Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1969 > July 1969 Decisions > G.R. No. L-30734 July 28, 1969 - JUAN DIOSAMITO, ET AL. v. BENJAMIN BALANQUE, ET AL.:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

EN BANC

[G.R. No. L-30734. July 28, 1969.]

JUAN DIOSAMITO, ET AL., Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. BENJAMIN BALANQUE, ET AL., Defendants-Appellees.

Guzman & Guzman, for Plaintiffs-Appellants.

Solicitor General Arturo A. Alafriz, Assistant Solicitor General Isidro C . Borromeo and Solicitor Dominador L. Quiroz for Defendants-Appellees.


SYLLABUS


1. TAXATION; TARIFF AND CUSTOMS CODE; SEIZURE AND FORFEITURE PROCEEDINGS; EXCLUSIVE JURISDICTION OF THE COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS; COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE HAS NO JURISDICTION OVER SUCH MATTERS. — During the pendency of the seizure and forfeiture proceedings instituted by the Collector of Customs pursuant to Section 2530, pars. (f) and (k) of the Tariff and Customs Code involving assorted untaxed "blue seal" cigarettes, the Court of First Instance cannot entertain a suit for the recovery of one of the two trucks which were impounded in the PC compound involved for having loaded several cases of said cigarettes. The Collector of Customs has exclusive jurisdiction in the determination of all questions affecting the disposal of property proceeded against in a seizure and forfeiture case.

2. ID.; ID.; ID.; ID.; APPEAL FROM DECISION OF SAID COLLECTOR. — The law grants the Collector of Customs sufficient latitude in determining whether or not a certain article is subject to seizure or forfeiture (Sec. 2530, pars. (f) and (k), Tariff and Customs Code of 1957); and his decision on the matter is appealable to the Commissioner of Customs and then to the Court of Tax Appeals, not to the Court of First Instance.


D E C I S I O N


MAKALINTAL, J.:


Appeal from the order of the Court of First Instance of Quezon City dismissing the case for lack of jurisdiction.

On the morning of November 12, 1962 in Aringay, La Union, a joint team of Philippine Constabulary and local police apprehended two trucks loaded with 666 cases of assorted untaxed "blue seal" cigarettes. On the same date the two trucks were impounded in the PC compound under the custody of the Provincial Commander while the Provincial Fiscal filed an information in the Court of First Instance of La Union against the drivers for violation of the Tariff and Customs Code. On November 19, 1962 the Collector of Customs issued a Customs Warrant of Seizure and Detention to the Provincial Commander with instruction to detain, hold and/or keep the said trucks in custody and instituted Seizure-Forfeiture Proceedings Identification No. 28/62 pursuant to Section 2530, paragraphs (f) and (k) of the Tariff and Customs Code, which provide as follows:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"Any vessel or aircraft, cargo, articles and other objects shall, under the following conditions, be subject in forfeiture:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

x       x       x


"f. Any article of prohibited importation or exportation, the importation or exportation of which is effected or attempted contrary to law, and all other articles which in the opinion of the Collector, have been used, are or were intended to be used as instruments in the importation or exportation of the former.

x       x       x


"k. Any beast actually being used for the conveyance of articles subjects to forfeiture under the customs and tariff laws, with its equipage or trappings, and any vehicle similarly used, together with its equipage and appurtenances, including the beast, team or other motive power drawing or propelling the same; but the forfeiture shall not be effected if it is established that the owner of the means of conveyance used as aforesaid, or his agent in charge thereof at the time, has no knowledge of the unlawful act."cralaw virtua1aw library

On December 7, 1962, during the pendency of Seizure-Forfeiture Proceedings Identification No. 28/62, the plaintiffs, claiming to be the owners of one of the trucks (identified in the complaint) filed a suit in the court a quo, with a prayer for damages. The Collector of Customs, however, was not included as party-defendant. The court a quo ordered the release of the truck to the plaintiffs upon a bond of P10,000.

On December 12, 1962 the Collector of Customs, thru the office of the Solicitor General, filed an urgent motion to intervene, with the answer in intervention attached thereto. The motion was granted and the answer admitted. The Collector of Customs prayed for the dismissal of the complaint for lack of jurisdiction and failure to state a cause of action. The Provincial Commander, likewise thru the Office of the Solicitor General, filed an answer adopting that of the Collector of Customs. Upon motion of the defendant and the intervenor, a preliminary hearing was held on the affirmative defense of lack of jurisdiction. On June 28, 1963 the court a quo issued an order the dispositive portion of which reads:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"Wherefore, the above-entitled case is hereby ordered DISMISSED, for lack of jurisdiction, without special pronouncement as to costs.

Consequently, the order for the seizure of personal property issued by this Court is hereby set aside, and since no return of the service thereof has been submitted to the Court it is hereby ordered recalled and counsel for he plaintiffs given a period of ten (10) days from receipt hereof within which to return the same to the Court."cralaw virtua1aw library

Both parties moved to reconsider. The Solicitor General’s motion was limited to the dispositive portion of the order "so as to include therein a directive that the plaintiffs should forthwith return to the Collector of Customs for San Fernando the truck subject matter of the complaint to be dealt with under the Tariff and Customs Code." In an order dated August 10, 1963, the trial court granted the Solicitor General’s motion and denied that of the plaintiffs.

The plaintiffs appealed to the Court of Appeals, which subsequently certified the case to us, the only issue being whether or not the court a quo has jurisdiction over the subject-matter of the case.

The issue presented is not one of first impression. In Pacis v. Averia, L-22526, November 29, 1966 and in De Joya, Et. Al. v. David, Et Al., L-23504, December 29, 1967, we said:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"At issue is the jurisdiction of the Court of First Instance of Cavite to entertain Civil Case No. TM-114, and the existence of therein plaintiff’s cause of action.

. . . This original jurisdiction of the Court of First Instance, when exercised in an action for recovery of personal property which is a subject of a forfeiture proceeding in the Bureau of Customs, tends to encroach upon, and to render futile, the jurisdiction of the Collector of Customs in seizure and forfeiture proceedings . . .

"Should Section 44(c) of the Judiciary Act of 1948 give way to the provisions of the Tariff and Customs Code, or vice versa? In our opinion, in this particular case, the Court of First Instance should yield to the jurisdiction of the Collector of Customs. The jurisdiction of the Collector of Customs is provided for in Republic Act 1937 which took effect on July 1, 1957, much later than the Judiciary Act of 1948 It is axiomatic that a later law prevails over a prior statute. Moreover, on grounds of public policy, it is more reasonable to conclude that the legislators intended to diverse the Court of First Instance of the prerogative to replevin a property which is a subject of a seizure and forfeiture proceedings for violation of the Tariff and Customs Code. Otherwise, actions for forfeiture or property for violation of Customs laws could easily be undermined by the simple device of replevin.

"Furthermore, Section 2303 of the Tariff and Customs Code requires the Collector of Customs to give to the owner of the property sought to be forfeited, written notice of the seizure and to give him the opportunity to be heard in his defense. This provision clearly indicates the intention of the law to confine in the Bureau of Customs the determination of all questions affecting the disposal of property proceeded against in a seizure and forfeiture case. The judicial recourse of the property owner is not in the Court of First Instance but in the Court of Tax Appeals, and only after exhausting administrative remedies in the Bureau of Customs."cralaw virtua1aw library

Appellants argue that the truck in question could not be the subject of seizure, confiscation or forfeiture in the absence of any evidence showing that the cigarettes loaded therein had been imported illegally. This argument is gratuituous and begs the question at issue before the Collector of Customs. Prima facie, at least, the cigarettes that were loaded on the truck in question when it was apprehended, being of the "blue seal" or untaxed category, had been imported illegally; and it was before the Collector of Customs in the seizure-forfeiture proceeding he had instituted that evidence to the contrary should be adduced by the plaintiffs. And as may be gathered from the pleadings, that administrative proceeding had been set for hearing twice with due notice to the parties, but no actual hearing had yet been conducted when the instant case was instituted in the court a quo. The law grants the Collector of Customs sufficient latitude in determining whether or not a certain article is subject to seizure or forfeiture (Sec. 2530, pars. (f) and (k), Tariff and Customs Code of 1957, supra); and his decision on the matter is appealable to the Commissioner of Customs and then to the Court of Tax Appeals, not to the Court of First Instance.

WHEREFORE, the order appealed from is affirmed, with costs against appellants.

Concepcion, C.J., Reyes, J.B.L., Dizon, Sanchez, Castro, Fernando, Capistrano, Teehankee and Barredo, JJ., concur.

Zaldivar, J., did not take part.




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






July-1969 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. L-27758 July 14, 1969 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. DEMETRIO NABUAL, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-20194 July 17, 1969 - IN RE: JAMES UY v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-24764 July 17, 1969 - EUFROSINO ROM v. CLEMENTE COBADORA

  • G.R. No. L-28355 July 17, 1969 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. APOLINARIO LUMANTAS

  • G.R. No. L-29839 July 17, 1969 - TOMAS SABANGAN v. MANILA RAILROAD COMPANY, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-29369 July 24, 1969 - CESAR R. BORROMEO v. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-26337 July 25, 1969 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. SATURNINO MABAGA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-28884 July 25, 1969 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. NOLY SIA

  • G.R. No. L-20354 July 28, 1969 - GERARDO SAMSON, JR. v. FELIPE TARROZA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-21024 July 28, 1969 - CENON MATEO v. FLORENCIO MORENO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-23159 July 28, 1969 - BENIGNO T. PEREZ, ET AL. v. J. ANTONIO ARANETA

  • G.R. No. L-25137 July 28, 1969 - J. P. JUAN & SONS, INC. v. LIANGA INDUSTRIES, INC.

  • G.R. No. L-25882 July 28, 1969 - CESAR T. ROSALES, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-27569 July 28, 1969 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. DOMINGO PASCUAL, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-27792 July 28, 1969 - ANTONIO NARITO v. JOSE CARRIDO

  • G.R. No. L-29051 July 28, 1969 - BINGING HO v. MUNICIPAL BOARD OF CANVASSERS OF BONGAO, SULU, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-30734 July 28, 1969 - JUAN DIOSAMITO, ET AL. v. BENJAMIN BALANQUE, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-22764 July 28, 1969 - CALTEX (PHILIPPINES), INC. v. CITY OF MANILA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-22702 July 28, 1969 - VICENTE A. GOMEZ v. CENTRAL VEGETABLE OIL MANUFACTURING COMPANY

  • G.R. No. L-30364 July 28, 1969 - ANGEL C. BAKING, ET AL. v. DIRECTOR OF PRISONS

  • G.R. No. L-25299 July 29, 1969 - COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE v. ITOGON-SUYOC MINES, INC., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-22986 July 29, 1969 - MANILA PORT SERVICE, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-25274 July 29, 1969 - NORTHWEST ORIENT AIRLINES, INC. v. LOUISE MATEU, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-27348 July 29, 1969 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MIGUEL MENDEZ, ET, AL.

  • G.R. No. L-30570 July 29, 1969 - JOSEPH EJERCITO ESTRADA, ET AL. v. BRAULIO STO. DOMINGO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-29002 July 30, 1969 - EDUARDO VIDAL, ET AL. v. COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-28095 July 30, 1969 - ANTONIO DE LA CRUZ, ET AL. v. PERFECTO BURGOS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-27117 July 30, 1969 - PHILIPPINE NATIONAL BANK v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-28022 July 30, 1969 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ROGELIO LABA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-25814 July 30, 1969 - CEZAR LUCHAYCO v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-26860 July 30, 1969 - ALBERTA B. CABRAL, ET AL. v. TEODORA EVANGELISTA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-28214 July 30, 1969 - NATIVIDAD V. A. JARODA v. VICENTE N. CUSI, JR., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-19753 July 30, 1969 - ANGELA LAZATIN v. COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-20723 July 30, 1969 - WASHINGTON P. PONCE v. EUGENIO E. VAÑO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-21887 July 30, 1969 - IN RE: TEOTIMO T. TOMADA, ET AL. v. RODOLFO T. TOMADA

  • G.R. No. L-23977 July 30, 1969 - MANILA TRADING & SUPPLY COMPANY, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-22607 July 30, 1969 - IN RE: REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL. v. LEE WAI LAM

  • G.R. No. L-23683 July 30, 1969 - JUAN APURILLO v. HONORATO GARCIANO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-26737 July 31, 1969 - LAURA CORPUS, ET AL. v. FELARDO PAJE, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-27790 July 31, 1969 - SOFRONIO ALCANTARA v. MARCELO VALDEHUEZA

  • G.R. No. L-26584 July 31, 1969 - MARA, INC. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-26741 July 31, 1969 - IN RE: TESSIE ASTERO v. CHIEF OF POLICE OF DAGUPAN CITY

  • G.R. Nos. L-27948 & L-28001-11 July 31, 1969 - LA PERLA CIGAR & CIGARETTE FACTORY, ET AL. v. ELEUTERIO CAPAPAS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-29278 July 31, 1969 - AGRICULTURAL CREDIT ADMIN. v. LASAM FARMERS’ COOPERATIVE MARKETING ASSOC., INC., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-30027 July 31, 1969 - JUSTINA C. SANTOS v. JESUS DE VEYRA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-23041 July 31, 1969 - E. RODRIGUEZ, INC. v. COLLECTOR INTERNAL REVENUE, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. L-24458-64 July 31, 1966

    AMANDO ALGABRE, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-24749 July 31, 1969 - GEORGE W. FLEISCHER, ET AL. v. PAMPLONA PLANTATION COMPANY INC.

  • G.R. No. L-25504 July 31, 1969 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ROBERTO F. NER