petitioner contending (1) that neither Circular 44 nor Circular 45 provides for the forfeiture of goods imported in violation thereof; (2) that the goods in question cannot be considered either as "merchandise of prohibited importation" or as goods imported "contrary to law" within the meaning of Section 1363(f) of the Administrative Code; and (3) that assuming that forfeiture could validly be ordered, both circulars have been repealed by Circular 133 with the result that the importation in question must Nov. be deemed to have been lawfully made.

The issues, while perhaps fresh and novel at the time they were raised by the petitioner, have since been resolved squarely by this Court.

Thus, in Capulong v. Aseron 1 this Court held that while Circulars 44 and 45 do not expressly so provide, the forfeiture of goods imported in violation of those circulars may nevertheless be justified on the basis of Section 1363(f) of the Administrative Code, 2 which authorizes the forfeiture of "Any merchandise of prohibited importation or exportation, the importation or exportation of which is effected or attempted contrary to law." Circulars 44 and 45 should be correlated to Section 1363 of the Administrative Code.

Upon the second issue raised by the petitioner, it was held in Capulong that while goods imported in violation of the circulars may both be considered "merchandise of prohibited importation," they nevertheless fall within the other category of merchandise imported ‘ contrary to law," because regulations issued pursuant to "customs laws" form part thereof, so that violation of the said regulations can properly be regarded as coming within the purview of Section 1363(f).

Finally, with respect to the third issue, this Court said in Capulong:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"Petitioner also contends that the merchandise in question cannot be legally forfeited under Central Bank Circulars Nos. 44 and 45 because these circulars have already been repealed by Central Bank Circular No. 133. This contention is without merit. Central Bank Circular 133 has not exactly repealed Central Bank Circulars Nos. 44 and 45 but rather it reenacted them when it provided therein that all existing regulations not inconsistent with the circular are deemed incorporated and made integral parts thereof by reference. And it cannot be disputed that both Central Bank Circulars Nos. 44 and 45 and Central Bank Circular No. 133 have a common purpose — which is to require the presentation of a release certificate from the Central Bank before any importation may be made to the Philippines. Evidently, the purpose of these circulars is to keep a tab of the volume of imports that come into the Philippines in order to enable the Central Bank to make a survey and study of the appropriate measures that may be adopted to remedy the long-drawn financial crisis in the country.

"Even assuming that Central Bank Circular No. 133 had the effect of repealing impliedly Central Bank Circulars Nos. 44 and 45, such repeal, however, cannot have the effect of abating the forfeiture case instituted against petitioner for the simple reason that forfeiture proceedings are civil in nature and not criminal. In this sense, the repeal cannot be given any retroactive effect.

‘. . . Petitioner contends that upon the expiration of Republic Act No. 650 the Commissioner of Customs lost jurisdiction over the case and therefore his decision was null and void. This contention is untenable. It is a settled rule that a court, be it judicial or administrative, that has acquired jurisdiction over a case, retains it even after the expiration of the law governing the case. Herein, we are concerned with the effect of the expiration of a law, not with the abrogation of a law, and we hold the view that once the Commissioner of Customs has acquired jurisdiction over the case, the mere expiration of Republic Act No. 650 will not divest him of his jurisdiction thereon duly acquired while said law was still in force. In other words, he believe that despite the expiration of Republic Act No. 650 the Commissioner of Customs retained his jurisdiction over the case and could continue to take cognizance thereof until its final determination, for the main question brought in by the appeal from the decision of the Collector of Customs was the legality or illegality of the decision of the Collector of Customs, and that question could not have been abated by the mere expiration of Republic Act No. 650. We firmly believe that the expiration of Republic Act No. 650 could not have produced the effect (I) of declaring legal the importation of the cotton counterpanes which were illegally imported, and (2) of declaring the seizure and forfeiture ordered by the Collector of Customs illegal or null and void; in other words, it could not have the effect of annulling or setting aside the decision of the Collector of Customs which was rendered while the law was in force and which should stand until it is revoked by the appellate tribunal . . . (Roxas v. Sayoc, G.R. No. L-8502. November 29,1956).’"

The ruling in Capulong has been reiterated and reaffirmed in numerous decisions of this Court 3 and it is now late in the day to suggest that it should be reexamined — which of course the petitioner does not do.

ACCORDINGLY, the decision appealed from is affirmed, at petitioner’s cost.

Concepcion, C.J., Dizon, Makalintal, Sanchez, Fernando, Capistrano, Teehankee and Barredo, JJ., concur.

Reyes, J.B.L. and Zaldivar, JJ., are on official leave.

Endnotes:



1. L-22989, May 14 1966, 17 SCRA 11.

2. Now Traffic and Customs Code, Sec. 2530(f)

3. De la Cruz v. Court of Tax Appeals, L-23335 & L-23452, Feb. 29, 1968, 22 SCRA 886; De la Cruz v. Court of Tax Appeals, L-23334 & L-23451, Feb. 29, 1968, 22 SCRA 891; Capulong v. Acting Comm’r. L-22991, Jan. 16, 1968, 22 SCRA 32, citing other cases; Leuterio v. Commissioner of Customs, L-21800, June 22,1968, 23 SCRA 1055; Lazaro v. Commissioner of Customs, L-22511 & L-22343, May 16,1966, 17 SCRA 36; see also Papa v. Mago, L-27360, Feb. 28,1968, 22 SCRA 857.




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






August-1969 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. L-28269 August 15, 1969 - CONSUELO VDA. DE QUIRINO v. JOSE PALARCA

  • G.R. Nos. L-21385-86 August 22, 1969 - CRISPINIANO BLANCO v. WORKMEN’S COMPENSATION COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-27431 August 22, 1969 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. FRANCISCO HAMTIG, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-29026 August 22, 1969 - PANTALEON PACIS v. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-30341 August 22, 1969 - REMIGIO R. ESQUILLO v. ABELARDO SUBIDO

  • G.R. No. L-30165 August 22, 1969 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ROSENDO RESUELLO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-30830 August 22, 1969 - PCI BANK v. ELRO DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-22685 August 25, 1969 - PHILIPPINE TRUST CO. v. SIMEON POLICARPIO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-26948 August 25, 1969 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MARCELINO PAGADUAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-29209 August 25, 1969 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. VIRGILIO SOLACITO

  • G.R. No. L-29131 August 27, 1969 - NATIONAL MARKETING CORP. v. MIGUEL D. TECSON, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-27580 August 27, 1969 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL. v. UY PIEK TUY

  • G.R. No. L-27429 August 27, 1969 - IN RE: OH HEK HOW v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-27002 August 27, 1969 - EDUARDO VILLANUEVA, ET AL. v. PRISCILO PORTIGO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-21581 August 28, 1969 - AVELINA LANZAR v. RAFAEL GUERRERO, SR., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-22263 August 28, 1969 - F. SARE ENTERPRISES v. COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS

  • G.R. No. L-25710 August 28, 1969 - IN RE: AQUILINO DEL ROSARIO, JR., ET AL. v. JUANITA OLIDAR VDA. MERCADO

  • G.R. Nos. L-29092-93 August 28, 1969 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. GERMAN SERAFICA

  • G.R. No. L-29618 August 28, 1969 - BISAYA LAND TRANSPORTATION CO. INC., ET AL. v. FRANCISCO GERONIMO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-30149 August 28, 1969 - IN RE: ANECITO SING v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-21788 August 28, 1969 - MUNICIPALITY OF PASACAO v. PROV’L. BOARD OF CAMARINES SUR, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-22219 August 28, 1969 - ALHAMBRA INDUSTRIES, INC. v. COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-25138 August 28, 1969 - JOSE A. BELTRAN, ET AL. v. PEOPLE’S HOMESITE & HOUSING CORP.

  • G.R. No. L-25355 August 28, 1969 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. FROILAN LAGRIMAS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-24791 August 29, 1969 - APOLONIA MIRANDA, ET AL. v. ARSENIO REYES

  • G.R. No. L-26826 August 29, 1969 - BALDOMERO S. LUQUE v. JUDGE UNION C. KAYANAN

  • G.R. No. L-27863 August 29, 1969 - LUZON METAL AND PLUMBING WORKS CO., INC. v. MANILA UNDERWRITERS INS. CO., INC.

  • G.R. No. L-22614 August 29, 1969 - RAMIREZ TELEPHONE CORP. v. BANK OF AMERICA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-23757 August 29, 1969 - JOSE MARlA ANDUIZA, ET AL. v. SANTOS DY-KIA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-29166 August 29, 1969 - IN RE: ROSALIA TAN COHON v. ELECTION REGISTRAR, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-29396 August 29, 1969 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ERNESTO P. VALENCIA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-29748 August 29, 1969 - PNB v. FERNANDO PINEDA

  • G.R. No. L-29922 August 29, 1969 - BENJAMIN H. AVES v. EDUARDO L. JOSON, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-28505 August 29, 1969 - PNB v. ESTANISLAO PINEDA

  • G.R. No. L-23921 August 29, 1969 - RIZALINA G. GALSIM, ET AL. v. PHILIPPINE NATIONAL BANK

  • G.R. No. L-24765 August 29, 1969 - PNB v. MAXIMO STA. MARIA, ET AL.

  • A.C. No. 415 August 29, 1969 - DR. ADRIANO B. VELASQUEZ v. APOLONIO BARRERA

  • G.R. No. L-23396 August 29, 1969 - ARSENIA GUARDIANO v. JORGE ENCARNACION

  • G.R. Nos. L-23786-87 August 29, 1969 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. CORNELIO MANUEL

  • A.C. No. 116 August 29, 1969 - AMBROSIO DIAMALON v. JESUS QUINTILLAN

  • G.R. No. L-21906 August 29, 1969 - INOCENCIA DELUAO, ET AL. v. NICANOR CASTEEL, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-23857 August 29, 1969 - INSULAR LUMBER CO. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-25407 August 29, 1969 - PILAR M. NORMANDY, ET AL. v. CALIXTO DUQUE, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-25180 August 29, 1969 - MARTINIANO P. VIVO v. RICARDO C. PUNO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-24318 August 29, 1969 - BOARD OF LIQUIDATORS, ET AL. v. RICMA TRADING CORP., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-29264 August 29, 1969 - BARBARA LOMBOS RODRIGUEZ v. COURT OF APPEALS (Second Division), ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-26442 August 29, 1969 - MANUELA S. FORMENTO, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.