JAO vs CA (G.R. No.

104604 October 6, 1995)

FACTS:
(This is a consolidated case)
With regard to the 1
st
case. On August 10, 1990, the Ofce of the Director, Enforcement and ecurit! er"ices (E), #ureau of
$ustoms, recei"ed information regarding the %resence of allegedl! unta&ed "ehicles and %arts in the %remises o'ned (! a certain
)at *ao located along +uirino A"enue, )arana,ue and *onduras t., -a.ati. After conducting a sur"eillance of the t'o %laces,
res%ondent -a/or 0aime -agli%on, $hief of O%erations and 1ntelligence of the E, recommended the issuance of 'arrants of
sei2ure and detention against the articles stored in the %remises,
On August 13, 1990, District $ollector of $ustoms issued the 'arrants of sei2ure and detention.
On the same date, res%ondent -agli%on coordinated 'ith the local %olice su(stations to assist them in the e&ecution of the
res%ecti"e 'arrants of sei2ure and detention. Thereafter, the team searched the t'o %remises.
1n -a.ati, the! 'ere (arred from entering the %lace, (ut some mem(ers of the team 'ere a(le to force themsel"es inside. The!
'ere a(le to ins%ect the %remises and noted that some articles 'ere %resent 'hich 'ere not included in the list contained in the
'arrant. *ence, on August 14, 1990, amended 'arrants of sei2ure and detention 'ere issued (! 5illanue"a.
On August 64, 1990, customs %ersonnel started hauling the articles %ursuant to the amended 'arrants. This %rom%ted %etitioners
7arciso 0ao and #ernardo Em%e!nado to 8le a case for 1n/unction and Damages, against res%ondents. On the same date, the trial
court issued a Tem%orar! 9estraining Order.
On e%tem(er :, 1990, res%ondents 8led a -otion to Dismiss on the ground that the trial court has no /urisdiction o"er the su(/ect
matter of the com%laint, claiming that it 'as the #ureau of $ustoms that had e&clusi"e /urisdiction o"er it.
-TD ; 'as dismissed.
On 7o"em(er 69, 1990, %etitioners< a%%lication for %reliminar! %rohi(itor! and mandator! in/unction 'as granted conditioned u%on
the 8ling of a one million %eso (ond.
The $ourt also %rohi(ited res%ondents from sei2ing, detaining, trans%orting and selling at %u(lic auction %etitioners< "ehicles, s%are
%arts, accessories and other %ro%erties located at 7o. 6==3 *onduras t., an 1sidro, -a.ati and at 7o. 6>0 +uirino A"enue, Tam(o,
)arana,ue, -etro -anila. 9es%ondents 'ere further %rohi(ited from distur(ing %etitioners< constitutional and %ro%rietar! rights
o"er their %ro%erties located at the aforesaid %remises. ?astl!, res%ondents 'ere ordered to return the sei2ed items and to render
an accounting and in"entor! thereof.
9es%ondents 8le an -9 'hich 'as denied.
On A%%eal (efore the $A @ 9es%ondents argued that 9T$ had no /urisdiction o"er sei2ure and forfeiture %roceedings, such
/urisdiction (eing e&clusi"el! "ested in the #ureau of $ustoms.
$A set aside the ,uestioned orders of the trial court and en/oined it from further %roceeding 'ith the $i"il $ase. The a%%ellate court
also dismissed the said ci"il case.
Aamane ()etitioners) 8led a %etition (efore the $A
With regard to the 6nd case. 9es%ondent Om(udsman summari2ed the case (efore it as follo'sB
$om%lainants 8led a com%laint against res%ondents, Ofcers and Em%lo!ees of the #ureau of $ustoms and mem(ers of the -a.ati
)olice allegedl! for "iolation of Domicile and 9o((er!
That on August 11, 1990, after recei"ing intelligence information of the %resence of smuggled goods, some of the res%ondents
headed (! 0aime -agli%on %osed themsel"es as -eralco ins%ectors and entered com%lainants< stoc.!ards and residence located at
6==3 *onduras treet, -a.ati, -etro -anila and at 6>0 +uirino A"enue, Tam(o )arana,ue for the %ur%ose of searching smuggled
goods found therein 'ithout the consent of the o'ner thereofC
That after the search, res%ondents on August 13, 1990 u% to August 64, 1990, this time clothed 'ith a Warrant of ei2ure and
Detention, 'ith the aid of the -a.ati )olice and se"eral hea"il! armed men entered com%lainants stoc.!ard located at 6==3
*onduras t., -a.ati, -etro -anila, and %ulled out therefrom se"eral machineries and truc. s%are %arts 'ithout issuing the
corres%onding recei%ts to the com%lainants to co"er all the items ta.en.
9es%ondents also claimed not lia(le for ro((er! (sic) (ecause the com%lainants a%%ear not to (e the o'ners of the %ro%erties
ta.en. -oreo"er, the res%ondents claimed that the ta.ing is la'ful (ecause the same %roceeded from a 'arrant of ei2ures and
DetentionC there 'as no "iolence or intimidation of %erson committed and that there 'as no intent to gain on the %art of the
res%ondents, the %ur%ose of the sei2ure of the su(/ect goods (eing to collect customs duties and ta&es due the go"ernment.
-arch 14, 1993 res%ondent Om(udsman issued a 9esolution recommending that the case (e dismissed for lac. of merit.
)etitioners 8led an -9 ; (ut it 'as denied.
*ence this %resent %etition.
1DEB
(1) WO7 the $ourt of A%%eals erred in not holding that the $ollector of $ustoms could no longer order the sei2ure for the second
time of items %re"iousl! sei2ed and released after amnest! %a!ments of duties and ta&esC
(6) WO7 the #ureau of $ustoms has lost /urisdiction to order the sei2ure of the items (ecause the im%ortation had ceasedC
(3) WO7 the sei2ure of the items de%ri"ed the %etitioners of their %ro%erties 'ithout due %rocess of la'C and
*E?DB A?? 7O
The $ollector of $ustoms sitting in sei2ure and forfeiture %roceedings hasexclusive jurisdiction to hear and determine all
,uestions touching on the sei2ure and forfeiture of dutia(le goods. The 9egional Trial $ourts are %recluded from assuming
cogni2ance o"er such matters e"en through %etitions ofcertiorari, %rohi(ition or mandamus.

1t is li.e'ise 'ell@settled that the %ro"isions of the TariE and $ustoms $ode and that of 9e%u(lic Act 7o. 1164, as amended,
other'ise .no'n as FAn Act $reating the $ourt of Ta& A%%eals,F s%ecif! the %ro%er fora and %rocedure for the "entilation of
an! legal o(/ections or issues raised concerning these %roceedings. Thus, actions of the $ollector of $ustoms are a%%eala(le
to the $ommissioner of $ustoms, 'hose decision, in turn, is su(/ect to the e&clusi"e a%%ellate /urisdiction of the $ourt of Ta&
A%%eals and from there to the $ourt of A%%eals.
E"en if the sei2ure (! the $ollector of $ustoms 'ere illegal, 'hich has !et to (e %ro"en, 'e ha"e said that such act does not
de%ri"e the #ureau of $ustoms of /urisdiction thereon.
The allegations of %etitioners regarding the %ro%riet! of the sei2ure should %ro%erl! (e "entilated (efore the $ollector of
$ustoms. We ha"e had occasion to declareB
o The $ollector of $ustoms 'hen sitting in forfeiture %roceedings constitutes a tri(unal e&%ressl! "ested (! la' 'ith
/urisdiction to hear and determine the su(/ect matter of such %roceedings 'ithout an! interference from the $ourt
of Girst 1nstance. (Au!ong *ian ". $ourt of Ta& A%%eals, et al., 19 $9A 10). The $ollector of $ustoms of ual@
Dagu%an in ei2ure 1denti8cation 7o. 1>@G@:6 constituted itself as a tri(unal to hear and determine among other
things, the ,uestion of 'hether or not the -H5 ?uc.! tar 1 'as sei2ed 'ithin the territorial 'aters of the
)hili%%ines. 1f the %ri"ate res%ondents (elie"e that the sei2ure 'as made outside the territorial /urisdiction of the
)hili%%ines, it should raise the same as a defense (efore the $ollector of $ustoms and if not satis8ed, follo' the
correct a%%ellate %rocedures. A se%arate action (efore the $ourt of Girst 1nstance is not the remed!.