EN BANC.
.
CHIEF
STATE
PROSECUTOR
JOVENCITO R. ZUÑO,ATTY. CLEMENTE
P.
HERALDO, CHIEF OF THE INTERNAL INQUIRYAND PROSECUTION
DIVISION-CUSTOMS INTELLIGENCEAND INVESTIGATION
SERVICE (IIPD-CIIS), AND LEONITO A. SANTIAGO,SPECIAL INVESTIGATOR
OF THE IIPD-CIIS,
Petitioners, |
A.M.
No.
RTJ-03-1779
April 30, 2003 - versus -
JUDGE ARNULFO G.
CABREDO, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT,
BRANCH 15, TABACO
CITY, ALBAY,
Respondent.
D E C I S I O N
PER
CURIAM:
Before the court
are administrative complaints filed against Judge Arnulfo G. Cabredo of
Branch 15 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Tabaco City, Albay, for
grave misconduct, knowingly rendering an unjust interlocutory order,
manifest
partiality, evident bad faith, and gross inexcusable negligence.
The Antecedents
The facts are simple.
Atty. Winston Florin, the Deputy Collector of Customs of the Sub-Port
of
Tabaco, Albay, issued on September 3, 2001 Warrant of Seizure and
Detention
(WSD) No. 06-2001 against a shipment of 35,000 bags of rice aboard the
vessel M/V Criston, for violation of Section 2530 of the Tariff and
Customs
Code of the Philippines (TCCP).[1]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
A few days after the
issuance of the warrant of seizure and detention, or on September 25,
2001,
Antonio Chua, Jr. and Carlos Carillo, claiming to be consignees of the
subject goods, filed before the Regional Trial Court of Tabaco City,
Albay,
a Petition for Prohibition with Prayer for the Issuance of Preliminary
Injunction and Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) which was docketed as
Civil Case No. T-2170. The said petition sought to enjoin the Bureau of
Customs and its officials from detaining the subject shipment.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
On September 28, 2001,
Judge Cabredo issued an order ex parte, the relevant portion of which
reads
as follows:
x
x x
Acting on the
petition
for Prohibition with Prayers for the Issuance of Preliminary Injunction
and Temporary Restraining Order and finding the same to be sufficient
in
form and substance and that after a thorough evaluation of the entire
records,
it appears that the subject matter involved is of extreme urgency and
the
applicants will suffer grave injustice and irreparable injury pursuant
to paragraph 2, Section 5, Rule 58 of the 1997 Rules of Civil
Procedure,
let a temporary restraining order be issued good for seventy two (72)
hours
from service thereof restraining the herein respondents or any person
or
entity so acting in their behalf from detaining the subject a) 14,920
bags
of imported well[-]milled rice (WMR), b) 5,000 bags of local
well-milled
rice (WMR) and c) 15,000 bags of imported special variety rice, upon
the
filing of a bond in the amount of PhP31,450,000.00.[2]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
x
x
x
By virtue of said TRO,
the 35,000 bags of rice were released from customs to Antonio Chua, Jr.
and Carlos Carillo.
chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
In his complaint, Chief
State Prosecutor Zuño alleged that respondent Judge violated
Administrative
Circular No. 7-99,[3]
which cautions trial court judges in their issuance of temporary
restraining
orders and writs of preliminary injunctions. Said circular reminds
judges
of the principle, enunciated in Mison v. Natividad,[4]
that the Collector of Customs has exclusive jurisdiction over seizure
and
forfeiture proceedings, and regular courts cannot interfere with his
exercise
thereof or stifle or put it to naught.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Chief State Prosecutor
Zuño further alleged that respondent Judge knew very well that
at
the time he issued the questioned order, he did not have any
jurisdiction
to pass upon the validity or regularity of the seizure and forfeiture
proceedings
conducted by the Bureau of Customs. Hence, he asserts, respondent Judge
wantonly disregarded rules and settled jurisprudence, to the damage and
prejudice of the government, depriving it of its legal custody over the
seized articles and consequently, the opportunity to collect taxes and
duties thereon.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Atty. Clemente P. Heraldo,
Chief of the Internal Inquiry and Prosecution Division-Customs
Intelligence
and Investigation Service (IIPD-CIIS), and Leonito A. Santiago, Special
Investigator of the IIPD-CIIS also filed a joint Supplemental
Complaint-Affidavit
reiterating the allegations in the complaint filed by Chief State
Prosecutor
Zuño.[5]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
In his 1st Indorsement
dated September 23, 2002, Court Administrator Presbitero J. Velasco,
Jr.
referred to respondent Judge the complaint against him for his comment.
On November 11, 2002, respondent Judge filed his Comment With Motion to
Suspend Proceedings. He alleged therein that when he issued the
questioned
TRO, he honestly believed that the Bureau of Customs had been divested
of its jurisdiction over the case. He specifically cited the statement
of Deputy Collector of Customs Florin in the warrant of seizure and
detention
that, as the investigating officer, he "cannot find any violation of
Section
2530 of the Tariff and Customs Code."[6]
According to respondent Judge, because of this statement, the Bureau of
Customs no longer had any jurisdiction over the case.
chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Respondent Judge
likewise
explained in his Comment that he saw to it that the interests of both
parties
in the case were duly protected. By requiring petitioners therein to
put
up a bond equivalent to the full value of the goods to answer for
whatever
liability may be adjudged against them, he safeguarded the interest of
the government relative to collecting taxes and duties due on the
shipment.
On the other hand, he allowed petitioners therein to have possession of
the goods, which were perishable in nature, upon filing of the bond.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Finally, respondent
Judge, in his Comment, also moved that the proceedings herein be
suspended.
He alleged that the matter of whether or not the issuance of the
questioned
TRO was illegal, whimsical, and attended with manifest partiality and
bad
faith is now pending before the Court of Appeals in a case docketed as
CA G.R. SP No. 72047. Hence, the proceedings herein should be suspended
to await the final decision in the case before the Court of Appeals.
The Court
Administrator’s
Evaluation
The Court Administrator,
in his Evaluation dated February 7, 2003, stated that the questioned
TRO
was clearly illegal and issued in excess of jurisdiction. He cited
Rallos
v. Gako, Jr.,[7]
which held that Regional Trial Courts are devoid of any competence to
pass
upon the validity or regularity of seizure and forfeiture proceedings
conducted
by the Bureau of Customs or to enjoin or otherwise interfere with these
proceedings. The rule enunciated in Mison v. Trinidad[8]
is clear: the Collector of Customs has exclusive jurisdiction over
seizure
and forfeiture proceedings. The RTCs are precluded from assuming
cognizance
over such matters even through petitions for certiorari, prohibition or
mandamus. Moreover, even if the seizure by the Collector of Customs
were
illegal, which has yet to be proven, such act does not deprive the
Bureau
of Customs of jurisdiction thereon.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
The Court Administrator
concluded that the act of respondent Judge in issuing the questioned
TRO
amounted to gross ignorance of the law.
The Court’s Ruling
We agree with the findings
of the Court Administrator.cralaw:red
First, respondent Judge
is not exculpated by his contention that his act did not cause any
damage
upon the government by preventing it from collecting duties and taxes
due
on the shipment since he required petitioners therein to file a bond in
the amount equivalent to the value of the shipment.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
The collection of duties
and taxes due on the seized goods is not the only reason why trial
courts
are enjoined from issuing orders releasing imported articles under
seizure
and forfeiture proceedings by the Bureau of Customs. Administrative
Circular
No. 7-99 takes into account the fact that the issuance of TROs and the
granting of writs of preliminary injunction in seizure and forfeiture
proceedings
before the Bureau of Customs may arouse suspicion that the issuance or
grant was for considerations other than the strict merits of the case.
Furthermore, respondent Judge’s actuation goes against settled
jurisprudence
that the Collector of customs has exclusive jurisdiction over seizure
and
forfeiture proceedings, and regular courts cannot interfere with his
exercise
thereof or stifle and put it to naught.[9]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Second, respondent Judge
cannot claim that he issued the questioned TRO because he honestly
believed
that the Bureau of Customs was effectively divested of its jurisdiction
over the seized shipment due to the statement of Deputy Collector of
Customs
Florin who stated that, as the investigating officer, he "cannot find
any
violation of Section 2530 of the Tariff and Customs Code."chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Even if it be assumed
that in the exercise of the Collector of Customs of its exclusive
jurisdiction
over seizure and forfeiture cases, a taint of illegality is correctly
imputed,
the most that can be said is that under these circumstances, grave
abuse
of discretion may oust it of its jurisdiction. This does not mean,
however,
that the trial court is vested with competence to acquire jurisdiction
over these seizure and forfeiture cases. The proceedings before the
Collector
of Customs are not final. An appeal lies to the Commissioner of Customs
and thereafter to the Court of Tax Appeals. It may even reach this
Court
through an appropriate petition for review. The proper
ventilation
of the legal issues is thus indicated. Certainly, the Regional Trial
Court
is not included therein. Hence, it is devoid of jurisdiction.[10]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Clearly, therefore,
respondent Judge had no jurisdiction to take cognizance of the petition
and issue the questioned TRO. He proceeded against settled doctrine, an
act constituting gross ignorance of the law.[11]
This is a serious violation under Section 8, Rule 140 of the Rules of
Court.[12]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
What is involved here
is a fundamental and well-known judicial norm. If the law is so
elementary,
not to know it or to act if one does not know it, constitutes gross
ignorance
of the law.[13]
Gross ignorance of the law is the disregard of basic rules and settled
jurisprudence.[14]
Failure to know the basic principles is an inexcusable offense.
Respondent’s
actuation in this case is tantamount to grave misconduct.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
It is a basic principle
that the Collector of Customs has exclusive jurisdiction over seizure
and
forfeiture proceedings of dutiable goods. A studious and conscientious
judge can easily be conversant with such an elementary rule.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Finally, in issuing
orders and rendering decisions, judges must make sure that the same are
not only just, correct, and impartial, but also done in a manner free
from
any suspicion of unfairness and partiality. As aforestated,
Administrative
Circular No. 7-99 reminds judges that their issuance of TROs and grants
of writs of preliminary injunction in seizure and forfeiture
proceedings
before the Bureau of Customs may arouse suspicion that said issuance or
grant was for considerations other than the strict merits of the case.
The said administrative circular seeks to reiterate that they should
embody
the image of equity and justice in the eyes of the public.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Respondent Judge’s order
is of the kind that erodes the public’s confidence and faith in the
courts.
Judges are to avoid not just impropriety, but even the appearance of
impropriety.
They must give no ground for reproach in order to promote public
confidence
in the integrity and impartiality of the judiciary.[15]
No position exacts a greater demand for moral righteousness and
uprightness
than a seat in the judiciary.[16]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
WHEREFORE, Judge Arnulfo
G. Cabredo is found GUILTY of GRAVE MISCONDUCT. The Court imposes on
him
the penalty of DISMISSAL from the service with forfeiture of all
benefits,
excluding accrued leave credits, with prejudice to re-employment in any
branch or agency of the government, including government-owned or
controlled
corporations.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Let a copy of this decision
be attached to the personnel records of Judge Arnulfo G. Cabredo.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
So ordered.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Davide, Jr., C.J.,
Bellosillo, Puno, Vitug, Panganiban, Quisumbing, Ynares-Santiago,
Sandoval-Gutierrez,
Carpio, Austria-Martinez, Corona, Carpio-Morales, Callejo, Sr., and
Azcuna,
JJ.,
concur.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
____________________________
Endnotes:
[1]
Annex "A" of the Complaint; Rollo, p. 48.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[2]
Annex "C" of the Complaint; Rollo, p. 64.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[3]
Entitled "RE EXERCISE OF UTMOST CAUTION, PRUDENCE, AND JUDICIOUSNESS IN
ISSUANCE OF TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDERS AND WRITS OF PRELIMINARY
INJUNCTIONS,"
dated June 25, 1999.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[4]
213 SCRA 734, 742 (1992).chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[5]
Rollo, pp. 6-10.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[6]
Comment on the Complaint, p. 4; Rollo, p. 80.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[7]
344 SCRA 178 (2000).chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[8]
See note 4, supra.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[9]
Id.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[10]
Bureau of Customs v. Ogario, 329 SCRA 289, 298 (2000) citing Ponce
Enrile
v. Vinuya, 37 SCRA 381, 388-389 (1971).
[11]
Conducto v. Monzon, 291 SCRA 619 (1998).chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[12]
As amended by A.M. No. 01-8-10-SC which took effect on September 11,
2001.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[13]
Cruz v. Yaneza, March 9, 1999, Uy v. Dizon-Capulong, 221 SCRA 87 (1993).chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[14]
San Miguel Wood Products, Inc. v. Tupas, 249 SCRA 466 (1995).chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[15]
Rule 2, Canon 2 of the Code of Judicial Conduct.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[16]
Naval v. Panday, 275 SCRA 654 (1999).chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred |