G.R. No. L-24237. March 31, 1971
DONATA LUNA, PETITIONER-APPELLANT, VS. PEDRO PACIS, PERSONALLY AND AS ACTING COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS, RESPONDENT-APPELLEE.
ZALDIVAR, J.:
Appeal, from the order of the Court of First Instance of Manila,
in its Civil Case No. 58675, dismissing herein petitioner-appellant’s petition
for mandamus with preliminary mandatory injunction upon the ground that
the court had no jurisdiction over the case, and from the order denying the
motion for reconsideration of the order of dismissal.
Petitioner-appellant, Donata Luna, was
the owner of a fishing boat named M/B “PANINDA”, duly registered with
the office of the Collector of Customs of the Port
of Manila. On October
25, 1962, said vessel was apprehended near the Calavite
Lighthouse, in Occidental Mindoro, by the crew of the RPS “PALAWAN”,
for carrying unmanifested and untaxed articles of foreign origin, consisting of blue seal cigarettes
and other articles. The vessel was
thereupon escorted to Manila, and both the vessel and its cargo were made the subjects of
forfeiture proceedings instituted pursuant to the provisions of the Tariff and
Customs Code, under Seizure Identification Nos. 6670 and 6670-A, before the
respondent-appellee Pedro Pacis,
the Acting Collector of Customs of the port of Manila.
On May 20, 1963,
after hearing, appellee Acting Collector or Customs rendered a decision
ordering the fishing boat M/B “PANINDA” forfeited in favor of the
Government. The dispositive
portion of the decision reads as follows:
“Likewise, the fishing
boat M/B ‘PANINDA’ covered by Seizure Identification No. 6670-A is declared
forfeited to the Government, the same to be treated as Government property and
turned over to the Supply Officer II, Bureau of Customs, or to any other government agency or instrumentality
which might need them, upon compliance with auditing requirements.”
Copy of the
above-mentioned decision was furnished the
counsel of the owner of the
vessel (herein appellant Donata Luna) by registered
mail, receipt of which on June 15,
1963 was acknowledged by the counsel.
On July 16, 1963, appellee Collector of
Customs received a letter of appellant’s counsel, dated July 8, 1963, wherein
appellant, as owner of the M/B “PANINDA”, offered to redeem said
vessel pursuant to the provisions of Section 2307 of the Tariff and Customs
Code. On July 18, 1963, respondent Collector of Customs, in a
letter addressed to petitioner’s counsel, denied the request for redemption upon the ground that the period within which the forfeited article might be
redeemed had already lapsed and
“that release of vessels apprehended for smuggling activities runs counter
to the existing policy of the Government.”[1]
Herein appellant did not appeal to the Commissioner of Customs
from the decision of appellee Collector of Customs
which declared the vessel and its
cargo forfeited to the government, nor
did she appeal from the decision denying her offer to redeem the vessel. Instead, on October 16, 1964, appellant filed
in the Court of First Instance of Manila a petition for mandamus with
preliminary mandatory injunction (ex-parte),
praying, among other things, that “a writ of mandamus issue
commanding the respondent to execute all the acts necessary to complete the
surrender to petitioner of the vessel in question”, upon payment of the
appraised value thereof.
On November 12, 1964,
the Court of First Instance of Manila issued an order requiring therein
respondent Collector of Customs to answer the petition, and setting the
application for the writ of preliminary mandatory injunction for hearing on November 24, 1964. After hearing, the trial court, on November 25, 1964, issued an order
denying the issuance of the writ of preliminary mandatory injunction, for the
reason that the issuance of the writ would be improper under the circumstances.
On December 1, 1964,
herein appellee filed a motion to dismiss the
petition for mandamus upon the ground, among others, that the Court of
First Instance of Manila had no jurisdiction over the case. On December
12, 1964, appellant filed her opposition to the motion to dismiss,
and on the same pleading moved for the reconsideration
of the lower court’s order of November
25, 1964, denying her application for a writ of preliminary
mandatory injunction. Finding appellee’s motion to dismiss well taken, the trial court,
in an order dated December 12, 1964,
dismissed the petition for mandamus
upon the ground that it had no jurisdiction over the case. On January
16, 1965, appellant filed a motion for reconsideration of the order
of December 12, 1964, and
the appellee, on January 26, 1965, filed his opposition to the said motion for reconsideration. In an
order dated January 30, 1965, the lower court denied appellant’s motion
for reconsideration.
Hence the present appeal by herein petitioner-appellant from the
order of the lower court dismissing the petition
for mandamus and the order denying her motion for
reconsideration.
This appeal has no merit.
The only matter to be resolved in the present case is, whether or
not the Court of First Instance of Manila had correctly dismissed the petition
for mandamus because it had no jurisdiction
over the case.
The lower court, in resolving this issue, aptly observed:
“x x x. In order to determine the jurisdiction of
this Court, we have only to refer to Republic Act No. 1155, creating the Court
of Tax Appeals. Section 7 of this Act
has granted to that Court exclusive appellate jurisdiction to review by
appeal, among others, decisions of the Commissioner of Customs in cases
involving seizure, detention or release of property affected, and this is precisely
the matter involved in this petition.
The Collector of Customs ordered the confiscation and forfeiture of the
property of the petitioner herein, which is a vessel which was allegedly used
for smuggling purposes. That is his
decision. Any attempt to review or do
anything with that decision partakes of the nature of an appeal, and, under the
law, appeals from the said decision must be taken to the Court of Tax Appeals,
as above-mentioned, In fact, interpreting this provision of the law, the Supreme Court of this
country has already sustained the jurisdiction of the Court of Tax Appeals in the cases of Rogaciano Millares, etc., et
al. vs. Hon. Judge Rafael
Amparo, etc., et al. (G. R. No. L-8354) and Namarco vs. Hon. Judge Higinio Macadaeg, et al.
(G. R. No. L-10030).
“It is, therefore, idle for us to still discuss this question
of jurisdiction now. It is already a
settled question.”
Indeed, as early as June
30, 1955, in the above-mentioned case of Millares,
etc. and David, etc., et al., (G. R. Nos. L-8351, L-8364, and. L-8365) 97
Phil., 282, this Court ruled:
“Republic Act No. 1125, section 7, effective June 16, 1954
gave the Court of Tax Appeals exclusive
appellate jurisdiction
to review on appeal, decisions of the Commissioner of Customs, involving ‘seizure, detention or release
of property affected * * * or other matters arising under the Customs Law or other law administered by the Bureau of
Customs’. In our opinion this provision
necessarily has taken away the power of the Manila court of first instance to
‘review’ decisions of the Customs authorities, ‘in any case of seizure’ — as
in this case — under section 1383 et seq. of the Revised Administrative
Code.”
The foregoing ruling has been consistently reiterated in
subsequent decisions of this Court.[2]
What appellant should have done was to appeal to the Commissioner
of Customs from the decision of the Collector of Customs denying her offer to
redeem the vessel in question, and, in the event of an adverse decision by the
Commissioner of Customs, to
appeal to the Court of Tax Appeals; and she still had a recourse of appeal to
this Court in case of an adverse decision by the Court of Tax Appeals.
WHEREFORE, the orders appealed from should be, as they are
hereby, affirmed, with costs against petitioner-appellant Donata
Luna.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Concepcion, C.J., Reyes, Dizon, Makalintal, Ruiz Castro,
Fernando, Teehankee, Barredo,
Villamor, and Makasiar, JJ., concur.
[1]
Words in quotation are as stated in the letter of the Acting Collector or
Customs, dated July 18, 1963,
to counsel for appellant.
[2]
Southwest Agricultural Marketing Corp. vs. Secretary of Finance, G. R.
No. L-24797, October 8, 1968, citing:
NAMARCO v. Macadaeg, 98 Phil. 185, 190;
Sampaguita Shoe & Slipper Factory v.
Comm. of Customs, 102 Phil. 850; Pepsi-Cola Bottling Co. v. Manahan,
L-12096, April 30, 1959, 105 Phil. 1299, 1300; Acting Collector of Customs v.
De la Rama Steamship, L-20676, Feb. 26, 1965, (13
SCRA 298); Auyong Hian v.
Court of Tax Appeals, L-25181, Jan. 11, 1967, (19 SCRA 10); De Joya v. Lantin, L-24037,
April 27, 1967, (19 SCRA 893); Acting Collector of Customs v. Caluag, L-23925,
May 24, 1967, (20 SCRA 204); Romualdez v. Arca, L-20516, Nov. 15, 1967, (21 SCRA 856).