G.R. No. L-22526. November 29, 1966
PEDRO PACIS, IN HIS CAPACITY AS ACTING COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS, PORT OF MANILA, THE FLAG OFFICER-IN-COMMAND AND THE BASE COMMANDER OF CAVITE NAVAL BASE, PHILIPPINE NAVY, PETITIONER…
BENGZON, J.P., J.:
The success of the law enforcement agencies in curbing smuggling depends to
some extent upon the cooperation of the other branches of the Government. Remove
such cooperation and the campaign against smuggling is doomed, as concretely
demonstrated in this case.
On December 26, 1963 Coast Guard Cutter 115 of the Philippine Navy pursued a
fishing boat bearing the name of m/b “Bukang Liwayway” off Ternate, Cavite.
During the chase the fishing boat fired upon the navy cutter thus wounding two
Philippine Navy sailors. Said fishing boat was boarded and found loaded with
untaxed foreign made cigarettes, to wit:
cases Union cigarettes cartons Union cigarettes packs Union cigarettes cases Chesterfield cigarettes cases Chesterfield cigarettes cases Salem cigarettes cartons Salem cigarettes cartons Winston cigarettes
The cigarettes and the fishing boat were confiscated and turned over to the
Flag Officer in command of the Philippine naval base at Cavite City. On December
27, 1963 the cigarettes were delivered to the custody of the Bureau of
Customs.
On January 13, 1964 Pedro Pads, acting Collector of Customs of Manila,
commenced seizure and forfeiture proceedings pursuant to Title VI of the Tariff
and Customs Code (Republic Act No. 1937) by issuing a warrant of seizure and
detention against the cigarettes and M/B “Bukang Liwayway”, docketed as Manila
Seizure Identification Nos. 8009 and 8009-A. On the same day, Eusebio Marges,
the alleged owner of m/b “Bukang Liwayway”, filed Civil Case No. TM-114 in the
Court of First Instance at Trece Martires City for replevin against the Flag
Officer of the Philippine Navy and others, alleging that said fishing boat was
stolen on December 15, 1963 while moored at Caflacao Bay, Cavite City; and that
notice of loss was reported on December 16, 1963 to the Philippine Constabulary,
Cavite City Police and the Collector of Customs of Manila.
On January 14, 1964, before defendants filed their answer but after Marges
posted a surety bond in the amount of P40,000.00, His Honor, Judge Alberto V.
Averja, Issued a writ of replevin commanding the provincial sheriff of Cavite at
Trece Martires City to take immediate possession of the M/B “Bukang Liwayway”,
retain the same in his custody and keep it and/or dispose of it according to
law. On the following day the provincial sheriff served the writ upon the
commanding officer of the Philippine naval base at Cavite City. The latter,
however, refused to surrender custody over the vessel. On January 16, 1964,
acting upon the sheriff’s manifestation, the court ordered the arrest of the
naval base commander for contempt of court. On the same day said base commander
filed an urgent motion to lift writ of replevin and order of arrest. On January
20, 196k the Republic of the Philippines, through the Bureau of Customs, filed a
motion for intervention. Then on January 27, 1964 the Republic and defendant
base commander filed a motion to dismiss the complaint and to lift the writ of
replevin on the grounds that the Court of First Instance has no jurisdiction
over the object in litigation (M/B “Bukang Liwayway”), the same being the
subject of seizure proceedings in the Bureau of Customs; that the action for
replevin was premature inasmuch as administrative remedies have not been
exhausted; that a criminal action for smuggling was being prepared against
Marges under which case M/B “Bukang Liwayway” would be liable for forfeiture, as
an instrument of the crime; and that the surety bond of P40,000.00 was
insufficient. The Court denied the motion to lift writ of replevin on February
17, 1964 but ordered Marges to post an additional surety bond of P60,000.00.
Marges posted the additional surety bond of P60,000.00 and on February 20,
1964 defendant Flag Officer of the Philippine Navy delivered the M/B “Bukang
Liwayway” to Provincial Sheriff Proceso P. Silangcruz without the previous
knowledge and consent of the Collector of Customs of Manila.
Acting on the belief that the provincial sheriff was about to deliver m/b
“Bukang Liwayway” to its owner, the Collector of Customs of Manila and the
Commander of the Philippine naval base at Cavite City filed with this Court on
February 29, 1964 the instant petition for certiorari with preliminary
injunction.
Not known however to the Customs and Philippine Navy authorities, Provincial
Sheriff Proceso P. Silangcruz had delivered the M/B “Bukang Liwayway” on
February 25, 1964 to Busebio Marges. On March 2, 1964, “after the filing of the
petition for certiorari in this Court, petitioners received an order dated
February 21, 1964 of the lower court denying their motion to dismiss and to lift
writ of replevin.
On March 4, 1964 We required the respondents, Honorable Alberto V. Averia,
Judge of the Court of First Instance of Cavite, Proceso P. Silangcruz,
Provincial Sheriff of Cavite, and Eusebio Marges, to answer the petition for
certiorari, and at the same time granted, without bond, preliminary prohibitory
mandatory injunction, enjoining the respondents Judge and Sheriff together with
their agents from enforcing the writ of replevin of January 14, 1964 and order
dated February 17, 1964; prohibiting them further from delivering the M/B
“Bukang Liwayway” to Eusebio Marges; and commanding them to deliver said vessel
to petitioners. Respondent Sheriff however manifested on March 17, 1964 that he
had already delivered the vessel in question to its owner on February 25, 1964
after petitioners failed to object to the sufficiency of the surety bond filed
by Eusebio Marges and after they failed to file a counterbond needed for the
retention of the vessel.
On April 22, 1964 this Court issued another preliminary writ: writ of
preliminary mandatory injunction, commanding the Provincial Sheriff of Cavite to
take possession again of M/B “Bukang Liwayway” and to keep the same under his
custody until further orders from this Court. Respondent Sheriff received copy
of the writ of preliminary mandatory injunction on April 28, 1964. For more than
one month said sheriff did not make a return of the writ. Not until the
Solicitor General moved on June 3, 1964 to require respondent Sheriff to report
to this Court whether or not he has complied with the aforesaid writ and, if so,
to order him to allow petitioners and their agents to inspect the vessel in
question but, if not, to require him to show cause why he may not be declared in
contempt of court. When asked to comment on the Solicitor’s motion, respondent
Sheriff on June 11, 1964 returned the writ unsatisfied, stating that said writ
was served upon Eusebio Marges, owner of M/B “Bukang Liwayway” on April 30, 1964
who informed him in writing that the vessel in question was on a fishing
expedition; that Marges promised to surrender the same upon its return; and that
despite diligent efforts said vessel could not be located.
On July 22, 1964 this Court required respondent Sheriff to snow cause why he
should not be dealt with for contempt of court. Said Sheriff submitted his
explanation on August 11, 1964 restating the allegations in his return filed
with this Court on June 11, 1964. The Solicitor General filed his comment
tteracoon September 2, 1964 recommending that respondent Sheriff be declared in
contempt of court.
On the basis of respondent Sheriff’s explanation and the comment of the
Solicitor General this Court once more required said Sheriff to show cause
within ten days why he should not be dealt with in contempt of court. In
compliance, he manifested on September 25, 1964 the following: (1) On August 15,
1964 he caused to be served on, and delivered to, Eusebio Marges his letter
dated August 13, 1964 which reads:
“This is in connection with the Writ of Preliminary Mandatory Injunction
issued by the Hon. Supreme Court in G.R. No. L-22526, entitled ‘Pedro Pacis, et
al. vs. Hon. Alberto V. Averia, et al.1, requiring the under- signed Provincial
Sheriff to take possession of the motor boat, ‘M/B BUKANG LIWAYWAY, which writ
was served upon you on April 30, 1964.“Please inform the undersigned whether the said motor boat which you alleged
had been on fishing expedition has already arrived inasmuch as more than three
(3) months have aijceauy elapsed since the writ was served upon you, and in the
event that the motor boat is still in the fishing expedition, you are hereby
required to contact forthwith the crew members thereof and direct them to
proceed home Immediately, in order that the writ issued by the Hon. Supreme
Court may be complied with.”
(2) Eusebio Marges replied by letter dated August 24, 1964, to wit:
“I would like to inform you that the M/B BUKANG LIWAYWAY was due to arrive
last week, but up to the present I have not heard of its whereabouts. I am
afraid that the said boat might be lost due to several typhoons.“Assistance of the Philippine Constabulary Commander of Cavite was asked to
locate the whereabouts of said motor boat, as per copy of the letter hereto
attached.“Please be rest assured that I will not hesitate to surrender the said boat
to you as soon as it is located.”
Marges’ letter to the Provincial Commander of Cavite states:
“My fishing boat, M/B BUKANG LIWAYWAY was due to arrive from Palawan last
Thursday morning, August 6, 1964, but up to the present, it has not arrived at
our place at Rosario, Cavite.“I am afraid that due to the storm ‘Senyang’, my said boat might have been
caught by said storm on its way home, so please help us locate my boat for the
safety of the eight (8) crew-members on board the boat.“I have sent similar request to the Provincial Commanders of Mindoro,
Batangas and Bataan asking their help in locating my boat as well as my crew
members. Please inform me of any development.”
(3) On September 1, 1964 respondent Sheriff sent the following communication
to the Provincial Commander of the Philippine Constabulary in Cavite:
“I am in receipt of a letter of Mr. Euse- bio Marges dated August 24, 1964,
regarding the motor boat ‘M/b BUKANG LIWAYWAY1, copy of which is hereto
attached.“Please inform the undersigned as to what action or step your command has
taken on the request of Mr. Marges.”
to which the Provincial Commander made the following reply:
“Respectfully returned to Mr. Proceso P. Silangcruz, Provincial Sheriff of
Cavite, Trece Martires City, the herein attached true copy of the original
communication with the information that all shoreline troops detailed to look
for the M/B ‘Bukang Liwayway’ failed to locate the same.“No definite information has as yet been obtained as to the whereabouts of
the boat, hence, this Command is still in the process of looking for it.“Rest assured that whatever progress made of the search will be sent to the
Office.”
(4) Again respondent Sheriff addressed a letter dated September 15, 1964 to
the Cavite Provincial Commander in the following tenor:
“Relative your 1st Indorsement dated September 4, 1964, assuring this office
that further information will be furnished regarding the motor boat M/B ‘Bukang
Liwayway’, please inform the undersigned of whatever progress your command has
made on the subject matter in view of the Writ of Preliminary Injunction issued
by the Honorable Court. “Anticipating your reply at the earliest possible
time.”
(5) On September 11 and 16, 1964 respondent Sheriff telegrammed the PC
Provincial Commanders of Batangas, Palawan, Mindoro and Bataan requesting their
help to locate the M/B “Bukang Liwayway” but he has not received any answer
thereto.
Treating the motion of the Solicitor General dated June 3, 1964 as a written
charge for contempt against Provincial Sheriff Proceso P. Silangcruz and the
latter1s comment thereto as his answer, this Court set the contempt incident for
hearing on September 21, 1966. Only the counsel for Provincial Sheriff Proceso
P. Silangcruz appeared.
Up to now respondent Provincial Sheriff has not taken custody of the motor
boat in question.
The issues are:
- Whether or not petitioners could elevate the case at bar to this Court on a
petition for certiorari. - Whether or not the owner of M/b “Bukang Liwayway” could recover possession
of the same by way of a civil case with replevin; and - Whether or not Provincial Sheriff Proceso P. Silangcruz may be adjudged in
contempt of the Supreme Court for failure to comply with the writ of preliminary
mandatory injunction issued in this case on April 22, 1964.
The first issue is on the availability of the remedy of certiorari with
preliminary injunction. It is pressed that the order of the lower court dated
February 17, 1964 denying the motion to dismiss and to lift the writ of replevin
is an interlocutory order, hence not appealable.
It should be remembered that the case before Us is not an appeal. It is a
special civil action of certio- rari under Section 1 of Rule 65 of the Rules of
Court to annul the aforesaid order for having been rendered with- out or in
excess of the lower court’s Jurisdiction. The points of inquiry therefore should
be on whether or not the respondent court acted without or in excess of its
jurisdiction and whether or not there is an appeal or any plain, speedy and
adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law.
The pertinent provision of the Rules of Court reads:[1]
“SECTION 1. Petition for certiorari. – When any tribunal, board, or
officer exercising judicial functions, has acted without or in excess of its or
his jurisdiction, or with grave abuse of discretion and there is no appeal, nor
any plain, speedy, and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law, a person
aggrieved thereby may file a verified petition in the proper court alleging the
facts with certainty and praying that Judgment be rendered annulling or
modifying the proceedings, as the law requires, of such tribunal, board or
officer.”
In a certiorari proceeding under the above-quoted rule, the court is
confined to questions of jurisdiction.[2]
The reason is that the function of the writ of certiorari is to keep an inferior
court within its jurisdiction.[3] It is
available for such purpose and not to correct errors of procedure or mistakes in
the judge’s findings or conclusion.[4]
Precisely, in this case, petitioners are assailing the Jurisdiction of the Court
of First Instance of Cavite to issue the order of February 17, 1964.
The parties nave not put in controversy the non-availability of appeal or any
plain, speedy and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law. Appeal is not
open to them for We have already set at course the ruling that denial of a
motion to dismiss a complaint does not entitle a party whose motion is denied to
forthwith appeal therefrom.[5]
Respondents have pointed out however that petitioners failed to allege
such fact in their petition for certiorari. Aside from the fact that the absence
of appeal and similar ordinary remedies is patent from the petition’s
allegations, the defect, if any, has been cured by the allegation in paragraph
17 of the supplemental pe- tition expressly stating the same.
Certiorari was therefore properly brought.
We now come to the propriety of the filing of Civil Case No. TM-114 in the
Court of First Instance of Cavite for the purpose of recovering possession of
M/B “Bukang Liwayway” which was then held in detention by the Philippine Navy in
the Cavite naval base for the Bureau of Customs which instituted seizure and
forfeiture proceedings (Seizure Identification Nos. 8009 & 8009-A) against
it.
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.
Petitioners would contend that the jurisdiction of the Bureau of Customs to
conduct seizure and forfeiture proceedings of vessels for violation of the
Tariff and Customs Code is exclusive of the Courts of First Instance. They would
further maintain that the issuance of a writ of replevin, as what actually
transpired in this case, will prevent the Bureau of Customs from further
proceeding with the seizure and forfeiture for allegedly under Section 2531 of
the Tariff and Customs Code, forfeiture could be effected only when and while
the thing subject to forfeiture is in the custody of the Bureau of Customs.
The Tariff and Customs Code, in Section 2530 thereof, lists the kinds of
property subject to forfeiture. At the same time, in Part 2 of Title VI tnereor,
it provides for the procedure in seizure and forfeiture cases and vests in the
Collector of Customs the authority to hear and decide said cases.[6] The Collector’s decision is appealable to
the Commissioner of Customs[7] whose
decision is in turn appealable to the Court of Tax Appeals.[8] An aggrieved party may appeal from a
judgment of the Court of Tax Appeals directly to this Court.[9] On the other hand, Section 44(c) of the
Judiciary Act of 1948[10] lodges in the
Court of First Instance original jurisdiction in all cases in which the value of
the property in controversy amounts to more than ten thousand pesos. This
original jurisdiction of the Court of Pirst 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. This is precisely what took place in this case. The seizure and
forfeiture proceedings against the M/B “Bukang Liwayway” before the Collector of
Customs of Manila,was stifled by the issuance of a writ of replevin by the Court
of Pirst Instance of Cavite.
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.[11] Moreover, on grounds
of public policy, it is more reasonable to conclude that the legislators
intended to divest 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 of
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.
We come to the last question whether or not respondent Provincial Sheriff
Proceso P. Silangcruz is in contempt of this Court for failure to comply with
the writ of preliminary mandatory injunction issued by this Court on April 22,
1964.
The writ of preliminary mandatory injunction was received by respondent
Provincial Sheriff Proceso P. Silangcruz on April 28, 1964. Thenceforth, nothing
was heard of the writ nor from said Sheriff. Only after June 3, 1964 when the
Solicitor General filed a motion charging him of contempt of court for
non-compliance with the writ did Provincial Sheriff Proceso P. Silangcruz oblige
himself to make a return of the writ, informing Us that ne could not enforce the
same because the subject vessel was out on a fishing expedition. Por this undue
delay in making a return on the writ, respondent Sheriff offered no
explanation.
Such conduct of Sheriff Silangcruz is a far cry from his behavior on January
16, 1964 when he made not merely a return of the writ of replevin but a
manifestation before the Court of First Instance of Cavite ONE DAY after he
served the same advising said court of the refusal of the Philippine Navy
Commander to obey, it and praying for the arrest of said Commander for contempt
of court. It is also a great contrast from his excellent efficiency in
delivering the subject vessel to its owner notwithstanding the absence of an
express order from the court and one day earlier than the time provided for in
the Rules of Court. On those two occasions he was in the process of obtaining
possession for the vessel’s owner. Incidentally, and of course We fully
comprehend the situation, the writ issued by this Court would deprive the
alleged boat owner of possession over the boat, thus putting to naught
respondent Sheriff’s previous efforts.
The more than one month’s time when the writ of preliminary mandatory
injunction stayed frozen in the hands of Sheriff Silangcruz made it possible for
interested parties to whisk the boat in question from the reach of the law. The
boat has allegedly disappeared and the respondent Sheriff together with the
alleged boat owner conveniently put the blame for its alleged disappearance on
typhoon Senyang. They insinuate that M/B “Bukang Liwayway” was sunk or wrecked
on its way from Palawan to Cavlte by said typhoon. Probably, Sheriff Silangcruz
and boat owner Marges were misinformed about typhoon Senyang. The official
reports of the Weather Bureau,[12]
considered as within judicial notice, do not indicate that said typhoon affected
Palawan and Cavite. On August 5, 1964 said typhoon was in the Pacific Ocean, 680
miles East of Manila. On August 6, 1964 it was 670 miles East Southeast of
Casiguran, Quezon. On August 7, typhoon Senyang hit Southern Luzon causing heavy
rains to fall in the Manila-Cavite area but it turned North to Cagayan Province
and the Batanes.’ Then it blew towards the China Sea, Hongkong and the Gulf of
Tongkin. Very prominent, however, is the report of Col. Segundo L. Gazmin, II PC
Zone Commander about one fishing boat (from Cavite) missing carrying 20 crew
members. The M/B “Bukang Liwayway” had only eight crew members on board.
Undoubtedly, the missing boat could not have been the M/B “Bukang Liwayway”.
One more thing. It has caught our notice, especially because the Solicitor
General called our attention, that respondent Sheriff has practically taken the
cudgels for boat owner Eusebio Marges in this proceeding for certiorari. In his
answers to the petition for certiorari and to the supplemental petition, he went
beyond justifying his official acts and proceeded to espouse the cause of the
boat owner thereby giving the impression that his interest in the case and in
the subject matter of this litigation is more than just the interest of a public
official complying with his duties as such.
On the foregoing premises, We are constrained to conclude that respondent
Sheriff’s failure to enforce the writ and his failure to make a re torn thereof
for quite a time had in effect prevented this Court from taking possession over
M/B “Bukang Liwayway”, thus directly interfering, impeding or obstructing the
processes of this Court. The respondent Sheriff’s non-performance has resulted
in the frustration of the mandates of this Court and the setback of the
administration of justice. This Court can not tolerate evasion of its commands,
by any omission, negligence, artifice or contrivance of any kind, nor would it
countenance any disregard of its authority. For it is essential to the effective
administration of justice that the processes of the courts be obeyed. And upon
no one does this obligation of obedience rest with more binding force than a
judicial officer such as respondent Sheriff.[13] We therefore find and declare Provincial
Sheriff Proceso P. Silangcruz guilty of contempt of the Supreme Court punishable
under Section 6 of Rule 71 of the Rules of Court.
WHEREFORE, the petition for certiorari is granted. The writ of
replevin issued on January 14, 1964 and the order issued on February 17, 1964 by
the Court of First Instance of Cavite are hereby declared null aid void. The
mandatory injunction of April 22, 1964 to deliver the. boat m/b “Bukang
Liwayway” is hereby reiterated. Respondent Sheriff of Cavite, Proceso P.
Silangcruz, is hereby declared in contempt of the Supreme Court, and considering
all attendant circumstances, sentenced to imprisonment of six months and to pay
a fine of P1,000.00. No pronouncement as to costs.
SO ORDERED.
Concepcion, C.J., Reyes, J.B.L., Barrera, Dizon,
Regala, Makalintal, Zaldivar, Sanchez and Ruiz Castro, JJ.,
concur.
[1] Rule 65.
[2] Tuason v. Concepcion, 54, Phil.
408.
[3] Brillo v. Buklatan, 87
Phil. 519.
[4] Regala v. Court of
First Instance of Bulacan, 77 Phil. 684; Ong Sit v. Piccio, 78 Phil. 785;
Icutamin v. Hernandez, 81 Phil. 161; Verhomal v. Tan, 88 Phil. 389; Association
of Beverages Employees v. Figueras, 91 Phil. 450; Matute v. Macadaeg, 99 Phil.
340.
[5] 93 Phil. 613,
616.
[6] Section 2312, R.A.
1937.
[7] Section 2313, R.A.
1937.
[8] Section 2402, R.A. 1937;
Sections 7 and 11, R.A. 1125.
[9]
Section 18, R.A. 1125; Rule 44, Rules of Court.
[10] As amended by R.A. 3828.
[11] Herman v. Radio Corporation of the
Philippines, 50 Phil. 490j Pampanga Sugar Mills v. Trinidad, 279 U.S. 211, 73 L.
ed. 665.
[12] Published in the
Manila Times of August 5, 6, 7 and 8, 1964 which are of public
knowledge.
[13] In re
Noyes, 121 F 209, 225.