REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, CUSTODY AND DISPOSAL ADMINIS­TRATION AND THE COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, PETITIONERS, VS. HON. JUAN BOCAR, AS JUDGE OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE OF M…

It was the failure of the late respondent Judge Juan Bocar^[1]
to observe the jurisdictional limits as provided for by the Tariff and Customs
Code^[2]
that led to this certiorari and prohibition proceeding filed by
petitioner Republic of the Philippines on July 7, 1972.  Briefly put, notwithstanding the institution
of seizure and forfeiture proceedings resulting in the Commissioner of Customs
forfeiting the goods in question for violating a provision of the aforesaid
Code^[3]
in relation to certain Central Bank circulars,^[4]
the lower court, at the instance of respondent Premier Tobacco Trading Company,
assumed jurisdiction in a replevin suit with damages.^[5]
What is worse, respondent Judge apparently was unmindful of the finality of
such forfeiture, the previous appeal to the Court of Tax Appeals by the
claimant having been dismissed.  Petitioner
Custody and Disposal Administration, herein referred to as CADA, sought the
dismissal of such action for replevin with damages on the ground that the goods
in question having been the subject of forfeiture proceedings and finally
declared forfeited, was beyond the jurisdiction of a court of first
instance.  Notwithstanding the grave
jurisdictional defect, the lower court issued orders requiring the delivery
thereof to an intervenor, the heirs of See Seng, now included as
respondents.  Hence this petition for certiorari
and prohibition.  The merit of the
petition being apparent on its face, respondents were required to answer and a
temporary restraining order as prayed for was issued by this Court by its
resolution of July 11, 1972.

Thereafter, on August 7, 1972, a motion by petitioner Republic of
the Philippines to admit an amended and supplemental petition by virtue of what
it set forth as antecedent and supervening facts was filed.  It sought the inclusion of additional parties
and explained why.  The then Judge,
Mariano V. Benedicto, now deceased and one Cesar Urbino, the party-plaintiff in
Civil Case No. 84206 pending before such Judge, were included as respondents.^[6]
After adopting by reference the facts related in the original petition, it was then
alleged: “In connection with Civil Case No. 84206 above-mentioned,
plaintiff Urbino instituted an action for the collection of the sum of money
allegedly due him from defendant Fermin Correa to which defendant Fermin Correa
confessed judgment and subsequently a writ of execution was issued by the lower
court and a Special Sheriff was appointed to enforce the same, the latter
garnished the amount of P172,000.00 paid by defendant Fermin Correa as
attorney-in-fact of respondent See Seng to herein petitioner Custody and
Disposal Administration (CADA) as bid money in consideration of the award in
his favor of the goods subject of the forfeiture proceedings which award,
however, was subsequently set aside.  On
May 30, 1972, respondent Judge Mariano V. Benedicto issued an order, the
dispositive portion of which reads as follows: ‘[Wherefore], in view of the
foregoing, it is hereby ordered that: 
1.  The Sheriff be ordered to take
possession of the amount of P172,000.00 garnished by him, which is in the
possession of the CADA, and the said amount of P172,000.00 which should be in
the name of Fermin Correa and/or Cesar Urbino on condition that the plaintiff
Cesar Urbino puts up a bond in the said amount of P172,000.00 by a duly
accredited Bonding Company approved by the Department of Justice, to answer for
any claims or damages that may be filed by any third persons including the CADA
as a result of the delivery of the said amount garnished, and that the said
bond shall be duly approved by the Court, which bond shall remain existing,
once approved until further orders of this Court; or 2.  That the CADA officials must deliver said
amount of P172,000.00 to the Court, and shall be entitled to a receipt for the
amount of P172,000.00 delivered by them in the name of Fermin Correa and/or
Cesar Urbino to the Deputy Sheriff, or Deputy Clerk of Court, Branch XXX, who
in return, under Receipt shall immediately turn over the amount of P172,000.00
to the plaintiff Cesar Urbino.  3.  That compliance of this order must be submitted
to this Court, with a copy of the receipts signed by the parties.  4. 
That the previous order of execution in this case stands.’ However,
petitioner CADA, could not validly comply with the order abovementioned
inasmuch as respondent Judge Bocar of Branch XVI of the same lower court had
previously restrained the CADA from delivering the garnished amount of
P172,000.00 to respondent Fermin Correa, aside from the more important reason
that the said amount was not the property of respondent Fermin Correa, as he
paid said amount as attorney-in-fact of See Seng; On June 13, 1972, respondent
Judge Benedicto issued an order requiring CADA Deputy Administrator Lauro Daez
to explain why he should not be held in contempt.  * * * On June 19, 1972, petitioner CADA filed
with the lower court a motion for reconsideration and opposition to motion for
contempt stating that the garnished amount of P172,000.00 which was the bid
price, was not owned by respondent Correa; that said amount was turned over to
the general fund of the national treasury and that respondent Correa was able
to withdraw a portion of the goods valued at approxi­mately P152,000.00 so that
petitioner CADA filed a case against Fermin Correa docketed as Civil Case No.
Q-16121 before the Court of First Instance of Rizal, Quezon City Branch.  * * * On July 6, 1972, respondent Judge
Mariano V. Benedicto verbally denied the motion for reconsideration, granting,
however, petitioner CADA fifteen (15) days within which to elevate the question
to the Supreme Court.  Considering that
the amount of P172,000.00 appears to have been paid by Fermin Correa as
attorney-in-fact of See Seng to the CADA, which amount has been turned over to
the general fund and even assuming that the said amount has not been turned
over to the general fund but is held in trust for the rightful claimant, as
finally determined by the Court, the said amount is not subject to garnishment,
as the CADA, being an instrumentality of the government is immune from suit * *
*.”^[7]
The amended and supplemental petition was duly filed on the same date.  On August 8, 1972, this Court adopted another
resolution requiring respondents to file an answer to the amended and
supplemental petition for certiorari and to amend the temporary
restraining order to include the newly-named respondents.

The answers of private respondents did try to sustain the
jurisdiction of both respondent Judges. 
The petition was then set for oral argument, but the parties asked that
memo­randa be filed instead.  In due
time, that was done and the case was submitted for decision.  It is to be admitted that a sustained and
vigorous effort was exerted by counsel for private respondents to sustain the
challenged actuation of both respondent Judges. 
It was in vain.  The law and the
authorities are quite clear.  This
petition is impressed with merit.

1. The Congress of the Philippines was vested with “the power
to define, prescribe, and apportion the jurisdiction of the various
courts” of the Philippines.^[8]
Now it is the National Assembly.^[9]
Where the matter involved is a seizure and forfeiture proceeding, a court of
first instance is devoid of power to act. 
The customs authorities possess such competence with an appeal to the
Court of Tax Appeals.  In appropriate
cases, there may be further judicial review by this Court in the exercise of
its certiorari jurisdiction.  The
jurisdictional limits thus defined and apportioned, according to the
Constitution, must be respected. 
Respondent judges clearly did not do so. 
No deference was paid to a host of cases that left no doubt as to their
lack of authority to assume jurisdiction.^[10]

2. An excerpt from a recent decision, Commissioner of Customs v.
Navarro,^[11]
possesses relevance.  Thus: “That
such jurisdiction of the customs authorities is exclusive was made clear in
Pacis v. Averia, decided in 1966.  This
Court, speaking through Justice J. P. Bengzon, realistically observed: ‘This
original jurisdiction of the Court of First Instance, when exercised in an
action for recovery of personal property which is a subject of 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.’ The court ‘should yield to the jurisdiction of the Collector of Customs.’
Such a ruling, as pointed out by Justice Zaldivar in Auyong Hian v. Court of
Tax Appeals, promulgated less than a year later, could be traced to Government
v. Gale, a 1913 decision, where there was a recognition in the opinion of
Justice Carson that a Collector of Customs when sitting in forfeiture
proceedings constitutes a tribunal upon which the law expressly confers
jurisdiction to hear and determine all questions touching the forfeiture and
further disposition of the subject matter of such proceedings.  The controlling principle was set forth anew
in Ponce Enrile v. Vinuya, decided in 1971. 
Thus:  ‘The prevailing doctrine is
that the exclusive jurisdiction in seizure and forfeiture cases vested in the
Collector of Customs precludes a court of first instance from assuming
cognizance over such a matter.’ Reference was then made in the opinion to
previous cases.”^[12]

WHEREFORE, this petition for certiorari and
prohibition is granted and the orders, the first issued by respondent Judge
Juan Bocar on May 19, 1972 in Civil Case No. 82880, and the second issued by
respondent Judge Mariano V. Benedicto in Civil Case No. 84206 on May 30, 1972
are nullified, set aside and declared to be without any force and effect.  The restraining orders issued by this Court on
July 11, 1972, as well as on August 8, 1972 are hereby made permanent.  Costs against private respondents.

Barredo, Antonio, Aquino, Concepcion, Jr., and Abad Santos, JJ., concur.

Santos, J., on official leave.

^[1]
The private respondents are Premier Tobacco Trading Company and the heirs of
See Seng.  The City Sheriff of Manila was
likewise included as public respondent.

^[2]
Republic Act No. 1937 (1957).

^[3]
Section 2530.

^[4]
Nos. 281, 282 and 286.

^[5]
Civil Case No. 82880.

^[6]
Amended and Supplemental Petition, 2.

^[7] Ibid,
3-5.

^[8]
Article VIII, Section 1 of the 1935 Constitution.

^[9]
Article X, Section 1 of the present Constitution, insofar as pertinent
provides: “The National Assembly shall have the power to define, pre­scribe,
and apportion the jurisdiction of the various courts, but may not deprive the
Supreme Court of its jurisdiction over cases enumerated in Section five
hereof.”

^[10]
Cf. Pascual v. Commissioner of Customs, 105 Phil. 1039 (1959);
Commissioner of Customs v. Serree Investment Company, 108 Phil. 1
(1960); Commissioner of Customs v. Eastern Sea Trading Co., 113 Phil.
333 (1961); Commissioner of Customs v. Santos, 114 Phil. 589 (1962);
Commissioner of Customs v. Nepo­muceno, 114 Phil. 702 (1962); Pascual v.
Com­missioner of Customs, 114 Phil. 953 (1962); Serree Investment Co. v.
Commissioner of Customs, L-19564, Nov. 28, 1964, 12 SCRA 493; Bombay
Department Store v. Commissioner of Customs; L-20489, June 22, 1965, 14
SCRA 331; Yupangco and Sons v. Collector of Customs, L-22259, Jan. 19,
1966, 16 SCRA 1; Chan Kian v. Collector of Customs, L-20803, Jan. 31,
1966, 16 SCRA 133; Capulong v. Aseron, L-22989, May 14, 1966, 17 SCRA
11; Lazaro v. Com­missioner of Customs, L-22511, May 16, 1966, 17 SCRA
36; Capulong v. Acting Commissioner of Customs, L-22990, May 19, 1966,
17 SCRA 61; Gigare v. Commissioner of Customs, L-21376, Aug. 29, 1966,
17 SCRA 1001.

^[11]
L-33146, May 31, 1977, 77 SCRA 264.

^[12] Ibid,
268-269.  Pacis, L-22526, is reported in
18 SCRA 907; Auyong Hian, L-25181, is reported in 19 SCRA 10; Gale, is reported
in 24 Phil. 95; Vinuya, L-29043, is reported in 37 SCRA 381.  Out­side of Pacis, the following cases were
cited:  De Joya v. Lantin,
L-24037, April 27, 1967, 19 SCRA 893; Romualdez v. Arca, L-20516, Nov. 15,
1967, 21 SCRA 856; Diosamito v. Balanque, L-30734, July 28, 1969, 28
SCRA 836; and de Joya v. David, L-23504, Dec. 29, 1967, 21 SCRA 1493.