G.R. No. L-9527. August 22, 1957

This  is an appeal by the Republic of the Philippines from the decision of the Court of First Instance of Manila dismissing  its complaint  to  recover  from, appellees Pio Pedrosa and  Alfredo V, Jacinto  the  sum of P68,933.91, representing alleged losses or damages to the Government because of certain  supposedly  unlawful acts  of appellees committed when they were still Secretary of  Finance  and Commissioner of Customs, respectively.

 The  facts are narrated by the Court below, as follows:

“The facts, upon which the claim of the plaintiff is predicated  may be stated as follows: In a decision rendered by the Commissioner of Customs on December 23, 1947, in customs  ease entitled  “Republic of tho Philippines vs. 259 Pieces of Jewelry, Tranquilino Rovero, Owner;  Identification No. 555,’  it was  held that the  259 pieces of jewelry  imported by  Tranquilino Royero were properly seized under Section  1292 of the  Revised Administrative  Code and are  subject to forfeiture under Section 1363 (m~2) of the same Code.  However, forfeiture was waived  and in  Hen thereof  a fine,  in an amount .equal to three times  the appraised value, P23,736,  of the jewelry was  imposed.

Tranquilino Bovero appealed  to the Court of First Instance of Manila,  where the decision of  the Commissioner of  Customs  was affirmed in its judgment of May 24, 1949. Rovero appealed to the Supreme Court, which affirmed the  judgment of the  Court of First Instance in a  decision rendered on June 28, 1951, in. case G. R.  No. L-3281  (Republic  of  the  Philippines  vs. 259 Pieces  of Jewelry; Tranquilino  Rovero, defendant-appellant).

On August 8, 1951,  the defendant Alfredo V, Jacinto, then Commissioner  of Customs,  upon request of Tranquilino Rovero, ordered the Collector of Customs for the Fort of Manila to form a committee to reappraise said  jewelry.  A reappraisal was made, as a result of which  the original  appraised  value of P23.736  was reduced to P9,880.  The defendant Pio Pedrosa, then Secretary of Finance, on August 23, 1951, set aside the original appraised value and approved the new appraisement of P9,880 and this reduced value  was made the “basis of the payment of the fine imposed by the Commissioner of Customs in  the  aforesaid decision, notwithstanding the fact that said decision had already been affirmed by the Supreme Court,  as a result of which Tranquilino Rovero recovered the  jewelry and  only paid the  government  three  times  this  new appraised  value,  or P29,640, plus tax, duties, and other charges amounting; all together to P38,303.55.

Execution was issued in Civil Case No, 4450 for the collection of the fine imposed therein, together with customs duties,  sales  tax, and  other charges  aggregating” P107,787.49. However, the jewelry having been recovered  by Tranquilino Rovero upon payment of the amount of P38,303.55, a writ of execution was issued for the balance of P69,483,94.  Execution was  levied  on Rovero’s  properties,  and only the sum of P550.03 was realized, so that there is now an unpaid balance  of P68.933.91 of said judgment, which is  the  amount  now claimed by the  plaintiff from the defendants.” (Record on Appeal, pp. 185-128.)

The lower court found that  appellees acted contrary to law and  in an unwarranted interference with the already final judgment of this  Court in  G. R. L-3281  when they allowed a reappraisal of  the jewerly in question, thereby reducing by  some  P69,000.00  the fine which  was  to be paid by  the  importer Tranquilino Rovero,  the fine  being triple the appraised value.   However,  the court also held that the fine imposable on Rovero was, under the provisions of the Revised Administrative Code, a “fine upon the property” seized and  not upon the owner; that had the jewerly not  been reappraised, Rovero would not  have redeemed them, and their  sale at  public auction would bring  the Government  no more than their original appraised  value of P23,736.00; and that therefore, the Government did not suffer any losses or damages when Rovero was authorized by  appellees to pay  a  fine of P38,853.58, and dismissed the complaint.

In its appeal from the foregoing’ judgment, the Republic, through the Solicitor  General, urges that Rovero could be held personally  liable beyond  the  value of the jewelry in question for the balance of the fine payable by him based on the original appraised value of the jewelry in question.

Government  counsel seem to be  of the impression that as long as the  importer Rovero could be made to answer for the fines,  duties, and  charges  imposed upon  him  by law by reason of his illegal  importation of  the  jewelry in question, over and beyond their actual value, the cause of action against appellees for losses  or damages in the amount of P68,983.91 is complete and should be sustained by  us.  We do not agree  with the Government’s position. To recover the damages it is after, the Republic must show that the alleged misconduct of the appellees Pedrosa  and Jacinto was the proximate cause of the failure to recover in full from Tranquilino  Rovero the latter’s  original liability of P107,791.44; or, what amounts to the same thing, the appellant must establish by satisfactory evidence that its inability to recover the deficiency of P68,933.91 was the natural and probable consequence  of the conduct of appellees in permitting a reappraisal of the imported  jewelry. For the causal relation  between defendants’ fault and the damages suffered is  an  indispensable requisite  for  the recovery of such damages  (Algarra vs. Sandejas,  27 Phil. 284).  Hence, to prove  its damages, it is not enough that. the Government should show that Rovero  could  be held personally  answerable for the difference of the fine  and duties  payable  by  him;  the  Government must  likewise prove  that it  could  have  recovered  from  Rovero said difference, but was  prevented from doing  so because of appellee’s acts.

But  there is absolutely no  proof  to  this effect.  The Government has not shown that, at the time the reappraisal of Rovero’s jewelry was ordered by the  appellees, Rovero had sufficient property to cover his full liability under the original appraisal and order of seizure. The records show that subsequently, after  judgment was rendered in G. R. L-3281 Rovero’s properties were levied upon and sold, but only P550.03 was realized out of  them; and there is neither charge nor proof that  in the interval Rovero was enabled to dispose or spirit away any  of his property.  And if Rovero  never had the  means  to  pay  the  deficiency of P68,933.71, we can not see how the appellees can be held liable therefor; for the loss  would have been incurred any way, even if the original appraisal had not been disturbed.

As correctly pointed  out for appellee  Fedrosa,  he  and Jacinto did not become guarantors of Rovero’s solvency by the mere fact of their  having authorized  and approved, the reappraisal of the jewelry in question.

As to the  jewelry,  the Government has  not produced evidence that it could have obtained, at a forced sale,  more than their original appraised value of P23.736.   And  since Rovero  ultimately paid  P38,303.55 under  the reappraisal in  order  to  redeem the jewelry,  it  is  evident that  its return caused no loss.

We reaffirm our ruling in Rovero vs. Amparo,* G. R. L- 9462, May 5, 1952,  that administrative officials have no power to remit  fines  or forfeitures after the  courts, on appeal and in final  decisions, have sanctioned  such  fines and forfeitures.   However,  in  the  absence of  charge or proof of conspiracy, and of  any showing that the acts of appellees Pedrosa  and Jacinto were the proximate cause of the Government’s loss  of revenue,  the  lower court  committed no error  in absolving the defendants-appellees.

Wherefore, the judgment appealed from is affirmed.

No costs.  So ordered.

Paras,  C. J., Bengzon, Padilla, Montemayor,  Reyes, A., Bautista Angelo, Labrador, Concepcion, Endencia and Felix, JJ., concur.

---

* 91 Phil., 228