ALBERTO DE JOYA, AS COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS AND MATIAS ANTOLIN, AS COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS FOR THE NORTH HARBOR, PETITIONERS, VS. HON. GREGORIO T. LANTIN, AS PRESIDING JUDGE, BRANC…

Francindy Commercial of 953-H
Ylaya St., Manila
(Francisco Dy, proprietor), purchased from Ernerose Commercial of Cebu City
(Ernesto J. Uy, proprietor) 90 bales of assorted
textiles and rags valued at P117,731.00.  Said 90 bales had been imported and entered thru the Port of Cebu.

Ernerose Commercial shipped the
merchandise from Cebu City to Manila, as
follows:  (1) 50 bales declared as rayon
rags aboard M/V Magsaysay, voyage 229, bill of lad­ing
No. 1, arriving in North Harbor, Manila, on October 5, 1964; and (2) 40 bales
declared as rayon rags aboard M/V Quirino, voyage
139, bill of lading No. 4, arriving in North Harbor, Manila, on October 6,
1964.

When the goods were about to leave Customs premises, Customs
authorities held them for further verification. 
And upon their
examination they were found to be different from the declaration the cargo
manifest of the carrying vessels aforementioned.

Francindy Commercial subsequently
demanded – on October 14, 15 and 23 – the release of the goods.  Asserted as grounds for
release were:  Francindy
Commercial is a purchaser in good faith; a local purchase was involved so the
Customs bureau has no right to examine the goods; and that the goods came from
a coastwise port.

Francindy Commercial moreover filed on October 26, 1964 a petition for mandamus in the Court of First Instance
of Manila against the Commissioner and Collector of Customs, to compel the
Customs authorities to release the goods. 
It alleged that the Customs bureau has no jurisdiction over the goods,
the same not being imported to
the Port of Manila, citing Sec. 1206 of the Tariff Code; that Francindy Commercial is not liable for duties and taxes,
the transaction not being an original importation, citing Sec. 1204 of the
Tariff Code; that the goods are not in the hands of the importer nor subject to
said importer’s control, nor were they imported con­trary to law with Francindy Commercial’s knowledge, citing Sec. 2531, Tariff
Code; and that the importation had been terminated.

The North Harbor Customs Collector made a report of seizure on November 9, 1964.  On November
12, 1964, the Manila Customs Collector issued a warrant of seizure
and detention.  The case was docketed as
Seizure Identifica­tion No. 8422.

On December 3, 1964,
the Commissioner and Collector of Customs filed a motion to dismiss the
petition in the Court of First Instance of Manila, for lack of jurisdic­tion,
lack of cause of action and in view of the pending seizure and forfeiture
proceedings.

The Court of First Instance held resolution of said motion in
abeyance pending its decision on the merits. 
On December 10, 1964,
it granted preventive and mandato­ry injunction upon a bond of P20,000.  Said writ was
is­sued on December 14, 1964.

The Commissioner and Collector of Customs moved for
reconsideration on December 24, 1964.  And on January
6, 1965, they moved to lift the preliminary and mandatory
injunction writ and for the resolution of their motion to dismiss.  The court, however, on January 12, 1965 or­dered them to comply with the
preliminary and mandatory injunction, upon the filing of an additional bond of
P50,000.

Said Customs authorities thereupon filed with Us
on January 14, 1965 this
petition for certiorari and prohibition
with preliminary injunction.  This Court,
on January 20, 1965, gave due course to the petition and granted preliminary
injunction without bond; said writ was issued on January 22, 1965, enjoining
until further orders respondents and their agents from enforcing the preventive
and mandatory injunction of the court below and from assuming jurisdiction or
taking cognizance of the petition filed by Francindy
Commercial therein.

After issues were joined, and the case was submitted for
decision, respondent Francindy Commercial moved to
dissolve Our preliminary injunction; action thereon
was deferred until the case is resolved on the merits.

This petition raises two related issues:  first, has the Customs bureau jurisdiction to
seize the goods and institute forfeiture proceedings against them? and (2) has the Court of First Instance jurisdiction to
entertain the petition for mandamus
to compel the Customs authorities to release the goods?

Francindy Commercial contends that since
the peti­tion in the Court of First Instance was filed (on October 26, 1964)
ahead of the issuance of the Customs warrant of seizure and forfeiture (on
November 12, 1964), the Customs bureau should yield to the jurisdiction of the
said court.

The record shows, however, that the goods in question were
actually seized on October 6,
1964, i.e., before Francindy
Commercial sued in court.  The purpose of
the seizure by the Customs bureau was to verify whether or not Customs duties
and taxes were paid for their importation. 
Hence, on December 23, 1964,
Customs released 22 bales thereof, for the same were found to have been
released regularly from the Cebu
Port (Petition, Annex
“L”).  As to goods imported
illegally or released irregularly from Customs custody, these are subject to
seizure under Section 2530 m. of the Tariff and Customs Code (RA 1957).

The Bureau of Customs has jurisdiction and power, among others,
to collect revenues from imported articles, fines and penalties accruing under
tariff and customs laws; to prevent and suppress smuggling and other frauds on customs; and to enforce tariff and
customs laws (Sec. 602, Republic
Act 1957).

The goods in question are imported articles entered at the Port
of Cebu.  Should they be found to have been released
irregularly from Customs custody in Cebu City,
they are subject to seizure and forfeiture, the proceed­ings for which comes
within the jurisdiction of the Bu­reau of Customs pursuant to Republic Act
1937.

Said proceedings
should be followed; the owner of the goods may set up defenses therein (Pacis v. Averia, L-22526, Nov.
29, 1966).  From the decision of the Com­missioner
of Customs appeal lies to the Court of Tax Ap­peals, as provided in Sec. 2402
of Republic Act 1937 and Sec. 11 of Republic Act 1125.  To permit recourse to the Court of First
Instance in cases of seizure of imported goods would in effect render
ineffective the power of the Customs authorities under the Tariff Code and
deprive the Court of Tax Appeals of one of its exclusive appellate jurisdictions.  As this Court has ruled in Pacis v. Ave­ria, supra, Republic
Acts 1937 and 1125 vest jurisdiction over seizure and forfeiture proceedings
exclusively upon the Bureau of Customs and the Court of Tax Appeals.  Such law being special in nature, while the
Judiciary Act defining the jurisdiction of Courts of First Instance is a
general legislation, not to mention that the former are later enactments, the
Court of First Instance should yield to the jurisdiction of the Customs
authorities.

WHEREFORE,
judgment is hereby rendered dismissing for lack of jurisdiction the petition
filed by respondent Francindy Commercial in the Court
of First Instance of Manila (Civil Case No. 58786) and rendering permanent the
preliminary injunction writ herein issued against respondents.  No costs.

SO ORDERED.

Concepcion, C.J., Reyes, J.B.L., Dizon, Regala, Makalintal, Zaldivar, Sanchez, and Castro, JJ., concur.