ACTING COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS TEOTIMO ROJA, PETITIONER, VS. DE LA RAMA STEAMSHIP CO., INC. AND HON. FEDERICO C. ALIKPALA, IN HIS CAPACITY AS JUDGE OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE O…

The Manila Collector of Customs,
through the Solicitor General, has recoursed to this
Court against the actuations of the Court of First Instance of Manila, Branch
XXII, presided over by Judge Federico C. Alikpala, in
Civil Case No. 51824, De la Rama Steamship Co., Inc.,
vs. Acting Collector of Customs, claiming that the orders and injunction issued
in said case are void for lack of jurisdiction, and sought a writ of certiorari
to review and set the same aside, as well as a writ of prohibition to stop the
judge from hearing and deciding the case.

Upon petitioner’s request, this
Court issued a preliminary writ of injunction on February 25,
1963.

The record before us discloses
the basic facts to be as follows:

Respondent De la Rama Steamship, Co., Inc., a domestic corporation, operated
and represented the S/S “Mentor“, a foreign vessel, which was
seized on May 28,
1962 by
the Collector of Customs of Manila on charges of having conveyed unmanifested cargo and shipside discharge thereof without
proper authorization. The vessel was subsequently released upon a P10,000 bond filed by the shipping
company.

Two days later, the Collector
imposed on the vessel an administrative fine of P30,000, for violations of the Tariff and Customs Code, and
demanded immediate payment from De la Rama Steamship,
Co. The next day the company protested the fine in writing, and requested to be
heard. Hearing was scheduled on July 2,
1962, but
was postponed for August 6 and 7, but counsel for De la Rama could not be present, allegedly because notice of the
hearing was not served in time. Evidently, not satisfied with the explanation,
the Collector reaffirmed the fine, and denied the company’s requests for
reconsideration. The shipping company, on September 13, filed notice of appeal
to the Commissioner of Customs but was informed that the appeal “cannot be given
due course in view of the ruling of the Commissioner of Customs that fines on
vessels must be paid first and its payment may be protested if the interested
party so desires”. Thereupon, De la Rama Steamship,
Co. initiated Case No. 51824 in the Court of First Instance of Manila, praying
that:

“Wherefore, it is respectfully
prayed:

(a) That a Writ of Preliminary
Injunction be issued ex-parte upon the filing by the
petitioner of a bond executed to the respondent In an amount fixed by this Hon.
Court, commanding and otherwise ordering the respondent, his agents,
subordinates, or employees to refrain from enforcing against the petitioner the
payment of the aforesaid fine in any manner whatsoever and/of to restrain or
otherwise seize said vessel S/S “Mentor” or such other vessel of petitioner,
pending final judgment in this case.

b) That, after hearing, a
judgment be rendered—

(1) Declaring illegal the
imposition by respondent of the fine P20,000.00 upon
petitioner and his denial of petitioner’s right to appeal;

(2) Making permanent the Writ of
Preliminary Injunction; and

(3) Ordering respondent to grant
petitioner the opportunity to be heard in reference to the alleged charges
giving rise to the imposition of the fine.

Petitioner further prays for such
remedies as may be just and proper in the
premises.”

The court below having issued an
injunction as prayed for by the Company, the Collector of Customs moved t0
dismiss the case, on the ground that under Republic Ac No. 1125, and the Customs
and Tariff Code (R. A. 1937), jurisdiction to review the imposition of the fine
was vested in the Court of Tax Appeals. Dismissal having been denied, the
Collector sought relief in this Court.

The issue is squarely one of
jurisdiction: did the Court of First Instance of Manila have jurisdiction to
entertain the action filed by the respondent De la Rama Steamship, Co.?

Our answer must be in the
negative. As shown by the allegations and prayer of the complaint filed below,
the action of the steamship company sought to have the Court of First Instance
review the decision and order of the Collector of Customs and enjoin their
enforcement. Such a review violates the provisions of the Administrative Code
(section 1380) and the law creating the Court of Tax Appeals, in so far as it
seeks to deprive the Commissioner of Customs of his power to review the
decisions of its subordinate, the Collector of Customs and to bar the Court of
Tax Appeals from the exercise of its statutory exclusive appellate jurisdiction
to review by appeal decisions of the Commissioner of Customs on fines or matters
arising under the Customs Law, or any other law or part of law administered by
the Bureau of Customs (Rep. Act No. 1125, sec. 7, par. (2). In the past, this
Court has repeatedly brooked no interference by courts of first instance with
decisions of the Customs authorities in such matters, even in the guise of
petitions for mandamus or certiorari (Millarez
vs. Amparo, 97 Phil. 282; Namarco
vs. Macadaeg, 98 Phil. 185), ruling that, in all matters covered
by section 7 of Republic Act No. 1125.

“Republic Act No. 1125, sec. 7,
effective 16, 1954, * * * necessarily has taken away the power of the Manila
Court of First Instance to “review” decisions of the Customs authorities * *”
(cas. cit.)

Respondent De la Rama vigorously argues that the Court of Tax Appeals can
only review decisions of the Commissioner of Customs; that the decision here
complained of was one by the Collector, not by the Commissioner, of Customs; and
that the Collector has refused to give due course to and blocked the
respondent’s appeal to the Commissioner, leaving it without remedy. This excuse
is untenable. Since the Commissioner of Customs can review decisions of the
Collector (Adm. Code, sec. 1380), the latter’s refusal to give due course to the
appeal, if abusive, could be set aside by the Commissioner, in order that his
supervisory power be not rendered nugatory. It nowhere appears that the
Steamship Company ever complained to the Commissioner of Customs of his
subordinate’s action, or that the Commissioner has denied the company any remedy
against the ruling complained of. Had the Commissioner sustained the Collector,
the way would then be open for a recourse to the Court
of Tax Appeals. It is thus clear that De la Rama’s
court action below was barred by its failure to exhaust its administrative
remedies. Instead it tried to sidetrack the regular course of appeal marked out
by the Administrative law and Republic Act 1125, and endeavoured to make the Court of First Instance take
cognizance of matters outside of its jurisdiction, adding to the present court
congestion, with a totally unnecessary case.

WHEREFORE, the writs of certiorari and
prohibition applied for by the Collector of Customs are hereby granted, and the
respondent Court of First Instance is directed to refrain from proceeding with
its Case No. 51824; and the preliminary injunction therein issued by respondent
court is annulled and set aside. Costs in both instances
against private respondent De la Rama Steamship
Company, Inc.

Bengzon, C. J., Bautista Angelo, Concepcion, Barrera, Paredes,
Dizon, Regala, Makalintal, Bengzon,
J.P. and Zaldivar, JJ., concur.