AUYONG HIAN (HONG WHUA HANG), PETITIONER, VS. JUDGE GAUDENCIO CLORIBEL, PRESIDING, BRANCH VI, COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE OF MANILA, CONSOLIDATED TOBACCO INDUSTRIES OF THE PHILIPPIN…

The record of this case shows that:

1. On July 3, 1965, a petition for mandamus and certiorari with preliminary
injunction was filed by Au­yong Hian
(Hong Whua Hang) against Judge Gaudencio
Clo­ribel of Branch VI of the Court of First Instance
of Manila, the Consolidated Tobacco Industries of the Phil­ippines, Inc.
(hereafter referred to as CTIP), the Col­lector of Customs, the Commissioner of
Customs and the Consolidated Tobacco Terminals, Inc., praying, among
others:  (a) for a writ of certiorari
declaring the order of respondent Judge of June 9, 1965 in Civil Case No. 59344
of the Court of First Instance of Manila illegal and without force and effect;
(b) for a writ of mandamus directing respondent Judge to dismiss Civil Case No.
59344 of the Court of First Instance of Manila; and (c) to direct respondent
CTIP to deliver and return the 600 hogsheads of Virginia leaf tobacco involved
in the case to the custody of the Bureau of Customs under the control and
supervision of the Commissioner of Customs. 
The petition further prays that pending decision an ex parte writ of preliminary injunction be issued res­training
the respondent Judge from enforcing his order of June 9, 1965, and the
respondent CTIP from disposing of and/or interfering in any manner with
petitioner’s tobacco.  It is alleged in
the petition that the Col­lector of Customs, without authority, had illegally
released the tobacco in question to the CTIP, that the
latter had no right to the tobacco, and the respondent Judge, also without
authority, had validated the release of the tobacco to the CTIP.

2. On July 12, 1965, this Court, upon the filing of a bond of
P5,000.00 by Auyong Hian,
issued a writ of preliminary injunction addressed to Judge Gaudencio
Clo­ribel, to CTIP, to the Consolidated Terminals,
Inc., to the Collector of Customs, and to the Commissioner of Customs,
enjoining them “from enforcing the order of June 9, 1965 and from
disposing of and/or interfering in any manner with herein petitioner’s tobacco
in Civil Case No. 59344 (Auyong Hian,
et al. v. Consolidated Terminals, Inc., et al) of the Court of First Instance
of Manila, Branch VI).”

3. On October 4, 1965,
the CTIP filed a petition to lift the above-mentioned writ of preliminary in­junction.  To this motion of CTIP Auyong
Hian filed his opposition on October 7, 1965. 
On October 8, 1965,
this Court resolved to take note of that motion of CTIP.

4. On December 21, 1965,
the CTIP filed a peti­tion, dated December
17, 1965, reiterating its prayer to lift the writ of preliminary
injunction.  To this petition Auyong Hian, on December 24, 1965, filed an op­position,
and instead proposed that the 600 hogsheads of Virginia
leaf tobacco in question be released to him upon his filing a bond in the sum
of P2,000,000.00, or such amount as this Court would
determine, to answer for customs duties, taxes and other legal expenses.

5. On March 7, 1966,
this Court required the Col­lector of Customs and the Commissioner of Customs
to comment on the petition, dated December
17, 1965, of CTIP to lift the preliminary injunction.

6. On March 15, 1966,
Collector of Customs Pedro Pacis submitted his
comment on the petition of CTIP, concluding his comment with a recommendation
that the petition for the lifting of the writ of preliminary injunction be
granted “since such action will as well re­dound to the advantage and
benefit of the Government.”

7. On April 2, 1966,
Auyong Hian filed a mani­festation
by way of an answer to the comment of Col­lector of Customs Pedro Pacis, reiterating his object­ion to the lifting of the
writ of preliminary injunc­tion.  At the
same time Auyong Hian
brought to the at­tention of this Court that on March 30, 1966 the case, G. R. No. L-25181, entitled
“Auyong Hian v. The
Court of Tax Appeals, et al.” was submitted for decision, stating that the
issues raised in that case have a direct bearing on the matter regarding the
disposition of the tobacco in question.

8. On April 13, 1966,
the Solicitor General, in behalf of the Commissioner of Customs, filed his com­ment
to the petition of the CTIP of December
17, 1965 praying for the lifting of the writ of preliminary in­junction,
in compliance with the order of this Court of March 7, 1966.  In his comment the Solicitor General embodied
a letter addressed to him by Commissioner of Customs Jacinto T. Gavino wherein the latter stated that he concurred with the
stand taken by Collector of Customs Pacis.  The Solicitor General submitted the matter
regarding the petition of the CTIP to lift the writ of preliminary injunction
to the sound discretion of this Court in the light of the facts stated in his
comment.

9. On April 20, 1966,
petitioner Auyong Hian
filed a petition, dated April 19, 1966,
to defer act­ion on the petition of CTIP to lift the preliminary injunction
until the decision of this case on the merits, along with the decision in the
companion case of “Auyong Hian
v. The Court of Tax Appeals, et al.,” G. R. No. L-25181, considering that both cases had already been submitted to
this Court for decision.

10. On May 9, 1966, the CTIP filed an “Urgent Manifestation
and Reiteration of Motion for Lifting of Preliminary Injunction”, dated
May 6, 1966, and pray­ing for an early decision of this case.

11. On May 9, 1966, Auyong Hian filed a manifesta­tion on the comment submitted by the
Solicitor General dated April 13, 1966 and, among others, called the at­tention
of this Court to the fact that Secretary of Fi­nance Eduardo G. Romualdez had reversed and counter­manded the concurrence
of Commissioner of Customs Gavino to the stand taken
by Collector of Customs Pacis regard­ing the release
of the tobacco in question.

12. On May 13, 1966,
petitioner Auyong Hian
filed a “Reiteration of Opposition to the Lifting of the Writ of
Preliminary Injunction.”

13. On October 24, 1966,
Auyong Hian filed a pe­tition,
dated October 22, 1966,
praying for the release of the tobacco in question to him upon his filing of a
bond in the amount of P2,000,000.00, or such other
amount as this Court would determine to answer for customs duties and taxes and
other legal charges.

14. On November 17, 1966,
the Luzon Stevedoring Corporation filed a motion, praying that it be authorized
to proceed to satisfy its lien on the 600 hogsheads of Virginia
leaf tobacco which are deposited in its ware­houses, pursuant to Section 33 of
the Warehouse Receipts Law, on account of the warehousing and other charges on
said tobacco.

15. On November 18, 1966,
petitioner Auyong Hian
filed his opposition to the afore-mentioned motion of the Luzon Stevedoring
Corporation.

16. On December 27, 1966,
the CTIP filed an “Ur­gent Supplemental Petition to Lift the Preliminary
In­junction” dated December 27,
1966.

17. On December 28, 1966, the Collector of Customs, thru Special
Counsel Jose Viduya, filed an urgent motion, dated
December 20, 1966, praying for an early decision of this case and for the
lifting of the writ of prelimi­nary injunction upon the posting of a bond by
the CTIP in the amount of P20,000.00.

18. On December 28, 1966,
the CTIP filed a manifestation stating that “the Solicitor General, as
coun­sel for the Commissioner of Customs, is agreeable to CTIP’s
‘Urgent Supplemental Petition to Lift Prelimi­nary Injunction’ dated December 27, 1966, as shown by the
letter of the Solicitor General which is annexed to the manifestation.”

19. On January 23, 1967, the CTIP filed “Addi­tional Grounds
for Lifting of Injunction”, dated Jan­uary 18, 1967, as a supplement to
its “Urgent Supplementary Petition to Lift Preliminary Injunction” of
December 27, 1966, calling attention to the fact that the bond which was filed
by the petitioner Auyong Hian
for the issuance of the writ of preliminary injunction in the sum of P5,000.00
is inadequate, and that the bond was filed by the Citadel Insurance Co., which
is one of the bonding companies that are black-listed by the In­surance
Commissioner on September 30, 1966.  The
CTIP also calls attention to the fact that petitioner Auyong
Hian is facing two charges before the Deportation
Board for tax evasion and fraud, and that if he is deported by reason of said
cases he would not be able to answer for the damages suffered and accruing to
the CTIP.

20. Again, on January 25, 1967, the CTIP, thru another counsel,
filed an “Urgent Manifestation”, also calling attention to the fact
that the P5,000,00 bond filed by Auyong Hian for the issuance of a writ of preliminary injunction
is inadequate and that said bond was posted by the Citadel Insurance Company,
Inc., which is a black-listed insurance company whose opera­tion as a bonding
company was suspended by the Insur­ance Commissioner on September 30, 1966, and
that Auyong Hian is facing
charges before the Deportation Board for tax evasion and in the City Fiscal’s Office of Manila for illegal importation of
American Virginia leaf to­bacco, in violation of the provisions of Republic Act
1194, as amended by Republic Act 4155. 
In this mani­festation, the CTIP proposes that the writ of preli­minary
injunction be lifted upon its filing of a coun­terbond
of P1,000,000.00, but that if this proposal is not
accepted by the Court, Auyong Hian
be required to increase his bond for the issuance of the writ of preliminary
injunction to P1,000,000.00.

21. To the foregoing “Urgent Manifestation” filed by the
CTIP, Auyong Hian filed a
reply on January 27, 1967,
stating that the Citadel Insurance Company, Inc. has been authorized by the
Insurance Commissioner to transact business effective January 6, 1967, as shown in the photostatic copy of the
certification of said Insurance Commissioner attached to the reply.  The reply also states that the filing of
charges against Auyong Hian
before the Deportation Board is immaterial to the issues involved in the present
case, because the basis of the charges of alleged non-payment of taxes are
still the subject of proceedings before this Court in two cases (G. R. Nos. L-23395 and L-26790). 
In this reply Auyong Hian
prays that the tobacco in question be re­leased to him upon the filing of a
surety bond in the amount which this Court would determine, to answer for
customs duties, taxes and other legal charges.

22. On January 30, 1967,
this Court, resolving the motion of CTIP for the lifting of the writ of
injunction, required Auyong Hian
to increase the injunction bond, within fifteen days after notice, to P1,000,000.00.

23. On February 6, 1967,
Auyong Hian filed a peti­tion
for reconsideration of the order of January
30, 1967 increasing the injunction bond to P1,000,000.00,
and re­iterating his opposition to the lifting of the writ of preliminary
injunction.

24. On February 14, 1967, the respondent CTIP filed its opposition
to the motion for reconsideration of the order increasing the injunction bond
to P1,000,000.00, and praying further that upon failure of Auyong
Hian to file the bond the writ of preliminary
injunction be dis­missed.

25. On February 15, 1967,
this Court issued a resolution denying the motion for reconsideration of the
order of January 30, 1967
and deferring action on the matter regarding the lifting of the injunction.

26. On February 23, 1967, Auyong Hian filed a peti­tion to reduce the bond from
P1,000,000.00 to P50,000.00, and that he be given at least thirty days from the
date of receipt of the resolution of the Court within which to file the reduced
injunction bond.  This motion of peti­tioner
was opposed by respondent CTIP in an opposition filed on February 27, 1967.

27. On March 17, 1967, this Court issued an order denying the
petition of Auyong Hian for
the reduction of the injunction bond from P1,000,000.00
to P50,000.00 and ordering said petitioner to file the injunction bond of
P1,000,000.00 within thirty days from receipt of the copy of the resolution,
and in the meantime denying the petition of CTIP for the lifting of the
preliminary in­junction.

28. On March 20, 1967,
Atty. Jose Viduya, special counsel for the Collector
of Customs, filed a manifesta­tion reiterating the prayer for the immediate
lifting of the preliminary injunction upon the ground that the tobacco involved
in this case is fast deteriorating.

29. On April 5, 1967, counsel for CTIP filed a petition, dated
April 3, 1967, praying for the dismis­sal of the instant case upon the ground
that the pro­ceedings in the instant case have become academic, be­cause the
respondent Judge had already ordered the dis­missal of Civil Case No. 59344 of
the Court of First In­stance of Manila and had declared his order of June 9,
1965 in said case to be of no further legal effect; and the writ of mandamus
prayed for by petitioner Auyong Hian
in the instant case is precisely to compel the respond­ent Judge to dismiss
that Civil Case No. 59344, and the writ of certiorari prayed for is precisely
to declare null and void respondent Judge’s order of June 9, 1965 in said Civil
Case No. 59344.

30. On April 5, 1967,
this Court issued an order requiring Auyong Hian to comment within ten days from notice thereof on the
petition for dismissal filed by counsel for CTIP.

31. On April 21, 1967, counsel for CTIP filed a motion reiterating
its petition for dismissal dated April 3, 1967, and pointing further that Auyong Hian failed to file the
injunction bond of P1,000,000.00 with­in the time he was required to do so by
this Court.

32. On April 25, 1967,
Auyong Hian filed a motion
for extension of thirty days from March
20, 1967 within which to file the P1,000,000.00
injunction bond.  This motion was opposed
by counsel for CTIP.

33. On April 27, 1967,
this Court granted Auyong Hian
an extension of fifteen days from April
19, 1967 to file the injunction bond of P1,000,000.00.

34. On May 2, 1967,
Auyong Hian again moved for
a further extension of thirty days within which to file the injunction bond of
P1,000,000.00. 
This motion was opposed by counsel for the CTIP.

35. On May 8, 1967,
counsel for CTIP filed an urgent reiteration of the motion for dismissal dated April 3, 1967.

36. On May 8, 1967,
this Court issued an order deferring action on the motion for dismissal until
af­ter receipt of the comment on said motion from the adversed
party, and granting Auyong Hian
the last exten­sion of thirty days from May 4 within which to file the P1,000,000.00 injunction bond.

37. On June 2, 1967, Auyong Hian filed his comment on the motion to dismiss this case,
manifesting his op­position to said motion to dismiss upon the ground that the
dismissal of this case would have the effect of dis­solving the writ of
preliminary injunction issued by this Court on July 12, 1965, said writ of
preliminary injunction having been issued precisely to prevent the disposal of
the tobacco involved in this case by the CTIP, the delivery of which by the
Collector of Customs to the CTIP was validated by the questioned order of June
9, 1965; and stating further that the dissolution of the preliminary injunction
would enable the CTIP, which is not legally entitled to that tobacco, to dis­pose
of that tobacco, and that whatever decision would be rendered in CTA Case No.
1560 pending in the Court of Tax Appeals, which also involves the same tobacco,
would be nugatory and academic.  Auyong Hian, instead, prayed that
the tobacco in question be released to him upon his filing a surety bond in an
amount to be fixed by this Court, in addition to the P1,000,000.00
injunction bond that he is required to file.

38. On June 3, 1967, Atty. Jose Viduya,
special counsel for the Collector of Customs, filed a manifesta­tion calling
attention to the fact that the tobacco in­volved in this case is fast deteriorating
and that the Government would suffer damages as a result of said de­terioration,
and thereby prayed that this case be dis­missed, or that an order be issued
lifting the writ of preliminary injunction.

39. On June 5, 1967,
this Court issued an order setting this case for hearing on Tuesday, June 20, 1967 at 9:30 a.m. on all pending matters incident to
the case.

40. At the hearing held on June
20, 1967, all the parties in this case were represented by
counsel.  Coun­sel for Auyong Hian argued the case for
the petitioner, and Solicitor Augusto Amores argued the case for the respondents, and after the
hearing all the pending in­cidents in this case were considered submitted for
resolution.

41. After the pending incidents in this case were heard Auyong Hian filed, on June 27,
1967, an ex parte urgent manifestation
by way of a supplement to the ar­guments and/or remarks made by his counsel
during the hearing, and further assuring the Court that he could raise a P3,000,000.00 bond for the release of the to­bacco in question
in his favor.

Upon consideration of the main petition in this case, the
above-mentioned petitions, motions and mani­festations, as well as the answers,
oppositions, com­ments and replies filed thereto, and the memoranda filed by
the parties, and also the arguments adduced at the hearing on June 20, 1967, it
appearing that the dismis­sal by the respondent Judge of Civil Case No. 59344
in the Court of First Instance of Manila and his having declared without legal
force and effect the order of June 9, 1965 issued in said case were practically
the reliefs sought by petitioner Auyong
Hian in his prayer for a writ of mandamus and
certiorari in this case, such that the issues involved in the petition for cer­tiorari
and mandamus with preliminary injunction in this case have practically become
academic; and it ap­pearing, further, that the 600 hogsheads of Virginia leaf
tobacco involved in the present case is the same 600 hogsheads of tobacco which
are involved in G. R. No. L-25181, entitled “Auyong
Hian v. The Court of Tax Ap­peals,” which was
decided by this Court on January 11, 1967, and in that case We held that the
Court of Tax Ap­peals has the jurisdiction to hear and determine all mat­ters
relating to the sale or the disposition of said 600 hogsheads of tobacco in CTA
Case No. 1560 which this Court remanded to said Court of Tax Appeals for
further proceedings and decision, the Court RESOLVED:   (1) to grant the motion of CTIP, dated April
3, 1967, to dis­miss this case, as it is hereby dismissed without costs; and,
in consequence thereof, for the reason that the question of preliminary
injunction is, at this time, properly cognizable by the Court of Tax Appeals,
to con­sider the writ of preliminary injunction issued by this Court on July
12, 1965 dissolved and without any fur­ther force and effect upon this
resolution becoming final; (2) to deny the prayers contained in all the other
petitions, motions, and manifestations, enumerated in this resolution, which
have not yet been resolved by this Court, without prejudice to the party or
parties concerned filing his/its/their motions/petitions/mani­festations before
the Court of Tax Appeals in CTA Case No. 1560 now pending in said court; and
(3) to furnish the Court of Tax Appeals a copy of this resolution.

Reyes, JBL, Makalintal, Bengzon, Zaldivar, Sanchez, Ruiz Castro,
Angeles and Fernando, JJ.,
concur.

Concepcion, C.J., did not take part.

Dizon, J., took no part.