G.R. No. 28782. November 27, 1981
AUYONG HIAN (HONG WHUA HANG), PETITIONER, VS. COURT OF TAX APPEALS, COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS, COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, CONSOLIDATED TOBACCO INDUSTRIES OF THE PHILIPPINES, INC. (CTIP…
BARREDO, J.:
Motion for reconsideration filed by respondent Consolidated
Tobacco Industries of the Philippines, Inc. (CTIP) of the decision in this case
promulgated on September 12, 1974 insofar only as said decision refrains from
ruling on the matter of the refund to said respondent of the storage charges
alleged to have been advanced by it in order to secure the release of the
tobacco sold to it at the public auction sale thereof after having been seized
and confiscated by the government, the same having been illegally imported, as
ruled in the very decision in this case, and directs that said matter be
prosecuted administratively. It is
prayed that such directive be withdrawn and that the Court itself decide the
issue of whether or not movant is entitled to said
refund.
In the comment on said motion as well as further representations
made by the Solicitor General in relation thereto, it is expressly stated that
the Commissioner of Customs has already “taken the unyielding position
that the claim for refund is without legal basis in view (allegedly) of the
explicit provisions of Section 2605 of the Tariff and Customs Code”, to
use the very words of the comment dated November 13, 1974. Apart from this, it appears that the Bureau
of Customs and the Department of Finance do not seem to see eye to eye on the
matter at issue, as may be gleaned from the fact that notwithstanding the more
favorable posture of the Secretary of Finance, as indicated in his 1st
Indorsement of October 31, 1974, copy of which is
attached to the counter-comment of respondent dated November 22, 1974, the
genuineness of which has never been questioned, the Bureau of Customs is
viewing the matter differently. In other
words, the Bureau of Customs does not only prefer that the matter in issue be
prosecuted by respondent administratively but has practically announced that if
such were done, respondent’s claim for refund would be definitely denied by
them. Thus, should respondent pursue
the administrative course directed in Our decision, it is a foregone conclusion
that it would not have any chance, since the mind of those who are supposed to
pass upon his claim, at least in the first instance, is already made up. Under these circumstances, there is more than
sufficient ground to believe that the administrative proceeding would result in
denial of due process to respondent, considering that the authorities who will
act as judges, at least in the first instance, can no longer be expected to be
entirely impartial.
“Elementary due process requires a hearing before an impartial
and disinterested tribunal.” (Geotina vs. Gonzales, 41 SCRA 66.) Reiterating the same cardinal point in Martinez
vs. Gironella, 65 SCRA 245, We held that:
“It cannot be denied that elementary due process requires that a
case be heard by a tribunal that is impartial and disinterested. And if the accused has been the victim of an
unfair and partial trial, this court will certainly not hesitate to order a new
trial in the interest of justice.
x x x
“A Judge has the duty not only to render a just and impartial
decision but also render it in such a manner as to be free from any suspicion
as to its fairness and impartiality, and also as to the judge’s integrity.
(citing Geotina v. Gonzales, supra.)……………”
There is also a long line of decisions
leaving no room for doubt as to the indispensability of an impartial judge in
due process.[1] Such being the case, and considering that
from the memoranda of the parties, it is obvious that anyway the basic point in
dispute here is purely legal – apart from the obvious possibility that the
dispute will ultimately have to be brought to this Court – We have no
alternative but to consider the directive in Our decision. We are now persuaded that it would be in the
best interest of justice, if this Court were to resolve respondent’s claim for
refund aforementioned here and now on the basis of all that appears in the
records before Us, there being no indication after all that there are still
other relevant facts not yet brought to Our attention relevant to the matter in
dispute.
The following background
facts stated in the Memorandum of the Office of the Solicitor General dated March 31, 1976 are not disputed by movant:
“1. The 600 hogsheads of Virginia
type tobacco were stored at Customs Bonded Warehouse No. 81, operated by
Consolidated Terminals, Inc. on June
25, 1962 (Please see Warehousing Warrant No. 030 and 031, dated June 25, 1962, Exh.
T and T-1, pp. 56-57, Records in Auyong Hian vs. CTA, Case No. 1560).
“2. On November 8,
1962, seizure proceedings (S.I. No. 6669) was instituted against the tobacco as
an illegal importation pursuant to Republic Acts No. 698 and 1194 such that on
April 23, 1963, a decision on the seizure case was rendered by the collector,
Port of Manila, declaring the 600 hogsheads of tobacco forfeited in favor of
the government.
“3. The Special Committee which was created for
the disposal of the forfeited tobacco ordered and scheduled the sale thereof
through public bidding on June 10, 1963, as per ‘Notice of Sale’ dated May 9,
1963 (Exh. ‘HH’, pp. 123-124, Records in Auyong Hian vs. CTA, supra)
wherein the terms and condition of the sale were specified therein as follows:
‘1. The above-mentioned articles shall be sold to
the highest bidder as determined in Paragraph No. 4(a) hereof and who could
qualify to the terms and conditions mentioned in Paragraph No. 4(b) hereof, the
said articles may, three days before the date of sale, be inspected by any
registered prospective bidder upon showing to the Special Bidding Committee
that his/her/its qualifications are in order.
‘2. A deposit in cash, or bank manager’s or
cashier’s or certified check payable to the Collector of Customs, Manila, the
amount of ONE MILLION PESOS (P1,000,000.00) will be required from every
prospective bidder before he/she/it can participate in the bidding. All deposits should be deposited with the
Customs Cashier, who in turn will issue temporary receipts therefor.
‘3. Every prospective bidder is required to
register his/her/its name and address within the period prescribed herein with
the Chairman of the Special Bidding Committee (Chief, Law Division, Room 315
Manila Customhouse), together with his/her/its Tax Certificates A and B or C
and B, as the case maybe) for the current year, and must submit not later than
June 5, 1963 the papers or documents called for or required in No. 4 (b)
hereof.
(a) If the highest bid offered, which shall be
for no less than the entire lot subject to sale, is sufficient to cover the
amount of the redemption value (appraised value plus customs duties and taxes),
thereof, it shall be accepted and the bidder thereof shall be required to pay
the bid price immediately after the bidding.
(b) Each prospective bidder must submit to the
Special Bidding Committee Chairman, as stated in Paragraph No. 3 hereof,
evidence showing the following:
1) That it must be a bonafide
manufacturer of Virginia-type cigarettes and which must buy the subject seized
property for its exclusive use taking into account the imperative necessity of
using the seized property for blending the type or brand of cigarettes it
manufactures, as well as the volume of its production;
2) That it has purchased from ACCFA low-grade
tobacco, or from farmers and/or through their FACOMAS at the ratio of six (6)
kilos of low-grade tobacco to one kilo of the imported Virginia
leaf tobacco;
3) That it must not have previous or pending case
or cases involving gross violation of customs and/or revenue laws; and
4) That it must be able to pay the bid price of
the seized property, immediately upon award of the purchase thereof, in cash,
or in bank cashier’s or manager’s check or bank certified check payable to the
Collector of Customs, Manila;
(c) Only prospective bidders whose qualifications
have been found or approved by the said Committee as meeting the foregoing
terms and conditions and a list of the names of which shall be prepared and
submitted to this Office not later than June 6, 1963 will be entitled to
participate in the bidding. The deposit
of the highest bidder shall be credited in his favor and shall pay the balance
immediately upon official ascertainment that he/she/it is the highest bidder
and failure to pay said balance will be sufficient cause to cancel his/her/its
offer and he/she/it shall be disqualified to participate in any subsequent
bidding thereafter conducted and the amount of P5,000.00 to be deducted from
his/her/its deposit of P1,000,000.00 shall be forfeited as penalty therefor.
“5. The above-mentioned articles are offered for
sale “AS IS” and the Bureau of Customs gives no warranty as to their
condition.
“6. Goods that are subject to some other
requirements, like the affixture of BIR stamps, approval of the Bureau of
Health etc., shall be delivered only after compliance with those requisites.
“7. The right is reserved to waive any defect or
formality, to reject any or all bids, to withdraw the above articles from the
sale and to accept such bids as may be more advantageous to the Government.
“8. Storage fees shall be imposed on articles
awarded but not claimed within TEN (10) days from the date of approval of the
sale.
“9. Any contemplated change or schedule in the
bidding day shall be with the approval and consent of the Collector of
Customs.’
((SGD) PEDRO PACIS
AActing
Collector of Customs
“4. At the scheduled sale of the forfeited
tobacco, CTIP turned out to be the ‘highest bidder’ so much so that on June
26, 1963, the Collector, through the Chairman of the Special Bidding Committee
approved the final sale subject to the condition that the balance of the
purchase price in the amount of P500,000.00 should be paid within five (5) days
from receipt thereof and that the said tobacco will be released in favor of
CTIP upon the posting of a surety bond in the amount of P1,000,000.00 to
guarantee CTIP’s undertaking to export locally grown
tobacco. For ready reference, we quote
hereunder said letter which is marked Exh. SS. p.
154, Records in Auyong Hian
vs. CTA, Id).
‘June 26, 1963
The Consolidated Tobacco Industries
of the Philippines, Inc.
Manila
Gentlemen:
In connection with your bid offer to purchase the 600 hogsheads of Virginia
leaf tobacco subject of Manila Seizure Idn. No. 6669,
in the amount of P1,500,000.00 and to export locally grown tobacco at the ratio
of 6 kilos for every kilo of imported Virginia
leaf tobacco, please be informed that the Acting Collector of Customs has
accepted and approved the same.
Your deposit in the amount of P1,000,000.00 will be credited in
your favor and the balance of P500,000.00 should be paid within five (5) days
from receipt hereof. The release of said
tobacco to you however, will only be made upon your posting of a surety bond in
the amount of P1,000,000.00 to guarantee the exportation of the aforementioned
locally grown tobacco.
Very truly yours,
ss/
JOSE T. VIDUYA
tt/ JOSE T.
VIDUYA
CChairman
SSpecial
Bidding Committee”
Additional to the foregoing, it is likewise incontrovertible that
notwithstanding compliance by movant with all the
requirements of the above-quoted letter, movant was
unable to secure delivery of the tobacco purchased by it in view of the pendency of several court proceedings filed by petitioner, Auyong Hian, wherein such
delivery was judicially enjoined. When
the last of those injunctions was lifted, and before another one could be
obtained by said petitioner, movant demanded delivery
of the tobacco but the Consolidated Terminals, Inc. (or Luzon Stevedoring Co.,
Inc.) in whose warehouses the tobacco was stored refused to release the same
without its being paid the storage fees due as of then. Apprehensive that a new injunction might be
secured by Auyong Hian,
which would further delay its getting delivery of the tobacco, and because the
Bureau of Customs could not immediately make the corresponding payment, movant paid the Consolidated Terminals, Inc. the storage
fees demanded in the amount of P823,768.20 on September 13, 1967, under an
express understanding, according to movant, with the
Bureau of Customs, thru then Collector of Customs, Pedro Pacis,
that the same would be refunded to it.
As stated in Our decision, during the pendency
of the main case here, the Solicitor General sought authority from the Court to
effect “the refund to CTIP (movant) — of an
amount equal to cover the storage charges for the period or time normally
consumed in a regular importation, i.e., excluding the storage charges brought
about by the delay incident to the institution of the seizure proceedings,
since in any case this amount would be chargeable to the importer; here we are
anticipating the remote possibility (remote in view of the pronouncements of
this Honorable Court in Cesar Climaco et al. vs.
Manuel Barcelona, et al., G.R. No. L-19597, prom. July 31, 1962; Collector of Customs vs. Arca, G.R. No. L-21383, prom. July 17, 1964 and Auyong Hian vs. Court of Tax Appeals, et al., G.R. No. L-25181, June 11, 1967) that petitioner will
obtain a reversal of the decision of the Court of Tax Appeals now under
review.” And, it is precisely the matter referred to in that motion of the
Solicitor General that the Court had directed in the decision herein to be
prosecuted administratively, but which We now feel ought to be already resolved
here in view inter alia of the
unyielding negative position of the Bureau of Customs, by reason of which movant is not certain it will be afforded due process. It is expected that this resolution should
put an end to all the aspects of the subject tobacco importation without
further unnecessary loss of time and effort prejudicial to all concerned,
particularly the courts.
Upon the foregoing premises, the fundamental issue to be resolved
boils down to what is the proper construction that should be given to Section
2605 of the Tariff and Customs Code which provides as follows:
“Sec. 2605. Disposition
of Proceeds. – The following charges shall be paid from the proceeds of the
sale in the order named:
a. Expenses
of appraisal, advertisement and sale.
b. Duties except in the case of abandoned and
forfeited articles.
c. Taxes
and other charges due the Government.
d. Government
storage charges.
e. Arrastre and private storage charges.
f. Freight, lighterage
or general average, on the voyage of importation, of which due notice shall
have been given to the Collector.”
in the light of the aforequoted
terms and conditions under which movant’s bid to
purchase the tobacco in question was accepted and approved by the customs
authorities.
As can be seen, among the items, apart from customs duties etc.,
that are deductible from the proceeds of any public auction sale of goods
confiscated by the Bureau of Customs is that for “arrastre
and private storage fees,” meaning evidently, that should any such arrastre and/or storage fees corresponding to the goods
sold be due, the same should be paid out of the amount that the winning bidder
has paid, as accepted by the customs authorities. Indeed, in connection with the tobacco herein
involved, in the letter of the Collector of Customs dated February 25, 1970 addressed to the Solicitor
General, it was expressly admitted that “Under Section 2605-e of the same
Code (the Customs and Tariff Code) expenses for the storage is deductible from
the proceeds from the sale of the tobacco.” According to the Solicitor
General in his motion for leave referred to in our decision, “the same
view is expressed by Acting Commissioner of Customs in his letter to the
undersigned counsel dated June 8, 1971
and December 3, 1971.”[2]
We are of the considered opinion that the section of the Customs
and Tariff Code cited cannot have any other intent. This must be so because until after goods
sold by the Bureau of Customs in an auction sale shall have been delivered
either actually or constructively to the winning bidder, ownership thereof
remains with that office. Such is the
unequivocal provision of Article 1477 of the Civil Code which says, “The
ownership of the thing sold shall be transferred to the vendee upon the actual
or constructive delivery thereof.” Accordingly, it is but logical and
proper that, unless otherwise expressly stipulated, all expenses incurred for
the preservation and keeping or storage of the goods sold should be borne by
the Bureau until their actual or constructive delivery to the buyer. Relatedly,
Condition No. 8 of the Notice of Sale provides that “Storage fees shall be
imposed on article awarded but not claimed within ten (10) days from the date
of approval of the sale.” To Our mind, this provision, indicates that
responsibility for storage fees would pass to the buyer only upon the
occurrence of the contingency so stated and not earlier. Movant did claim
the tobacco it had purchased within the ten-day period stipulated the Bureau of
Customs was the one not ready to comply.
The Government’s reliance on Article 1476 of the Civil Code is
obviously inapposite. The tobacco here
in question was not delivered to movant until September 22, 1967 in view of court
injunctions, the last of which was dissolved only on April 8, 1965.
While of course it cannot be said that the delay was due to the fault of
the Bureau of Customs, much less, however, could any blame be attributed to the
movant. But as
between these parties, there can be no doubt that responsibility for any
expenses or damages arising during the pendency of
the injunction should be the liability of the owner of the goods who is under
obligation to warrant its title and right to sell and deliver the same to the
buyer free from any adverse claim. As a
matter of fact, it was precisely for fear that the storage charges for which
the Bureau would be liable would be bigger that on May 18, 1965, Acting Collector Pedro Pacis addressed the following self-explanatory letter to
the holder of the tobacco in question:
“The Storekeeper
Customs Bounded Warehouse No. 81
Manila
Sir:
In connection with the 600 hogsheads Virginia Leaf Tobacco involved
in Manila Seizure Identification No. 6669, which are presently stored in Customs
Bounded Warehouse No. 81 and which, pursuant to Section 2607 of the Tariff and
Customs Code, were sold to, and fully paid for by, the Consolidated Tobacco
Industries of the Philippines, Inc. after its bid was approved by the Cabinet
Committee on Public Bidding of Tobacco, please be informed that the Supreme
Court’s order of July 3, 1963 against the delivery of the property issued subsequent
to the said purchaser’s having earlier complied with the condition of award,
was superseded by another order of the Supreme Court, per its Resolution of
April 8, 1965, which among others reads:
‘RESOLVED, that the writ of preliminary injunction issued by it be
considered dissolved and of no further effect.’
In view thereof and in line with the advice of the Solicitor
General in his 1st Indorsement to this Office dated
April 22, 1965 and again in his 1st Indorsement to
the Commissioner of Customs dated May 17, 1965, immediate release of the said
property to the Consolidated Tobacco Industries of the Philippines, Inc. should
be effected to above of further accumulation of storage charges and to
forestall any untoward incident that may take place effecting the property
before the Government is relieved of its obligation to deliver the same to the
aforesaid awardees.
Whatever storage charges are due in favor of the operator of the
aforementioned warehouse should be forwarded to this Bureau for settlement
pursuant to law.
VVery truly
yours,
((SGD.) PEDRO PACIS
AActing Collector of
Customs”
(Pp. 483-484, Record.)
We cannot accept the contention in the Government’s Memorandum of
March 31, 1976 that Condition No. 5 in the Notice of Sale to the effect that
“The above-mentioned articles (the tobacco) are offered for sale ‘AS IS’
and the Bureau of Customs gives no warranty as to their condition”
relieves the Bureau of Customs of liability for the storage fees in
dispute. As We understand said Condition
No 5, it refers to the physical condition of the tobacco and not to the legal
situation in which it was at the time of the sale, as could be implied from the
right of inspection to prospective bidders under Condition No. 1. It has no bearing at all on the obligation of
the Bureau of Customs, as seller, under Article 1495 of the Civil Code “to
transfer the ownership and deliver, as well as warrant the thing which is
object of the sale.” This warranty is as to the right to sell and capacity
to deliver. What is more, applying
Condition No. 5 literally, there is reason to hold that, had the tobacco here
in issue suffered any deterioration after the sale, but before its delayed
actual release to movant, the latter could be
entitled to indemnity for any damage resulting from such deterioration. (Article 1170, Civil Code.)
In its aforementioned Memorandum, the Government contends that assuming
it is liable, it should refund to movant only
P47,382.36 corresponding to the period from June 25, 1962, when the tobacco was
stored to June 26, 1963 when the bid was finally approved by the Bureau of
Customs. That contention is devoid of
legal justification. Under the law on
sales, once the object and the price are agreed upon, it becomes the
inescapable obligation of the seller to immediately deliver the object to the
buyer, unless a period for such delivery has been otherwise stipulated. In this particular case, the bid of movant was approved by the Bureau of Customs subject to the
condition that the tobacco in question was to be “released in favor of
CTIP (movant) upon the posting of a surety bond in
the amount of P1,000,000.00 to guarantee CTIP’s
undertaking to export locally grown tobacco.” (Letter of June 26, 1963 of Jose T. Viduya, Chairman, Special Bidding Committee) That this
condition was duly complied with does not appear to be controverted. But such compliance notwithstanding, release
was delayed, not only because of any court injunction but due also to seeming
difference of opinion at the time between the Collector and the Commissioner of
Customs as to who between them was supposed to order such release. (See pp. 26-27, Annex A of the Petition.)
Surely, this circumstance cannot be taken against movant.
The Government contends also that it would not be equitable to
make the Bureau of Customs liable for the refund demanded by movant, since the auction sale netted only P1.5 M, whereas
if the importation were allowed in 1961, the Government would have realized not
less than P3 M. The argument is not
persuasive, if only because the Court has precisely found the importation to be
illegal. We cannot see how any
consideration of inequity can be predicated on the hypothesis that something
judicially declared illegal was legal.
Quite the other way around, the stand of the Government is what appears
to be inequitable, for whereas, the amount of P1.5 M paid by movant fully covers all the items enumerated in Section
2605, including the amount paid by movant for private
storage fees, still the Government refuses to refund movant,
notwithstanding that the provision just cited expressly ordains that the said
amount for storage fees is deductible from the accepted bid price. In effect, the Government is trying to
unjustly enrich itself at the expense of movant.
IN VIEW OF ALL THE FOREGOING, the decision of this Court
in the above-entitled case of September 12, 1974 is hereby modified only in the
sense that the administrative remedy therein suggested for the refund of
storage fees above discussed is hereby declared unnecessary and the Collector
of Customs and/or the Commissioner of Customs are hereby ordered to refund to movant Consolidated Tobacco Industries of the Philippines,
Inc. (CTIP) the amount of Eight Hundred Twenty-Three Thousand Seven Hundred
Sixty-Eight Pesos and Twenty Centavos (P823,768.29) paid by said movant to Luzon Stevedoring Corporation on September 13,
1967, without interest. In all other
respects, the said decision stands.
Aquino, Concepcion,
Jr., Fernandez, and De Castro, JJ., concur.
Fernandez, J., designated to
sit with the Second Division.
Abad Santos, J., no part.
[1]
Gutierrez vs. Santos,
L-15824, May 30, 1961, 2
SCRA 249; Del Castillo vs. Javelona, L-16742, Sept. 29, 1962, 6 SCRA 146; People
vs. Gomez, L- 22345, May 29, 1967, 20 SCRA 293; Austria vs. MAsaquel,
L-22536, Aug 31, 1967, 20 SCRA 1247;, Pimentel vs. Salanga,
L-27934, Sept. 18, 1967, 21 SCRA 160; Zaldivar vs. Estenzo, L-26065,
May 3, 1968, 23 SCRA 533; Luque vs. Kalayaan, L-26826, Aug. 29, 1969, 29 SCRA 165; Paredes vs. Gopengco, L-23710,
Sept 30, 1969, 29 SCRA 688; Geotina vs. Gonzales,
supra; Tobias vs. Ericta, Adm. Case No. 242-J, July
29, 1972, 46 SCRA 83; Mateo Jr., vs. Villaluz,
L-34756, March 31, 1973, 50 SCRA 18; Umale vs. Villaluz, L-33508, May 25, 1973, 51 SCRA 84; Palang vs. Zosa, L-38229, Aug.
30, 1974, 58 SCRA 776; People vs. Ancheta, L-39993,
May 19, 1975, 64 SCRA 90; Martinez vs. Gironella, supra.
[2]
See also the letter of Acting Collector Pedro Pacis
of March 18, 1965,
infra. There is also the letter of March 29, 1966 of Commissioner of
Customs Jacinto T. Gavino to the Solicitor General
reading thus:
“The Honorable
The Solicitor General
Manila
Sir:
This is in reply to your letter
dated March 24, 1966, requesting advice on the stand of this Office regarding
the release of the 600 hogsheads Virginia leaf tobacco by Collector Pedro Pacis to the Consolidated Tobacco Industries of the Philippines,
Inc. (CTIP) for purposes of comment to be submitted to the Supreme Court on the
petition to lift the preliminary injunction filed by the CTIP.
After a careful examination of the
records of the case involving this commodity, we found the following:
1. That on June 26, 1963, the Collector of Customs, thru the Chairman
of the Special Bidding Committee, Jose Viduya, had
accepted the bid offer of the CTIP to purchase the said tobacco for the sum of
P1,500,00. By virtue of such acceptance,
the CITP paid the sum of P1,500,00 and had exported 6 kilos of local Virginia
tobacco for every kilo of the 600 hogsheads in question in compliance with the
conditions set forth in the public bidding;
2. That the auction sale conducted by the Bureau
regarding said tobacco, was approved by a Cabinet Committee (composed of
Secretary of Justice, Juan R. Liwag, Chairman,
Secretaries Cornelio Balmaceda and Rufino Hechanova, Deputy Auditor
General Jesus Yriarte and Governor Andres Castillo,
as members), under a 1st Indorsement dated June 24,
1963;
3. The validity and regularity of the forfeiture
and sale in public bidding, were passed upon and upheld by the Supreme Court in
the case of Collector of Customs vs. Arca,
G.R. No. L-21389, promulgated July 17,
1964;
4. That on April 22, 1965, the then Solicitor General Arturo A. Alafriz, rendered an opinion “agreeing to the delivery
of the tobacco to the CTIP as justified under Section 2607 of the Tariff and
Customs Code, and then finally, on May
17, 1965, the Solicitor General, again rendered an opinion favoring
the release in this wise.
“Finally, in a resolution of
the Supreme Court on April 8, 1965,
in the same case, the Court considered dissolved the writ of preliminary
injunction previously issued by it. As
of now therefore, there exists no legal impediment to said release,
notwithstanding the appeal taken by Auyong Hian to the Court of Tax Appeals with respect to the
legality of the seizure and forfeiture proceedings against the tobacco and not
on the disposition thereof. Had not the
Supreme Court issued the injunction in the Arca Case
in June, 1963, the Collector of Customs could have released the leaf tobacco in
question even during the pendency of the seizure and
forfeiture proceedings, subject of course to any existing valid liens, for he
is so authorized by the aforesaid Section 2607 to use his discretion in making
such a disposition, if the circumstances presently surrounding the said leaf
tobacco warrant the exercise of his discretion under the law.”
3. On May
18, 1965, the Collector of Customs issued the Order of Release
wherein he stated as follows:
“In view thereof and in line
with the advice of the Solicitor General in his 1st Indorsement
to this Office dated April 22, 1965 and again in his 1st Indorsement
to the Commissioner of Customs dated May 17, 1965, immediate release of the
said property to the Consolidated Tobacco Industries of the Philippines Inc.
should be effected to shove off further accumulation of storage charges and to
forestall any untoward incident that may take place affecting the property
before the Government is relieved of its obligations to deliver the same to the
aforesaid awardees.”
As stated in your letter of March
24, 1966, it is your opinion that the Replevin case
in the Court of First Instance of Manila docketed as Civil Case No. 61109,
entitled “Republic of the Philippines vs. Consolidated Tobacco
Industries of the Philippines”, had been filed primarily to clarify as to
who has the authority to release the tobacco, and not for any other
purpose. Under the given circumstances,
unless your Office as counsel for the government finds other legal impediments
in the release thereof, this Office is constrained to concur in the action by
the Collector of Customs of Manila.
The Office has taken this position
because it is conscious of the fact that any unnecessary delay in the
disposition of the case will only expose the subject commodity to the danger of
deterioration thus risking the possibility of losing not only P1,500,000 as the
agreed price for the tobacco but also the storage charges due thereon in the amount of P4,000
a month since May 18, 1965.
Very
truly yours,
JACINTO
T. GAVINO
Commissioner
of Customs”