Illuh% Asaali% v.% Commissioner% of% Customs,% Dec% 16,% 1968,% 26% SCRA% 382.

" Doctrine" of" International" Law" that"

allows"a"state"to"protect"itself"from"injury"not"only"within"its"territorial"jurisdiction"but"also"in"the"high"seas.""
"
In" 1950," customs" officers" intercepted" 5" ships" owned" by" Illuh" Asaali" et" al." Said" ships" were" found" to" be" from"
Borneo" and" were" on" their" way" to" a" port" in" TawiDtawi," Sulu." On" board" the" ships" were" rattan" products" and"
cigarettes."The"customs"confiscated"said"items"on"the"ground"that"Asaali"et"al"do"not"have"the"required"import"
permits"for"the"said"goods."
Asaali"questioned"the"legality"of"the"seizure"as"he"contended"that"the"customs"officers"did"not"intercept"them"
within" Philippine" waters" but" rather," they" were" intercepted" in" the" high" seas." Hence," according" to" Asaali,"
Philippine"import"laws"have"no"application"to"the"case"at"bar."
%
ISSUE:"Whether"or"not"Asaalis"contention"is"correct."
%
HELD:%No."Asaalis"contention"is"without"merit."The"Revised"Penal"Code"leaves"no"doubt"as"to"its"applicability"
and"enforceability"not"only"within"the"Philippines,"its"interior"waters"and"maritime"zone,"but"also"outside"of"its"
jurisdiction" against" those" committing" offense" while" on" a" Philippine" ship." The" ships" intercepted" were" of"
Philippine"registry."
Further,"it"has"been"an"establish"principle"that"a"state"has"the"right"to"protect"itself"and"its"revenues,"a"right"
not"limited"to"its"own"territory"but"extending"to"the"high"seas."The"authority"of"a"nation"within"its"own"
territory"is"absolute"and"exclusive."The"seizure"of"a"vessel"within"the"range"of"its"cannon"by"a"foreign"force"is"
an"invasion"of"that"territory,"and"is"a"hostile"act"which"it"is"its"duty"to"repel."But"its"power"to"secure"itself"from"
injury"may"certainly"be"exercised"beyond"the"limits"of"its"territory."
"
Does"the"BOC"have"jurisdiction"over"a"vessel"in"the"high"seas?"As"a"general"rule,"No."The"exceptions"are"(a)"
when"in"hot"pursuit"beginning"from"the"Philippine"waters"(b)"if"the"vessel"is"PhilippineDregistered,"and"(c)"
under"the"conditions"mentioned"in"Asaali"v."Commissioner"of"Customs,"Dec"16,"1968,"26"SCRA"382."
"
"
%
%
%
%
%
%
%
%
%
%
%
%
%
%
%
G.R.%No.%176380%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%June%18,%2009"
PILIPINAS%SHELL%PETROLEUM%CORPORATION,"Petitioner,""
vs."
COMMISSIONER%OF%CUSTOMS,"Respondent."
D"E"C"I"S"I"O"N"
BRION,%J.:"
Before"us"is"the"Petition"for"Review"on"Certiorari1"filed"by"petitioner"Pilipinas"Shell"Petroleum"Corporation"
(Shell)"questioning"the"Decision2"of"the"Court"of"Appeals"(CA)"in"CADG.R."SP"No."78564."The"CA"decision"set"
aside"the"resolutions3"issued"by"the"Court"of"Tax"Appeals"(CTA)"in"CTA"Case"No."6484,"which"in"turn"denied"the"
respondent"Commissioner"of"Customs"(respondent)"Motion"to"Dismiss"the"petition"for"review"Shell"filed"with"
the"tax"court."The"CA"decision"effectively"dismissed"Shells"tax"protest"case."
BACKGROUND"FACTS"
Shell"is"a"domestic"corporation"engaged,"among"others,"in"the"importation"of"petroleum"and"its"byDproducts"
into"the"country."For"these"importations,"Shell"was"assessed"and"required"to"pay"customs"duties"and"internal"
revenue"taxes."
In"1997"and"1998,"Shell"settled"its"liabilities"for"customs"duties"and"internal"revenue"taxes"using"tax"credit"
certificates"(TCCs)"that"were"transferred"to"it"for"value"by"several"Board"of"Investment"(BOI)Dregistered"
companies."The"transfers"of"the"TCCs"to"Shell"were"processed"by"the"transferorsDBOIDregistered"companies"
and"were"eventually"approved"by"the"One"Stop"Shop"InterDAgency"Tax"Credit"and"Duty"Drawback"Center"(the"
Center)."The"Center"is"composed"of"the"following"government"agencies:"the"Department"of"Finance"(DOF),"the"
Bureau"of"Internal"Revenue"(BIR),"the"Bureau"of"Customs"(BOC),"and"the"BOI."On"the"belief"the"TCCs"were"
actually"good"and"valid,"both"the"BIR"and"the"BOC"accepted"and"allowed"Shell"to"use"them"to"pay"and"settle"its"
tax"liabilities."
In"a"letter"dated"November"3,"1999"(Centers"November"3"letter),"the"Center,"through"the"Secretary"of"the"
DOF,"informed"Shell"that"it"was"cancelling"the"TCCs"transferred"to"and"used"as"payment"by"the"oil"company,"
pursuant"to"its"EXCOM"Resolution"No."03D05D99."The"Center"claimed"that"after"conducting"a"postDaudit"
investigation,"it"discovered"that"the"TCCs"had"been"fraudulently"secured"by"the"original"grantees"who"
thereafter"transferred"them"to"Shell;"no"categorical"finding"was"made"regarding"Shells"participation"in"the"
fraud."In"view"of"the"cancellation,"the"Center"required"Shell"to"pay"the"BIR"and"BOC"the"amounts"
corresponding"to"the"TCCs"Shell"had"used"to"settle"its"liabilities."
Shell"objected"to"the"cancellation"of"the"TCCs"claiming"that"it"had"been"denied"due"process."Apparently,"Shell"
had"sent"a"letter"to"the"Center"on"November"3,"1999"(Shells'November'3'letter)"adducing"reasons"why"the"
TCCs"should"not"be"cancelled;"Shell"claimed"that"the"Centers"November"3"letter"cancelling"the"TCCs"was"
issued"without"considering"its"letter"of"the"same"date."
The"Center"did"not"act"on"Shells"November"3"letter;"instead,"the"respondent"sent"a"letter"dated"November"19,"
1999"(respondents"November"19"letter)"to"Shell"requiring"it"to"replace"the"amount"equivalent"to"the"amount"
of"the"cancelled"TCCs"used"by"Shell"to"satisfy"its"customs"duties"and"taxes."The"pertinent"portion"of"the"
respondents"November"19"letter"states:"
In"view"of"such"cancellation,"it"becomes"apparent"that"the"Customs"Official"Receipts"previously"issued"to"
[Shell]"with"the"applications"of"the"[TCCs]"cited"in"said"lists"becomes"null"and"void"ab"initio."In"view"thereof,"
your"corporation"must"have"to"replace"amount"of"P209,129,141.00"which"is"equivalent"to"the"amount"of"the"
[TCCs]"cancelled."The"corresponding"interest,"surcharge"and"penalties"thereof"shall"be"relayed"to"you"in"due"
time"after"the"recomputation."
Your"immediate"response"to"this"demand"letter"shall"be"appreciated."
Shell"submitted"its"reply"letter"dated"December"23,"1999."4"Shell"maintained"that"the"cancellation"was"
improper"since"this"was"done"without"affording"the"corporation"its"right"to"due"process."It"further"claimed"that"
the"existence"of"fraud"in"the"issuance"and"transfer"of"the"TCCs,"or"even"Shells"participation"in"the"alleged"
fraud,"had"not"been"sufficiently"established."
Three"years"later,"through"letters"dated"February"15,"February"20,"and"April"12,"2002"(respondents"collection"
letters),"the"respondent,"through"Atty."Gil"Valera"(Atty."Valera),"Deputy"Commissioner"for"Revenue"Collections"
Monitoring"Group,"formally"demanded"from"Shell"payment"of"the"amounts"corresponding"to"the"listed"TCCs"
that"the"Center"had"previously"cancelled."Except"for"the"amount"due,"the"respondents"collection"letters"were"
similarly"worded,"as"follows:"
In"as"much"as"the"same"[TCCs]"were"reported"as"having"been"utilized"to"pay"your"government"obligations"
earlier,"formal"demand"is"hereby"being"made"upon"you"to"pay"back"the"total"amount"of"x"x"x"within"five"(5)"
days"from"receipt"thereof"[sic]."Failure"on"your"part"to"settle"your"obligation"would"constrain"the"Bureau"of"
Customs"to"initiate"legal"action"in"the"regular"court."
Please"consider"this"as"our"last"and"final"demand."
As"mentioned,"all"three"letters"were"signed"by"Atty."Valera."
Shell"replied"to"the"respondents"February"15"and"20,"2002"collection"letters"via"letters"dated"February"27"and"
March"4,"2002."Before"it"could"reply"to"the"respondents"April"12,"2002"collection"letter,"Shell"received"on"April"
23,"2002"the"summons"in"one5"of"the"three"collection"cases6"filed"by"respondent"against"Shell"before"the"
Regional"Trial"Court"(RTC)"of"Manila."In"these"collection"cases,"the"respondent"sought"to"recover"the"amounts"
covered"by"the"cancelled"TCCs;"the"complaints"were"all"similarly"worded"except"for"the"amount"and"TCCs"
involved,"and"were"signed"by"Atty."Valera."
On"May"23,"2002,"Shell"filed"with"the"CTA"a"Petition"for"Review"questioning"the"BOC"collection"efforts"for"lack"
of"legal"and"factual"basis."To"quote"the"issues"Shell"submitted"in"its"CTA"petition:"
1."Whether"or"not"the"TCCs"subject"of"the"instant"petition"for"are"genuine"and"authentic;"
2."Whether"or"not"petitioners"right"to"due"process"of"law"was"violated"by"the"issuance"of"the"1999"collection"
letter"and/or"the"filing"of"the"collection"cases,"both"of"which"seek"to"enforce"the"Excom"Resolution;"
3."Whether"or"not"attempts"to"collect"unpaid"duties"and"taxes,"being"based"on"the"bare"allegation"that"the"
TCCs"were"fraudulently"issued"and"transferred,"can"be"given"any"effect"considering"that"fraud"is"never"
presumed"but"must"be"proven;"
4."Assuming"arguendo"that"fraud"was"present"in"the"issuance"of"the"original"TCCs,"whether"or"not"such"fraud"
can"work"to"the"prejudice"of"an"innocent"purchaser"for"value"who"is"not"a"party"to"such"fraud;"
5."Whether"or"not"the"respondent"and"the"DOF/Center"are"stopped"from"invalidating"the"TCCs"and"the"
transfers"and"utilizations"thereof;"
6."Whether"or"not"the"TCCs,"having"been"utilized,"are"already"functus"officio"and"can"no"longer"be"cancelled.7"
The"respondent"filed"a"motion"to"dismiss"Shells"petition"for"review"on"the"ground"of"prescription."The"
respondent"claimed"that"Shells"petition"was"filed"beyond"the"30Dday"period"provided"by"law"for"appeals"of"
decisions"of"the"Commissioner"of"Customs"to"the"CTA."The"respondent"also"contended"that"this"30Dday"period"
should"be"counted"from"the"time"Shell"received"the"respondents"collection"letters."
Shell"countered"by"invoking"the"case"of"Yabes"v."Flojo,8"where"this"Court"ruled,"under"the"circumstances"of"
that"case,"that"a"complaint"for"collection"filed"in"court"may"be"considered"a"final"decision"or"assessment"of"the"
Commissioner9"that"opened"the"way"for"an"appeal"to"the"CTA."Applying"that"principle,"Shell"contends"the"30D
day"reglementary"period"should"be"counted"from"the"date"it"received"the"summons"for"one"of"the"collection"
cases"filed"by"respondent"or,"specifically,"on"April"23,"2002,"not"from"the"date"that"it"received"the"respondents"
collection"letters."The"petition"for"review,"having"been"filed"on"May"23,"2002,"was"thus"instituted"within"the"
period"provided"by"law."
The"CTA"found"the"respondents"contentions"unmeritorious,"and"thus"denied"his"motion"to"dismiss"in"a"
Resolution"dated"January"28,"2003.10"The"tax"court"noted"that"the"collection"letters"were"issued"and"signed"
only"by"Atty."Valera,"not"by"the"respondent,"so"that"Shell"was"justified"in"not"heeding"the"demand."The"CTA"
consequently"declared"that"it"is"the"filing"of"the"collection"cases"in"court"that"should"instead"be"considered"as"
the"final"decision"of"the"respondent,"and"only"then"should"the"30Dday"period"to"appeal"commence."The"
respondent"elevated"the"CTA"decision"to"the"CA"after"the"CTA"denied"its"motion"for"reconsideration.11"
The"appellate"court"annulled"and"set"aside"the"CTA"rulings"in"its"decision"dated"May"3,"2006.12"It"found"the"
collection"letters"written"by"Atty."Valera""indicative"of"[respondents]"final"rulings"on"the"assessments"
concerning"the"spurious"TCCs"xxx"which"were"then"already"appealable"to"the"respondent"CTA."Each"letter"
carried"a"clear"demand"to"pay"within"five"(5)"days"from"receipt,"and"each"also"carried"a"warning"that"this"[is]"
our"last"and"final"demand.""On"the"authority"of"Atty."Valera"to"issue"the"collection"letters,"the"appellate"court"
pointed"to"Customs"Memorandum"Circular"(CMC)"No."27D2001"that"delegated"the"Commissioners"authority"
on"matters"relating"to"tax"credit"and"transfers"of"tax"credit"to"Atty."Valera,"and"to"Customs"Memorandum"
Order"(CMO)"No."40D2001"that"delegated"the"authority"to"sign,"file,"and"prosecute"civil"complaints"likewise"to"
Atty."Valera."
Shells"attempt"to"have"the"CA"decision"reconsidered"proved"unsuccessful;"hence,"this"petition."
THE"PETITION"
Shell"insists,"in"this"petition"for"review"on"certiorari,"that"its"petition"for"review"with"the"CTA"was"filed"within"
the"30Dday"reglementary"period"that,"it"posits,"should"be"counted"from"the"date"it"received"the"summons"for"
the"collection"cases"filed"by"respondent"against"it"before"the"regular"court."Shell"cites"this"Courts"ruling"in"
Yabes"v."Flojo.13"
On"the"assumption"that"the"collection"letters"amounted"to"a"decision"on"its"protest,"Shell"submits"that"these"
are"not""decision[s]"of"the"Commissioner'of'Customs""appealable"to"the"CTA"under"Section"7,"Republic"Act"(RA)"
No."1125,"as"amended"by"RA"No."9282.14"It"maintains"that"it"is"the"Commissioners"decision"on"the"taxpayers"
liability"for"customs"duties"and"taxes,"not"the"decision"of"his"subordinate,"which"is"the"proper"subject"of"the"
appeal"to"the"CTA,"the"delegation"of"authority"under"CMC"No."27D2001"and"CMO"No."40D2001"
notwithstanding."It"additionally"claims"that"Atty."Valera"was"prohibited"from"carrying"out"his"delegated"duties"
under"the"injunctive"writ"issued"the"RTC"of"Manila"in"its"Order"dated"August"27,"2001,"and"the"Temporary"
Restraining"Order"the"CA"issued"on"April"4,"2002."
THE"COURTS"RULING"
We"resolve"to"DENY"Shells"petition;"the"present"case"does"not"involve"a"tax"protest"case"within"the"jurisdiction"
of"the"CTA"to"resolve."
The"parties"argue"over"which"act"serves"as"the"decision"of"the"respondent"that,"under"the"law,"can"be"the"
subject"of"an"appeal"before"the"CTA,"and"from"which"act"the"30Dday"period"to"appeal"shall"be"reckoned."Shell"
insists"it"should"be"the"filing"of"the"collection"suits"as"this"was"indicative"of"the"finality"of"the"respondents"
action."The"respondent,"on"the"other"hand,"claims,"it"should"be"the"earlier"act"of"sending"the"collection"letters"
where"the"respondent"finally"indicated"his"resolve"to"collect"the"duties"due"and"demandable"from"Shell."
Section"7"of"RA"No."1125,"as"amended,"states:"
Sec."7."Jurisdiction.""The"CTA"shall"exercise:"
(a)"Exclusive"appellate"jurisdiction"to"review"by"appeal"xxx;"
xxx"xxx"xxx"
4."Decisions"of"the"Commissioner"of"Customs"in"cases"involving"liability"for"customs"duties,"fees"or"other"
money"charges,"seizure,"detention,"or"release"or"property"affected,"fines,"forfeitures"or"other"penalties"in"
relation"thereto,"or"other"matters"arising"under"the"Customs"Law"or"other"laws"administered"by"the"Bureau"of"
Customs;"
These"decisions"of"the"respondent"involving"customs"duties"specifically"refer"to"his"decisions"on"administrative'
tax'protest'cases,"as"stated"in"Section"2402"of"the"Tariff"and"Customs"Code"of"the"Philippines"(TCCP):"
Section"2402."Review"by"Court"of"Tax"Appeals.""The"party"aggrieved"by"a"ruling"of"the"Commissioner"in"any"
matter"brought"before"him"upon"protest"or"by"his"action"or"ruling"in"any"case"of"seizure"may"appeal"to"the"
Court"of"Tax"Appeals,"in"the"manner"and"within"the"period"prescribed"by"law"and"regulations."
Unless"an"appeal"is"made"to"the"Court"of"Tax"Appeals"in"the"manner"and"within"the"period"prescribed"by"laws"
and"regulations,"the"action"or"ruling"of"the"Commissioner"shall"be"final"and"conclusive."[Emphasis"supplied.]"
A"tax"protest"case,"under"the"TCCP,"involves"a"protest"of"the"liquidation"of"import"entries."A"liquidation"is"the"
final"computation"and"ascertainment"by"the"collector"of"the"duties"on"imported"merchandise,"based"on"official"
reports"as"to"the"quantity,"character,"and"value"thereof,"and"the"collectors"own"finding"as"to"the"applicable"
rate"of"duty;"it"is"akin"to"an"assessment"of"internal"revenue"taxes"under"the"National"Internal"Revenue"Code15"
where"the"tax"liability"of"the"taxpayer"is"definitely"determined."
In"the"present"case,"the"facts"reveal"that"Shell"received"three"sets"of"letters:"
a."the"Centers"November"3"letter,"signed"by"the"Secretary"of"Finance,"informing"it"of"the"cancellation"of"the"
TCCs;"
b."the"respondents"November"19"letter"requiring"it"to"replace"the"amount"equivalent"to"the"amount"of"the"
cancelled"TCCs"used"by"Shell;"and"
c."the"respondents"collection"letters"issued"through"Atty."Valera,"formally"demanding"the"amount"covered"by"
the"cancelled"TCCs."
None"of"these"letters,"however,"can"be"considered"as"a"liquidation"or"an"assessment"of"Shells"import"tax"
liabilities"that"can"be"the"subject"of"an"administrative"tax"protest"proceeding"before"the"respondent"whose"
decision"is"appealable"to"the"CTA."Shells"import"tax"liabilities"had"long"been"computed"and"ascertained"in"the"
original"assessments,16"and"Shell"paid"these"liabilities"using"the"TCCs"transferred"to"it"as"payment."It"is"even"an"
error"to"consider"the"letters"as"a""reassessment""because"they"refer"to"the"same"tax"liabilities"on"the"same"
importations"covered"by"the"original"assessments."The"letters"merely"reissued"the"original"assessments"that"
were"previously"settled"by"Shell"with"the"use"of"the"TCCs."However,"on"account"of"the"cancellation"of"the"TCCs,"
the"tax"liabilities"of"Shell"under"the"original"assessments"were"considered"unpaid;"hence,"the"letters"and"the"
actions"for"collection."When"Shell"went"to"the"CTA,"the"issues"it"raised"in"its"petition"were"all"related"to"the"fact"
and"efficacy"of"the"payments"made,"specifically"the"genuineness"of"the"TCCs;"the"absence"of"due"process"in"
the"enforcement"of"the"decision"to"cancel"the"TCCs;"the"facts"surrounding"the"fraud"in"originally"securing"the"
TCCs;"and"the"application"of"estoppel."These"are"payment"and"collection"issues,"not"tax"protest"issues"within"
the"CTAs"jurisdiction"to"rule"upon.1avvphi1"
We"note"in"this"regard"that"Shell"never"protested"the"original"assessments"of"its"tax"liabilities"and"in"fact"
settled"them"using"the"TCCs."These"original"assessments,"therefore,"have"become"final,"incontestable,"and"
beyond"any"subsequent"protest"proceeding,"administrative"or"judicial,"to"rule"upon."
To"be"very"precise,"Shells"petition"before"the"CTA"principally"questioned"the"validity"of"the"cancellation"of"the"
TCCs""a"decision"that"was"made"not"by"the"respondent,"but"by"the"Center."As"the"CTA"has"no"jurisdiction"over"
decisions"of"the"Center,"Shells"remedy"against"the"cancellation"should"have"been"a"certiorari"petition"before"
the"regular"courts,"not"a"tax"protest"case"before"the"CTA."Records"do"not"show"that"Shell"ever"availed"of"this"
remedy."Alternatively,"as"we"held"in"Shell'v.'Republic'of'the'Philippines,17"the"appropriate"forum"for"Shell"under"
the"circumstances"of"this"case"should"be"at"the"collection"cases"before"the"RTC"where"Shell"can"put"up"the"fact"
of"its"payment"as"a"defense."
Parenthetically,"our"conclusions"are"fully"in"step"with"what"we"held"in"Shell'v.'Republic18"that"a"case"becomes"
ripe"for"filing"with"the"RTC"as"a"collection"matter"after"the"finality"of"the"respondents"assessment."We"hereby"
confirm"that"this"assessment"has"long"been"final,"and"this"recognition"of"finality"removes"all"perceived"
hindrances,"based"on"this"case,"to"the"continuation"of"the"collection"suits."In"Dayrit'v.'Cruz,19"we"declared"on"
the"matter"of"collection"that:"
[A]"suit"for"the"collection"of"internal"revenue"taxes,"where"the"assessment"has"already"become"final"and"
executory,"the"action"to"collect"is"akin"to"an"action"to"enforce"the"judgment."No"inquiry"can"be"made"therein"
as"to"the"merits"of"the"original"case"or"the"justness"of"the"judgment"relied"upon."
In"light"of"our"conclusion"that"the"present"case"does"not"involve"a"decision"of"the"respondent"on"a"matter"
brought"to"him"as"a"tax"protest,"Atty."Valeras"lack"of"authority"to"issue"the"collection"letters"and"to"institute"
the"collection"suits"is"irrelevant."For"this"same"reason,"the"injunction"against"Atty."Valera"cannot"be"invoked"to"
enjoin"the"collection"of"unpaid"taxes"due"from"Shell."
WHEREFORE,"we"DENY%Shells"petition"for"review"on"certiorari"and"AFFIRM%the"result"of"the"Decision"of"the"
Court"of"Appeals"dated"May"3,"2006"in"CADG.R."SP"No."78564,"based"on"the"principles"and"conclusion"laid"down"
in"this"Decision."Shells"petition"for"review"before"the"Court"of"Tax"Appeals,"docketed"as"CTA"Case"No."6484,"is"
DISMISSED."
SO"ORDERED."
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
G.R.%No.%104604%October%6,%1995%
NARCISO%O.%JAO%and%BERNARDO%M.%EMPEYNADO,%petitioners,""
vs."
COURT%OF%APPEALS;%COMMISSIONER%OF%CUSTOMS;%COLLECTOR%OF%CUSTOMS,%Port%of%Manila;%Col.%
SINDULFO%R.%SEBASTIAN,%Director,%Enforcement%and%Security%Services,%Bureau%of%Customs;%and%Maj.%JAIME%
MAGLIPON,%Chief,%Operations%and%Intelligence%Staff,%Enforcement%and%Security%Services,%Bureau%of%Customs,%
respondents."
G.R.%No.%111223%October%6,%1995%
NARCISO%O.%JAO%and%BERNARDO%M.%EMPEYNADO,%petitioners,""
vs."
THE%HONORABLE%OMBUDSMAN%CONRADO%M.%VASQUEZ,%and%SINDULFO%SEBASTIAN,%JAIME%MAGLIPON;%
JOSE%YUCHONGCO;%RICARDO%CORONADO;%VICTOR%BARROS;%DENNIS%BANTIGUE;%ROY%LARA;%BENJAMIN%
SANTOS;%RODOLFO%GONDA;%ADONIS%REJOSO;%DANIEL%PENAS;%NICANOR%BONES;%ABUNDIO%JUMAMOY;%
ARTEMIO%CASTILLO;%ANDRESITO%ABAYON;%RUBEN%TAGUBA;%JAIME%JAVIER;%HERBERT%DOLLANO,%all%with%the%
Bureau%of%Customs;%JOVY%GUTIERREZ%of%the%Makati%police,%and%'JOHN%DOES',%respondents."
""
ROMERO,%J.:"
G.R."No."104604"is"a"petition"for"certiorari'of"the"decision%1"of"the"Court"of"Appeals,"the"dispositive"portion"of"
which"states:"
WHEREFORE,"the"petition"is"hereby"GRANTED."The"orders"issued"by"the"respondent"judge"dated"November"
20,"1990,"December"10,"1990,"January"3,"1991"and"all"subsequent"orders"in"the"Civil"Case"No."90D2382"of"the"
Regional"Trial"Court"of"Makati"are"SET"ASIDE."Having"no"jurisdiction"over"the"case,"the"respondent"judge"is"
hereby"enjoined"from"proceeding"with"Civil"Case"No."90D2382"and"further,"Case"No."90D2382"is"hereby"
DISMISSED."
SO"ORDERED."
G.R."No."111223"is"a"petition"for"certiorari'of"the"resolution"of"the"Ombudsman%2"dismissing"the"case"filed"
before"it"by"herein"petitioner."
The"aboveDdocketed"cases"were"consolidated"per"resolution"of"the"Court"on"August"26,"1993,"as"the"facts"in"
both"cases"were"the"same."
These"facts"are"the"following:"
On"August"10,"1990,"the"Office"of"the"Director,"Enforcement"and"Security"Services"(ESS),"Bureau"of"Customs,"
received"information"regarding"the"presence"of"allegedly"untaxed"vehicles"and"parts"in"the"premises"owned"by"
a"certain"Pat"Hao"located"along"Quirino"Avenue,"Paranaque"and"Honduras"St.,"Makati."After"conducting"a"
surveillance"of"the"two"places,"respondent"Major"Jaime"Maglipon,"Chief"of"Operations"and"Intelligence"of"the"
ESS,"recommended"the"issuance"of"warrants"of"seizure"and"detention"against"the"articles"stored"in"the"
premises."
On"August"13,"1990,"District"Collector"of"Customs"Titus"Villanueva"issued"the"warrants"of"seizure"and"
detention."
On"the"same"date,"respondent"Maglipon"coordinated"with"the"local"police"substations"to"assist"them"in"the"
execution"of"the"respective"warrants"of"seizure"and"detention."Thereafter,"the"team"searched"the"two"
premises."
In"Makati,"they"were"barred"from"entering"the"place,"but"some"members"of"the"team"were"able"to"force"
themselves"inside."They"were"able"to"inspect"the"premises"and"noted"that"some"articles"were"present"which"
were"not"included"in"the"list"contained"in"the"warrant.."Hence,"on"August"15,"1990,"amended"warrants"of"
seizure"and"detention"were"issued"by"Villanueva."
On"August"25,"1990,"customs"personnel"started"hauling"the"articles"pursuant"to"the"amended"warrants."This"
prompted"petitioners"Narciso"Jao"and"Bernardo"Empeynado"to"file"a"case"for"Injunction"and"Damages,"
docketed"as"Civil"Case"No."90D2382"with"prayer"for"Restraining"Order"and"Preliminary"Injunction"before"the"
Regional"Trial"Court"of"Makati"Branch"56"on"August"27,"1990"against"respondents."On"the"same"date,"the"trial"
court"issued"a"Temporary"Restraining"Order."
On"September"7,"1990,"respondents"filed"a"Motion"to"Dismiss"on"the"ground"that"the"Regional"Trial"Court"has"
no"jurisdiction"over"the"subject"matter"of"the"complaint,"claiming"that"it"was"the"Bureau"of"Customs"that"had"
exclusive"jurisdiction"over"it."
On"November"20,"1990,"the"trial"court"denied"respondents'"motion"to"dismiss."
On"November"29,"1990,"petitioners'"application"for"preliminary"prohibitory"and"mandatory"injunction"was"
granted"conditioned"upon"the"filing"of"a"one"million"peso"bond."
The"Court"also"prohibited"respondents"from"seizing,"detaining,"transporting"and"selling"at"public"auction"
petitioners'"vehicles,"spare"parts,"accessories"and"other"properties"located"at"No."2663"Honduras"St.,"San"
Isidro,"Makati"and"at"No."240"Quirino"Avenue,"Tambo,"Paranaque,"Metro"Manila."Respondents"were"further"
prohibited"from"disturbing"petitioners'"constitutional"and"proprietary"rights"over"their"properties"located"at"
the"aforesaid"premises."Lastly,"respondents"were"ordered"to"return"the"seized"items"and"to"render"an"
accounting"and"inventory"thereof."
On"December"13,"1990,"respondents"filed"a"motion"for"reconsideration"based"on"the"following"grounds:"
a)"the"lower"court"having"no"jurisdiction"over"the"subject"matter"of"the"complaint,"it"has"no"recourse"but"to"
dismiss"the"same;"and"
(b)"the"lower"court"had"no"legal"authority"to"issue"an"injunction"therein."
On"January"3,"1991"the"motion"for"reconsideration"was"denied."Respondents"then"went"to"the"Court"of"
Appeals"on"the"ground"that"the"judge"acted"with"grave"abuse"of"discretion"in"denying"their"motion"to"dismiss"
and"in"granting"petitioners'"application"for"preliminary"injunction."They"argued"that"the"Regional"Trial"Court"
had"no"jurisdiction"over"seizure"and"forfeiture"proceedings,"such"jurisdiction"being"exclusively"vested"in"the"
Bureau"of"Customs."
The"Court"of"Appeals"set"aside"the"questioned"orders"of"the"trial"court"and"enjoined"it"from"further"proceeding"
with"Civil"Case"No."90D2382."The"appellate"court"also"dismissed"the"said"civil"case."
On"May"2,"1992,"petitioners"filed"a"petition"with"this"Court"to"review"the"decision"of"the"Court"of"Appeals"
docketed"as"G.R."No."104604."
As"regards"G.R."No."111223,"petitioners"filed"criminal"charges"against"respondents,"other"officers"and"
employees"of"the"Bureau"of"Customs"and"members"of"the"Makati"Police"before"the"Office"of"the"Ombudsman"
for"Robbery,"Violation"of"Domicile"and"Violation"of"Republic"Act"No."3019,"docketed"as"OMB"Case"No."0D90D
2027."
Respondent"Ombudsman"summarized"the"case"before"it"as"follows:"
This"is"an"affidavitDcomplaint"filed"by"the"complainants"against"the"respondents,"Officers"and"Employees"of"the"
Bureau"of"Customs"and"members"of"the"Makati"Police"allegedly"for"violation"of"Domicile"and"Robbery"defined"
and"penalized"under"Articles"128,"293"and"294"of"the"Revised"Penal"Code"and"for"violation"of"R.A."3019"
committed"as"follows,"to"wit:"
That"on"August"11,"1990,"after"receiving"intelligence"information"of"the"presence"of"smuggled"goods,"some"of"
the"respondents"headed"by"Jaime"Maglipon"posed"themselves"as"Meralco"inspectors"and"entered"
complainants'"stockyards"and"residence"located"at"2663"Honduras"Street,"Makati,"Metro"Manila"and"at"240"
Quirino"Avenue,"Tambo"Paranaque"for"the"purpose"of"searching"smuggled"goods"found"therein"without"the"
consent"of"the"owner"thereof;"
That"after"the"search,"respondents"on"August"13,"1990"up"to"August"25,"1990,"this"time"clothed"with"a"Warrant"
of"Seizure"and"Detention,"with"the"aid"of"the"Makati"Police"and"several"heavily"armed"men"entered"
complainants"stockyard"located"at"2663"Honduras"St.,"Makati,"Metro"Manila,"and"pulled"out"therefrom"several"
machineries"and"truck"spare"parts"without"issuing"the"corresponding"receipts"to"the"complainants"to"cover"all"
the"items"taken."
Respondents"claimed"in"their"consolidated"and"verified"comment"that"they"are"not"liable"for"violation"of"
domicile"because"the"places"entered"and"searched"by"them"appear"not"to"be"the"residences"of"the"
complainants"but"only"their"warehouses."As"proof"of"this"allegation,"the"respondents"presented"the"pictures"of"
said"warehouses,"which"are"attached"to"their"comment"as"Annexes""6",""6DA""to""6DC""and"the"Sheriff's"return"
likewise"attached"to"their"verified"comments"as"Annex""7"."According"to"the"respondents,"a"charge"for"
violation"of"domicile"may"apply"only"if"the"place"entered"into"against"the"will"of"the"owner"is"used"exclusively"
for"dwelling."In"the"case"at"bar,"the"place"entered"into"was"used"more"of"a"warehouse"than"a"dwelling"place."
Further"respondents"also"claimed"not"liable"for"robbery"(sic)"because"the"complainants"appear"not"to"be"the"
owners"of"the"properties"taken."Moreover,"the"respondents"claimed"that"the"taking"is"lawful"because"the"
same"proceeded"from"a"warrant"of"Seizures"and"Detention;"there"was"no"violence"or"intimidation"of"person"
committed"and"that"there"was"no"intent"to"gain"on"the"part"of"the"respondents,"the"purpose"of"the"seizure"of"
the"subject"goods"being"to"collect"customs"duties"and"taxes"due"the"government."
Lastly,"the"respondents"disclaimed"liability"for"a"violation"of"R.A."3019"because"they"deny"having"demanded"
from"the"complainants"the"sum"of"P100,000.00."Instead"according"to"the"respondents,"it"was"the"complainants"
who"offered"them"P70,000.00"to"delay"the"hauling"of"the"seized"goods"as"attested"to"in"the"joint"affidavit"of"
CPSGT,"Ricardo"Coronado"and"Dennis"Bantequi."
A"preliminary"investigation"was"conducted"and"on"May"31,"1991,"another"hearing"was"held"to"give"the"parties"
a"chance"to"submit"further"evidence"to"support"their"respective"claims."
On"March"15,"1993"respondent"Ombudsman"issued"a"Resolution"recommending"that"the"case"be"dismissed"for"
lack"of"merit."
On"May"17,"1993,"petitioners"moved"for"the"reconsideration"of"said"resolution,"but"the"same"was"denied"on"
July"8,"1993."
Hence,"the"petition"in"G.R."No."111223,"which"was"filed"on"August"16,"1993."
In"G.R."No."111223,"petitioners"claim"that"respondent"Ombudsman"gravely"abused"his"discretion"in"dismissing"
the"case"and"in"denying"petitioners'"motion"for"reconsideration."
They"allege"that"respondent"Ombudsman"ignored"evidence"incriminatory"to"the"raiders;"that"the"receipts"did"
not"tally"with"petitioners'"receipts"nor"with"the"Commission"on"Audit's"inventory;"that"the"respondents"are"
guilty"of"robbery"and"of"violating"petitioners'"constitutional"right"against"violation"of"domicile."For"these"
reasons,"petitioners"pray"that"the"Ombudsman's"resolution"be"reversed"and"that"the"Court"direct"the"
Ombudsman"to"cause"the"filing"of"criminal"charges"as"may"be"warranted"against"respondents."
We"find"the"petition"in"G.R."No."111223"devoid"of"merit."
The"Court,"recognizing"the"investigatory"and"prosecutory"powers"granted"by"the"Constitution"to"the"Office"of"
the"Ombudsman"and"for"reasons"of"practicality,"declared,"in"an"En'Banc"resolution"dated"August"30,"1993,"
issued"in"G.R."Nos."103446D47%3"that"the"Court"will"not"interfere"nor"pass"upon"findings"of"public"respondent"
Ombudsman"to"avoid"its"being"hampered"by"innumerable"petitions"assailing"the"dismissal"of"investigatory"
proceedings"conducted"by"the"Office"of"the"Ombudsman"with"regard"to"complaints"filed"before"it,"and"that"it"
will"not"review"the"exercise"of"discretion"on"the"part"of"the"fiscals"or"prosecuting"attorneys"each"time"they"
decide"to"file"an"information"in"court"or"dismiss"a"complaint"by"a"private"complainant."The"dismissal"by"the"
Ombudsman"of"petitioners'"complaint,"therefore,"stands."
We"will"now"discuss"G.R."No."104604."
Petitioners"contend:"(1)"that"the"Court"of"Appeals"erred"in"not"holding"that"the"Collector"of"Customs"could"no"
longer"order"the"seizure"for"the"second"time"of"items"previously"seized"and"released"after"amnesty"payments"
of"duties"and"taxes;"(2)"that"the"Bureau"of"Customs"has"lost"jurisdiction"to"order"the"seizure"of"the"items"
because"the"importation"had"ceased;"(3)"that"the"seizure"of"the"items"deprived"the"petitioners"of"their"
properties"without"due"process"of"law;"and"(4)"that"there"is"no"need"to"exhaust"administrative"remedies."
We"find"no"merit"in"petitioners'"contentions."
There"is"no"question"that"Regional"Trial"Courts"are"devoid"of"any"competence"to"pass"upon"the"validity"or"
regularity"of"seizure"and"forfeiture"proceedings"conducted"by"the"Bureau"of"Customs"and"to"enjoin"or"
otherwise"interfere"with"these"proceedings%4"The"Collector"of"Customs"sitting"in"seizure"and"forfeiture"
proceedings"has"exclusive'jurisdiction"to"hear"and"determine"all"questions"touching"on"the"seizure"and"
forfeiture"of"dutiable"goods."The"Regional"Trial"Courts"are"precluded"from"assuming"cognizance"over"such"
matters"even"through"petitions"of"certiorari,"prohibition"or"mandamus.%5"
It"is"likewise"wellDsettled"that"the"provisions"of"the"Tariff"and"Customs"Code"and"that"of"Republic"Act"No."1125,"
as"amended,"otherwise"known"as""An"Act"Creating"the"Court"of"Tax"Appeals,""specify"the"proper"fora"and"
procedure"for"the"ventilation"of"any"legal"objections"or"issues"raised"concerning"these"proceedings."Thus,"
actions"of"the"Collector"of"Customs"are"appealable"to"the"Commissioner"of"Customs,"whose"decision,"in"turn,"is"
subject"to"the"exclusive"appellate"jurisdiction"of"the"Court"of"Tax"Appeals"and"from"there"to"the"Court"of"
Appeals."
The"rule"that"Regional"Trial"Courts"have"no"review"powers"over"such"proceedings"is"anchored"upon"the"policy"
of"placing"no"unnecessary"hindrance"on"the"government's"drive,"not"only"to"prevent"smuggling"and"other"
frauds"upon"Customs,"but"more"importantly,"to"render"effective"and"efficient"the"collection"of"import"and"
export"duties"due"the"State,"which"enables"the"government"to"carry"out"the"functions"it"has"been"instituted"to"
perform.%6"
Even"if"the"seizure"by"the"Collector"of"Customs"were"illegal,"which"has"yet"to"be"proven,"we"have"said"that"such"
act"does"not"deprive"the"Bureau"of"Customs"of"jurisdiction"thereon."
Respondents"assert"that"respondent"Judge"could"entertain"the"replevin"suit"as"the"seizure"is"illegal,"allegedly"
because"the"warrant"issued"is"invalid"and"the"seizing"officer"likewise"was"devoid"of"authority."This"is"to"lose"
sight"of"the"distinction"between"the"existence"of"the"power"and"the"regularity"of"the"proceeding"taken"under"
it."The"governmental"agency"concerned,"the"Bureau"of"Customs,"is"vested"with"exclusive"authority."Even"if"it"
be"assumed"that"in"the"exercise"of"such"exclusive"competence"a"taint"of"illegality"may"be"correctly"imputed,"
the"most"that"can"be"said"is"that"under"certain"circumstances"the"grave"abuse"of"discretion"conferred"may"oust"
it"of"such"jurisdiction."It"does"not"mean"however"that"correspondingly"a"court"of"first"instance"is"vested"with"
competence"when"clearly"in"the"light"of"the"decisions"the"law"has"not"seen"fit"to"do"so.%7"
The"allegations"of"petitioners"regarding"the"propriety"of"the"seizure"should"properly"be"ventilated"before"the"
Collector"of"Customs."We"have"had"occasion"to"declare:"
The"Collector"of"Customs"when"sitting"in"forfeiture"proceedings"constitutes"a"tribunal"expressly"vested"by"law"
with"jurisdiction"to"hear"and"determine"the"subject"matter"of"such"proceedings"without"any"interference"from"
the"Court"of"First"Instance."(Auyong"Hian"v."Court"of"Tax"Appeals,"et"al.,"19"SCRA"10)."The"Collector"of"Customs"
of"SualDDagupan"in"Seizure"Identification"No."14DFD72"constituted"itself"as"a"tribunal"to"hear"and"determine"
among"other"things,"the"question"of"whether"or"not"the"M/V"Lucky"Star"I"was"seized"within"the"territorial"
waters"of"the"Philippines."If"the"private"respondents"believe"that"the"seizure"was"made"outside"the"territorial"
jurisdiction"of"the"Philippines,"it"should"raise"the"same"as"a"defense"before"the"Collector"of"Customs"and"if"not"
satisfied,"follow"the"correct"appellate"procedures."A"separate"action"before"the"Court"of"First"Instance"is"not"
the"remedy.%8"
WHEREFORE,"the"petitions"in"G.R."No."104604"and"in"G.R."No."111223"are"hereby"DISMISSED"for"lack"of"merit."
SO"ORDERED."
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
[G.R.%No.%82586.%September%11,%1992.]%
%
HON.%SALVADOR%M.%MISON,%Commissioner%of%Customs,%and%CARLOS%L.%RAZO,%Collector%of%Customs%of%the%
Subport%of%Clark,%Petitioners,%v.%HON.%ELI%G.C.%NATIVIDAD,%Presiding%Judge%of%the%Regional%Trial%Court,%
Branch%XLVIII,%San%Fernando,%Pampanga,%and%CESAR%SONNY%CARLOS/CVC%TRADING,%Respondents.%
"
"
This"is"a"petition"for"certiorari"and"prohibition"filed"on"6"April"1988"to"annul,"for"having"been"issued"without"
jurisdiction"or"with"grave"abuse"of"discretion,"the"26"February"1988"Resolution"of"respondent"Judge""denying"
petitioners"motion"to"dismiss"Civil"Case"No."8109"pending"before"Branch"48"of"the"Regional"Trial"Court"(RTC)"
of"Pampanga"and"granting"private"respondents"motion"therein"for"the"issuance"of"a"writ"of"preliminary"
injunction""and"to"enjoin"respondent"Judge"from"proceeding"further"in"said"case."It"resurrects"a"longDsettled"
issue"of"the"jurisdiction"of"the"Regional"Trial"Court"over"actions"involving"articles"subject"to"seizure"
proceedings"under"the"Tariff"and"Customs"Code.chanrobles.com.ph":"virtual"law"library"
"
In"the"Resolution"of"18"April"1988,"this"Court"required"the"respondents"to"comment"on"the"petition"and"issued"
a"Temporary"Restraining"Order"restraining"the"respondent"Judge"from"further"proceeding"with"the"
aforementioned"Civil"Case"No."8109"or"from"enforcing"and/or"carrying"out"his"Resolution"of"26"February"1988."
1""
"
Private"respondent"subsequently"filed"his"Comment"2"to"the"petition,"to"which"petitioners"filed"a"Reply."3"
Private"respondent"then"filed"a"Rejoinder"4"to"the"latter."
"
This"Court"gave"due"course"to"the"petition"and"required"the"parties"to"submit"their"respective"Memoranda."5"
Both"manifested"that"they"have"sufficiently"expounded"on"the"relevant"issues"in"their"respective"Memoranda,"
which"the"Court"noted"and"granted."
"
The"factual"antecedents"disclosed"in"the"petition"are"as"follows:chanrob1es"virtual"1aw"library"
"
In"a"sworn"letter"6"dated"7"February"1988"and"addressed"to"the"Commissioner"of"Customs,"one"Butch"Martinez"
informed"the"former"of"the"existence"of"both""assembled"and"disassembled""knockedDdown"vehicles,"
particularly"Toyota"Lite"Aces,"at"the"compound"CVC"Trading,"which"is"owned"by"a"certain"Mr."Castro"and"
located"at"St."Jude"Avenue,"St."Jude"Village,"San"Fernando,"Pampanga."Martinez"requested"for"an"immediate"
investigation"thereon"and"prosecution"for"the"violation"of"customs"laws."
"
On"the"basis"thereof,"Gen."Benjamin"C."Cruz,"Acting"Director"of"the"National"Customs"Police,"formed"a"team"
composed"of"National"Customs"Police"(NCP)"and"Customs"Intelligence"and"Investigation"Division"(CIID)"
members,"issuing"the"same"a"Mission"Order"7"on"11"February"1988."The"team"proceeded"to"San"Fernando,"
Pampanga"on"the"same"day,"giving"due"notice"of"their"presence"to"the"PC"Region"III"Command"and"the"PCDINP"
Station"at"San"Fernando,"Pampanga."
"
Upon"arrival"at"the"place"pinpointed"by"Mr."Martinez"at"around"11:00"p.m.,"the"team"found"a"fenced"area"
containing"twenty"(20)"units"of"fully"and"partly"assembled"Toyota"Lite"Ace"vans."It"immediately"took"possession"
and"control"of"the"motor"vehicles"by"cordoning"off"the"enclosure."Thereafter,"at"about"11:30"p"m.,"two"(2)"
members"of"the"team"were"designated"to"secure"a"warrant"of"seizure"and"detention"from"the"Collector"of"
Customs"of"the"Subport"of"Clark,"8"herein"petitioner"Carlos"L."Razo."The"latter"instituted"seizure"proceedings"
against"the"abovementioned"vehicles"(Seizure"Identification"No."CABD01D88),"entitled""Republic"of"the"
Philippines"versus"Twenty"(20)"units"Toyota"LiteDAce,"CVC"Trading"St."Jude"Ave.,"Dolores"Homesite,"San"
Fernando,"Pampanga,"OWNER/CLAIMANT","for"the"violation"of""Section"2530"(f)"and"(1)D1"&"5""of"the"Tariff"
and"Customs"Code,"in"relation"to"Central"Bank"regulations."Accordingly,"at"about"8:00"a.m."on"12"February"
1988,"he"issued"a"Warrant"of"Seizure"and"Detention."9""
"
Since"receipt"of"the"warrant"was"refused"by"the"owner/claimant"or"any"of"his"representatives,"the"same"was"
served"by"substituted"service"through"the"posting"of"a"copy"thereof"on"one"of"the"subject"motor"vehicles"
found"near"the"gate"of"the"stockyard."An"inventory"of"the"vehicles"was"conducted"and"a"copy"thereof"was"
attached"to"the"return"of"the"warrant"made"to"the"issuing"authority."
"
At"about"11:00"a.m."on"12"February"1988,"when"the"team"was"about"to"haul"the"motor"vehicles"away,"two"(2)"
Regional"Trial"Court"sheriffs"arrived"with"a"temporary"restraining"order"issued"on"that"date"by"the"respondent"
Judge,"as"Executive"Judge"of"the"Regional"Trial"Court"of"San"Fernando,"Pampanga;"the"order"was"issued"in"
connection"with"Civil"Case"No."8109,"entitled""Sonny"Carlos,"plaintiff,"versus"Bureau"of"Customs"and/or"
Customs"Police"from"seizing"or"confiscating"the"vehicles"until"further"ordered,"and"directed"the"defendants"to"
attend"the"raffle"of"the"case"on"26"February"1988"at"9:00"oclock"in"the"morning"and"show"cause"why"a"writ"of"
preliminary"injunction"should"not"be"issued"against"them."It"further"required"plaintiff"to"submit"within"twenty"
four"(24)"hours"from"that"date"the"list"of"vehicles"in"question"and""not"to"dispose"any"(sic)"of"them"pending"
further"order"of"the"court.""10""
"
In"his"Complaint"11"in"the"aboveDentitled"case,"private"respondent"alleges"that"he"is"the"owner"of"several"
vehicles"which"are"legally"registered"in"his"name"and"that"he"has"paid"all"the"taxes"and""corresponding"
licenses""therefor;"he"further"avers"that"elements"of"the"defendant"Bureau"of"Customs"and/or"Customs"Police"
have"surrounded"his"residence"threatening"to"take"possession"of"the"vehicles."He"finally"prays"that"the"latter"
be"enjoined"from"doing"so"and"that"they"be"ordered"to"pay"damages"in"the"sum"of"P50,000.00."
"
By"virtue"of"the"restraining"order,"the"physical"transfer"of"the"vehicles"was"deferred,"however,"elements"of"the"
National"Customs"Police"and"the"PC"Regional"Command"remained"deployed"in"the"area"to"assert"possession"
and"control"over"the"seized"motor"vehicles"by"the"Bureau"of"Customs.chanrobles"virtualawlibrary"
chanrobles.com:chanrobles.com.ph"
"
On"16"February"1988,"lawyers"of"the"Bureau"of"Customs"filed"a"Motion"to"Dismiss"12"Civil"Case"No."8109"
alleging"therein"(a)"the"lack"of"jurisdiction"of"the"Regional"Trial"Court"over"the"subject"vehicles"in"view"of"the"
exclusive"jurisdiction"of"the"Collector"of"Customs"over"seizure"and"forfeiture"cases,"and"(b)"the"failure"of"the"
plaintiff"to"exhaust"administrative"remedies."
"
On"17"February"1988,"the"private"respondent"filed"an"Oppositions/Comment"on"the"Motion"to"Dismiss"13"
alleging,"among"others,"that"the"Warrant"of"Seizure"and"Detention"did"not"comply"with"the"requirements"for"a"
valid"search"warrant"under"the"Constitution,"and"that"taxes"for"the"vehicles"have"been"paid"to"the"Bureau"of"
Internal"Revenue"(BIR)."
"
The"Motion"to"Dismiss"was"heard"on"19"February"1988"by"the"respondent"Judge,"to"whose"branch"the"case"
was"raffled"off."After"said"hearing,"the"private"respondents"motion"and"application"for"preliminary"injunction"
were"deemed"submitted"for"resolution."
"
On"22"February"1988,"private"respondent"filed"an"Amended"Complaint"14"changing"his"name"from""Sonny"
Carlos""to""CESAR"SONNY"CARLOS""and"naming"as"defendants,"in"place"of"the""BUREAU"OF"CUSTOMS"AND/OR"
CUSTOMS"POLICE",""ATTY."CARLOS"L."RAZO,"in"his"capacity"as"Collector"of"Customs;"LOUIE"ROMERO,"BILLY"
BIBIT,"their"authorized"deputies"and"JOHN"DOES.""In"this"Amended"Complaint,"private"respondent"assails"the"
subject"warrant"for"being"patently""illegal"and"fatally"defective""and"void"of"any"virtue;"reiterates"his"
willingness"to"post"a"bond""in"an"amount"the"Court"may"fix"conditioned"upon"the"damages"that"the"
defendants"may"suffer"as"a"consequence"of"the"issuance"of"the"injunction;""and"asks"for"P500,000.00"as"actual"
damages,"P100,000.00"as"exemplary"and"corrective"damages,"P50,000.00"as"moral"damages"and"P50,000.00"as"
attorneys"fees."
"
In"the"meantime,"the"hearing"of"Seizure"Identification"No."CABD01D88"was"set"for"18"and"19"February"1988,"per"
Notice"of"Hearing"dated"15"February"1988"and"issued"by"petitioner"Collector"of"Customs."Since"the"
owner/claimant"CVC"Trading"refused"to"accept"a"copy"of"the"said"notice,"a"followDup"notice"of"hearing"was"
transmitted"to"it"thru"a"telegram;"the"latter"replied"also"by"telegram,15"declaring"that:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph"
"
"We"are"the"legal"possessors/owners"(sic)"of"the"vehicles"in"our"compound"there"can"be"no"forfeiture"since"a"
case"has"been"lodged"before"the"civil"courts"hearing"on"Feb."19,"1988"the"courts"have"assumed"jurisdiction"to"
your"exclusion."
"
Moreover"elementary"due"process"requires"service"of"documents"complaint."There"can"be"no"service"of"
summons"(sic)"or"notice"of"hearing"thru"telegrams."cralaw"virtua1aw"library"
"
At"the"hearing"on"18"February"1988,"Attys."Napoleon"Gatmaitan"and"Conrado"Unlayao,"CIID,"Bureau"of"
Customs,"appeared"for"the"Government."No"appearance"was"entered"for"the"owner/claimant."Thus,"the"
Government"was"allowed"to"present"evidence"exDparte."
"
On"26"February"1988,"petitioner"Collector"of"Customs"rendered"a"Decision"16"in"the"said"seizure"proceedings,"
the"dispositive"portion"of"which"reads:chanrobles"virtual"lawlibrary"
"
"WHEREOF,"by"authority"of"law"vested"in"the"undersigned,"it"is"hereby"ordered"that"the"Twenty"(20)"Units"
Toyota"Lite"Ace"covered"by"this"seizure"case"be,"as"they"are"hereby,"declared"forfeited"in"favor"of"the"
Government"to"be"disposed"of"in"the"manner"provided"for"by"law."
"
Let"copies"of"this"Decision"be"furnished"all"parties"and"office"(sic)"concerned,"with"a"copy"thereof"posted"in"the"
Bulletin"Board"of"this"Customhouse,"for"their"information"guidance"and"appropriate"action."cralaw"virtua1aw"
library"
"
On"the"same"date,"the"respondent"Judge"issued"a"Resolution"17"in"Civil"Case"No."8109"denying"the"motion"to"
dismiss"and"granting"the"application"for"a"writ"of"preliminary"injunction."The"pertinent"portions"thereof"
read:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph"
"
"I."Resolution"on"the"Motion"to"Dismiss"with"Prayer"to"Lift"Restraining"Order"
"
x'''''''x'''''''x"
"
"
A"reading"of"the"complaint"will"show"that"it"was"alleged"that"the"plaintiff"is"the"owner"of"the"subject"vehicles."
He"is"in"actual"and"physical"possession"of"the"same."Plaintiff"enjoys"the"presumption"of"ownership,"to"(sic)"
which"he"has"to"protect."
"
x'''''''x'''''''x"
"
"
It"is"to"be"noted"that"the"subject"matter"of"the"complaint"is"the"legal"ownership"of"the"vehicles"and"damages"
being"asked"by"plaintiff,"thus,"this"Court"can"assume"jurisdiction"over"the"case."The"mere"allegation"of"the"
defendants"that"the"subject"vehicles"were"smuggled"based"on"reliable"information"will"not"divest"this"Court"
of"jurisdiction."
"
x'''''''x'''''''x"
"
"
In"this"particular"case,"there"is"no"showing"that"plaintiff"is"an"importer"who"imported"dutiable"goods,"in"
entering"the"port"of"Clark"Air"Base,"imported"thru"that"port."The"goods"are"in"private"(sic)"place"owned"by"
plaintiff,"and"not"in"the"possession"of"the"collector"of"customs."
"
x'''''''x'''''''x"
"
"
The"numerous"Supreme"Court"decisions"cited"by"movant"in"his"motion"to"dismiss"have"very"remote"pertinence"
at"the"case"at"car."In"the"cited"cases,"dutiable"imported"goods"or"articles"were"seized"while"on"vessels"and/or"
customs"zone"(sic),"and"the"alleged"owners"filed"cases"of"replevin"or"recovery"of"personal"properties."
"
II."Resolution"in"the"Issuance"of"Writ"of"Preliminary"Injunction"
"
x'''''''x'''''''x"
"
"
Having"substantiated"the"said"allegations,"in"his"complaint"with"Annexes"and"considering"the"oral"arguments"of"
the"parties,"it"is"hereby"ordered"and"directed"that"after"the"plaintiff"filed"(sic)"the"bond"in"the"amount"of"
P100,000.00"as"fixed"by"this"Court,"all"the"defendants"and"any"other"persons"acting"under"their"command,"or"
for"(sic)"in"their"behalf,"to"(sic)"desist"and"refrain"from"guarding"the"area"of"the"plaintiff"and"from"seizing"or"
confiscating"the"vehicles"involved"in"this"case"pending"termination"of"this"litigation"and/or"unless"a"contrary"
order"is"issued"by"this"Court."Thus,"the"defendants"is"(sic)"hereby"inhibited"for"the"meantime"to"guard"the"area"
or"commit"trespass"of"plaintiffs"premises"in"any"manner"restrain"(sic)"the"movement"of"herein"plaintiff"and"his"
representatives"or"employees,"considering"that"there"is"standing"(sic)"of"this"Court"that"pending"the"
termination"of"this"case,"the"said"vehicles"should"not"be"disposed"of."cralaw"virtua1aw"library"
"
Hence,"this"petition"which"We"find"to"be"meritorious."It"should"be"granted.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary"
"
The"court"a"quo"jurisdiction"over"the"res"subject"of"the"warrant"of"seizure"and"detention."The"respondent"
Judge,"therefore,"acted"arbitrarily"and"despotically"in"issuing"the"temporary"restraining"order,"granting"the"writ"
of"preliminary"injunction"and"denying"the"motion"to"dismiss,"thereby"removing"the"res"from"the"control"of"the"
Collector"of"Customs"and"depriving"him"of"his"exclusive"original"jurisdiction"over"the"controversy."Respondent"
Judge"exercised"a"power"he"never"had"and"encroached"upon"the"exclusive"original"jurisdiction"of"the"Collector"
of"Customs."By"express"provision"of"law,"amply"supported"by"wellDsettled"jurisprudence,"the"Collector"of"
Customs"has"exclusive"jurisdiction"over"seizure"and"forfeiture"proceedings"and"regular"courts"cannot"interfere"
with"his"exercise"thereof"or"stifle"or"put"it"to"naught."
"
In"the"1966"case"of"Pacis"v."Averia,"18"this"Court,"speaking"through"Mr."Justice"J.P."Bengzon,"held"
that:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph"
"
"The"Tariff"and"Customs"Code,"in"Section"2530"thereof,"lists"the"kinds"of"property"subject"to"forfeiture."At"the"
same"time,"in"Part"2"of"Title"VI"thereof,"it"provides"for"the"procedure"in"seizure"and"forfeiture"cases"and"vests"
in"the"Collector"of"Customs"the"authority"to"hear"and"decide"said"cases."[Section"2312,"R.A."1937]"The"
Collectors"decision"is"appealable"to"the"Commissioner"of"Customs"Section"2313,"R.A."1937]"whose"decision"is"
in"turn"appealable"to"the"Court"of"Tax"Appeals."[Section"2402,"R.A."1937,"Sections"7"and"11,"R.A."1125]."An"
aggrieved"party"may"appeal"from"a"judgment"of"the"Court"of"Tax"Appeals"directly"to"this"Court"[Section"18,"
R.A."1125;"Rule"44,"Rules"of"Court]."On"the"other"hand,"Section"44(c)"of"the"Judiciary"Act"of"1948"[As"amended"
by"R.A."3828]"lodges"in"the"Court"of"First"Instance"original"jurisdiction"in"all"cases"in"which"the"value"of"the"
property"in"controversy"amounts"to"more"than"ten"thousand"pesos."This"original"jurisdiction"of"the"Court"of"
First"Instance,"when"exercised"in"an"action"for"recovery"of"personal"property"which"is"a"subject"of"a"forfeiture"
proceeding"in"the"Bureau"of"Customs,"tends"to"encroach"upon,"and"to"render"futile,"the"jurisdiction"of"the"
Collector"of"Customs"in"seizure"and"forfeiture"proceedings."This"is"precisely"what"took"place"in"this"case."The"
seizure"and"forfeiture"proceedings"against"the"M/B"Bukang"Liwayway"before"the"Collector"of"Customs"of"
Manila,"was"stifled"by"the"issuance"of"a"writ"of"replevin"by"the"Court"of"First"Instance"of"Cavite."
"
Should"Section"44(c)"of"the"Judiciary"Act"of"1948"give"way"to"the"provisions"of"the"Tariff"and"Customs"Code."or"
vice"versa?"In"Our"opinion,"in"this"particular"case,"the"Court"of"First"Instance"should"yield"to"the"jurisdiction"of"
the"Collector"of"Customs."The"jurisdiction"of"the"Collector"of"Customs"is"provided"for"in"Republic"Act"1937"
which"took"effect"on"July"1,"1957,"much"later"than"the"Judiciary"Act"of"1948."It"is"axiomatic"that"a"later"law"
prevails"over"a"prior"statute"[Herman"v."Radio"Corporation"of"the"Philippines,"50"Phil."490;"Pampanga"Sugar"
Mills"v."Trinidad,"279"U.S."211,"73"L."ed."665]."Moreover,"on"grounds"of"public"policy,"it"is"more"reasonable"to"
conclude"that"the"legislators"intended"to"divest"the"Court"of"First"Instance"of"the"prerogative"to"replevin"a"
property"which"is"a"subject"of"a"seizure"and"forfeiture"proceedings"for"violation"of"the"Tariff"and"Customs"
Code."Otherwise,"actions"for"forfeiture"of"property"for"violation"of"Customs"laws"could"easily"be"undermined"
by"the"simple"device"of"replevin.chanrobles.com.ph":"virtual"law"library"
"
Furthermore,"Section"2303"of"the"Tariff"and"Customs"Code"requires"the"Collector"of"Customs"to"give"to"the"
owner"of"the"property"sought"to"be"forfeited"written"notice"of"the"seizure"and"to"give"him"the"opportunity"to"
be"heard"in"his"defense."This"provision"clearly"indicates"the"intention"of"the"law"to"confine"in"the"Bureau"of"
Customs"the"determination"of"all"questions"affecting"the"disposal"of"property"proceeded"against"in"a"seizure"
and"forfeiture"case."The"judicial"recourse"of"the"property"owner"is"not"in"the"Court"of"First"Instance"but"in"the"
Court"of"Tax"Appeals,"and"only"after"exhausting"administrative"remedies"in"the"Bureau"of"Customs."cralaw"
virtua1aw"library"
"
In"De"Joya"v."Lantin,"19"this"Court,"speaking"again"through"Mr."Justice"J.P."Bengzon,"
declared:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph"
"
"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,"LD
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"jurisdiction."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."cralaw"virtua1aw"library"
"
This"rule"was"subsequently"reiterated"in"Romualdez"v."Arca,"20"De"Joya"v."David,"21"Diosamito"v."Balanque,"22"
Lopez"v."Commissioner"of"Customs,23"Ponce"Enrile"v."Vinuya,"24"Collector"of"Customs"v."Torres,"25"Pacis"v."
Geronimo"26"and"De"la"Fuente"v."De"Veyra."27""
"
The"language"of"the"foregoing"rule"is"simple,"clear"and"leaves"no"doubt"as"to"the"Regional"Trial"Courts"lack"of"
jurisdiction"over"the"res"which"has"already"been"made"the"subject"of"seizure"and"forfeiture"proceedings."
Frankly,"this"Court"is"unable"to"understand"why"the"respondent"Judge"misread"the"same;"perhaps,"he"simply"
chose"to"ignore"it."At"any"rate,"such"behavior"is"highly"condemnable.cralawnad"
"
A"warrant"of"seizure"and"detention"having"already"been"issued,"presumably"in"the"regular"course"of"official"
duty,"28"the"Regional"Trial"Court"of"Pampanga"was"indisputably"precluded"from"interfering"in"the"said"
proceedings."That"in"his"complaint"in"Civil"Case"No."8109"private"respondent"alleges"ownership"over"several"
vehicles"which"are"legally"registered"in"his"name,"having"paid"all"the"taxes"and"corresponding"licenses"incident"
thereto,"neither"divests"the"Collector"of"Customs"of"such"jurisdiction"nor"confers"upon"the"said"trial"court"
regular"jurisdiction"over"the"case."Ownership"of"goods"or"the"legality"of"its"acquisition"can"be"raised"as"
defenses"in"a"seizure"proceeding;"29"if"this"were"not"so,"the"procedure"carefully"delineated"by"law"for"seizure"
and"forfeiture"cases"may"easily"be"thwarted"and"set"to"naught"30"by"scheming"parties."Even"the"illegality"of"
the"warrant"of"seizure"and"detention"cannot"justify"the"trial"courts"interference"with"the"Collectors"
jurisdiction."In"the"first"place,"there"is"a"distinction"between"the"existence"of"the"Collectors"power"to"issue"it"
and"the"regularity"of"the"proceeding"taken"under"such"power."In"the"second"place,"even"if"there"be"such"an"
irregularity"in"the"latter,"the"Regional"Trial"Court"does"not"have"the"competence"to"review,"modify"or"reverse"
whatever"conclusions"may"result"therefrom."In"Ponce"Enrile"v."Vinuya,"31"this"Court"had"the"occasion"to"
state:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph"
"
"2."Respondents,"however,"notwithstanding"the"compelling"force"of"the"above"doctrines,"would"assert"that"
respondent"Judge"could"entertain"the"replevin"suit"as"the"seizure"is"illegal,"allegedly"because"the"warrant"
issued"is"invalid"and"the"seizing"officer"likewise"was"devoid"of"authority."This"is"to"lose"sight"of"the"distinction,"
as"earlier"made"mention"of,"between"the"existence"of"the"power"and"the"regularity"of"the"proceeding"taken"
under"it."The"governmental"agency"concerned,"the"Bureau"of"Customs,"is"vested"with"exclusive"authority."Even"
if"it"be"assumed"that"in"the"exercise"of"such"exclusive"competence"a"taint"of"illegality"may"be"correctly"
imputed,"the"most"that"can"be"said"is"that"under"certain"circumstances"the"grave"abuse"of"discretion"conferred"
may"oust"it"of"such"jurisdiction."It"does"not"mean"however"that"correspondingly"a"court"of"first"instance"is"
vested"with"competence"when"clearly"in"the"light"of"the"above"decisions"the"law"has"not"seen"fit"to"do"so."The"
proceeding"before"the"Collector"of"Customs"is"not"final."An"appeal"lies"to"the"Commissioner"of"Customs"and"
thereafter"to"the"Court"of"Tax"Appeals."It"may"even"reach"this"Court"through"the"appropriate"petition"for"
review."The"proper"ventilation"of"the"legal"issues"raised"is"thus"indicated."Certainly"a"court"of"first"instance"is"
not"therein"included."It"is"devoid"of"jurisdiction."cralaw"virtua1aw"library"
"
WHEREFORE,"the"Resolution"of"respondent"Judge"of"26"February"1988"in"Civil"Case"No."8109"before"Branch"48"
of"the"Regional"Trial"Court"of"Pampanga,"and"all"proceedings"had"therein,"are"NULLIFIED"and"SET"ASIDE"and"
the"said"case"is"hereby"ordered"DISMISSED.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary"
"
The"temporary"restraining"order"issued"by"this"Court"on"18"April"1988"is"hereby"made"permanent."
"
SO"ORDERED."
"
"
 Nestle"Philippines,"Inc."vs."Court"of"Appeals"
G.R."No."134114."July"6,"2001."
"
Facts:"
Petitioner"Nestle"Philippines,"Inc."transacted"sixteen"separate"importations"of"milk"and"milk"products"from"
different"countries"between"the"period"of"July"and"November"1984."It"paid"the"corresponding"customs"duties"
and"advance"sales"taxes"to"the"Collector"of"Customs"of"Manila"for"each"transaction"based"on"the"published"
Home"Consumption"Value"(HCV)"as"indicated"in"the"Bureau"of"Customs"Revision"Orders,"but"it"seasonably"filed"
the"corresponding"protests"before"the"said"Collector"of"Customs."In"the"said"protests,"petitioner"claimed"for"
the"refund"of"the"alleged"overpaid"import"duties"and"advance"sales"taxes."With"regards"to"the"advance"sales"
taxes,"the"Court"of"Tax"Appeals"eventually"ruled"in"favor"of"the"petitioner."However,"the"Collector"of"Customs"
failed"to"render"a"decision"on"the"sixteen"protest"cases"for"almost"six"years"for"the"alleged"overpaid"customs"
duties."In"order"to"prevent"the"claims"from"becoming"stale"on"the"ground"of"prescription,"petitioner"
immediately"filed"a"petition"for"review"with"the"Court"of"Tax"Appeals"(CTA)."The"CTA"dismissed"the"said"
petition"for"want"of"jurisdiction."The"issue"was"raised"to"the"Court"of"Appeals"by"way"of"petition"for"review,"but"
it"was"also"dismissed"for"failure"to"exhaust"administrative"remedies."
"
Issue:"
""""""""""""Whether"or"not"the"petitioners"claims"are"governed"by"the"rule"on"quasiDcontracts"or"solutio"indebiti"
which"prescribes"in"six"(6)"years"under"Article"1145"of"the"New"Civil"Code.""
"
Held:"
"
No."The"Supreme"Court"ruled"that"the"rule"on"quasiDcontracts"or"solution"indebiti"is"not"applicable"in"this"case."
In"order"for"the"rule"on"solution"indebiti"to"apply,"it"is"an"essential"condition"that"petitioner"must"first"show"
that"its"payment"of"the"customs"duties"was"in"excess"of"what"was"required"by"the"law"at"the"time"when"the"
subject"sixteen"importations"of"milk"and"milk"products"were"made."Unless"shown"otherwise,"the"disputable"
presumption"of"regularity"of"performance"of"duty"lies"in"favor"of"the"Collector"of"Customs."
"
In"the"present"case,"there"is"no"factual"showing"that"the"collection"of"the"alleged"overpaid"customs"duties"was"
more"than"what"is"required"of"the"petitioner"when"it"made"the"aforesaid"separate"importations."There"is"no"
factual"finding"yet"by"the"government"agency"concerned"that"petitioner"is"indeed"entitled"to"its"claim"of"
overpayment"and,"if"true,"for"how"much"it"is"entitled."It"bears"stress"that"in"determining"whether"or"not"
petitioner"is"entitled"to"refund"of"alleged"overpayment"of"customs"duties,"it"is"necessary"to"determine"exactly"
how"much"the"Government"is"entitled"to"collect"as"customs"duties"on"the"importations."Thus,"it"would"only"be"
just"and"fair"that"the"petitionerDtaxpayer"and"the"Government"alike"be"given"equal"opportunities"to"avail"of"the"
remedies"under"the"law"to"contest"or"defeat"each"other's"claim"and"to"determine"all"matters"of"dispute"
between"them"in"one"single"case."If"the"State"expects"its"taxpayers"to"observe"fairness"and"honesty"in"paying"
their"taxes,"so"must"it"apply"the"same"standard"against"itself"in"refunding"excess"payments,"if"truly"proven,"of"
such"taxes."Indeed,"the"State"must"lead"by"its"own"example"of"honor,"dignity"and"uprightness."
Thus,"the"remand"of"this"case"to"the"CTA"is"warranted"for"the"proper"verification"and"determination"of"the"
factual"basis"and"merits"of"the"petition"and"in"order"that"the"ends"of"substantial"justice"and"fair"play"may"be"
subserved."In"the"light"of"Sections"2308"and"2309"of"the"Tariff"and"Customs"Code,"it"appeared"that"in"all"cases"
subject"to"protest,"the"claim"for"refund"of"customs"duties"may"be"foreclosed"only"when"the"interested"party"
claiming"refund"fails"to"file"a"written"protest"before"the"Collector"of"Customs."Accordingly,"once"a"written"
protest"is"seasonably"filed"with"the"Collector"of"Customs"the"failure"or"inaction"of"the"latter"to"promptly"
perform"his"mandated"duty"under"the"Tariff"and"Customs"Code"should"not"be"allowed"to"prejudice"the"right"of"
the"party"adversely"affected"thereby."Technicalities"and"legalisms,"however"exalted,"should"not"be"misused"by"
the"government"to"keep"money"not"belonging"to"it,"if"any"is"proven,"and"thereby"enrich"itself"at"the"expense"of"
the"taxpayers."
"
Protests"vs"valuation,"prescription,"claim"for"refund."This"is"a"claim"for"refund"of"customs"duties"arising"from"
alleged"erroneous"valuation"of"imported"milk."After"payment"of"CD"and"AST,"Nestle"filed"a"claim"for"refund"
with"the"Collector"of"Customs,"who"had"not"acted"on"it"for"almost"6"years"and"before"the"lapse"of"6"years"
prescriptive"period"under"the"Civil"Code"for"Solutio"Indebiti,"Nestle"went"to"CTA"docketed"as"Case"No."4478."
Another"refund"claim"was"filed"with"the"BIR"with"respect"to"AST"and"then"before"the"2Dyear"period"expired"
under"the"NIRC,"Nestle"went"to"the"CTA"(Case"No."4114),"who"found"for"Nestle.""In"4478,"CTA"dismissed"the"
case"for"lack"of"jurisdiction"and"was"affirmed"by"CA"ratiocinating"that"CTA"does"not"have"concurrent"
jurisdiction"with"Comm"of"Customs;"in"action"of"Col"of"Customs"was"not"an"exception"to"the"principle"of"
exhaustion"of"admin"remedies;"CTA"decision"in"4114"was"binding"controlling"on"4478;"and"Nestle"has"to"prove"
its"claims."Held:"Solutio"Indebiti"is"not"applicable"since"it"is"not"yet"established"whether"indeed"Nestle"has"
overpaid,"despite"the"ruling"in"4114."There"is"presumption"of"regularity;"TCC"provides"the"procedures"on"
protesting"and"claiming"refund,"i.e.,,"file"claim"with"COC"within"15"days"from"payment"or"liquidation,"then"
appeal"to"Comm"of"Customs,"then"within"30"days"appeal"to"CTA."Since"Col"of"Customs"had"not"acted"on"it"yet,"
appeal"to"CTA"was"not"proper."And"based"on"these"rules,"exhaustion"of"admin"remedies"does"not"apply"
either.""The"fact"that"in"4114,"CTA"approved"the"refund"of"AST"is"not"controlling.""Because"of"the"long"delay"in"
BOC,"to"be"fair"both"the"OSG"and"CA"said"that"the"case"be"remanded"to"CTA"for"trial,"the"same"was"remanded"
to"CTA."
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
 Case%#13.%CHEVRON%PHILIPPINES,%INC.,%VS.%COMMISSIONER%OF%THE%BUREAU%OF%CUSTOMS,%[G.R.%No.%
178759,%August%11,%2008]""
%
Facts:%%
"
Chevron"Phils."Inc.,"is"engaged"in"the"business"of"importing,"distributing"and"marketing"of"petroleum"products"
in"the"Philippines."In"1996,"the"importations"subject"of"this"case"arrived"and"were"covered"by"8"bills"of"lading."
The"shipments"were"unloaded"from"the"carrying"vessels"onto"petitioners"oil"tanks"over"a"period"of"3"days"
from"the"date"of"their"arrival."Subsequently,"the"import"entry"declarations"(IEDs)"were"filed"and"90%"of"the"
total"customs"duties"were"paid."The"import"entry"and"internal"revenue"declarations"(IEIRDs)"of"the"shipments"
were"thereafter"filed."
"
The"importations"were"appraised"at"a"duty"rate"of"3%"as"provided"under"RA"8180"and"petitioner"paid"the"
import"duties"amounting"to"P316,499,021."Prior"to"the"effectivity"of"RA"8180"on"April"16,"1996,"the"rate"of"
duty"on"imported"crude"oil"was"10%."
"
Three"years"later,"then"Finance"Secretary"received"a"letter"denouncing"the"deliberate"concealment,"
manipulation"and"scheme"employed"by"petitioner"in"the"importation"of"crude"oil,"thereby"resulting"in"huge"
losses"of"revenue"for"the"government."This"letter"was"endorsed"to"the"Bureau"of"Customs"(BOC)"for"
investigation."
"
On"August"1,"2000,"petitioner"received"a"demand"letter"from"the"District"Collector"requiring"the"immediate"
settlement"of"the"amount"of"P73,535,830"representing"the"difference"between"the"10%"and"3%"tariff"rates"on"
the"shipments."Petitioner"objected"to"the"using"of"the"10%"duty"rate"and"insisted"that"the"3%"tariff"rate"should"
instead"be"applied."Furthermore"it"raised"the"defense"of"prescription"against"the"assessment"pursuant"to"
Section"1603"of"the"Tariff"and"Customs"Code"(TCC)."Thus,"it"prayed"that"the"assessment"for"deficiency"customs"
duties"be"cancelled"and"the"notice"of"demand"be"withdrawn.""
"
The"Special"Investigator"found"that"there"was"an"irregularity"in"the"filing"and"acceptance"of"the"import"entries"
beyond"the"30Dday"nonDextendible"period"prescribed"under"Section"1301"of"the"TCC"and"in"the"release"of"the"
shipments"after"the"same"had"already"been"deemed"abandoned"in"favor"of"the"government."Petitioner"was"
then"ordered"to"pay"P1,180,170,769.21"representing"the"total"dutiable"value"of"the"importations."
"
The"CTA"en'banc"held"that"it"was"the"filing"of"the"IEIRDs"that"constituted"entry"under"the"TCC."Since"these"were"
filed"beyond"the"30Dday"period,"they"were"not"seasonably""entered""in"accordance"with"Section"1301"in"
relation"to"Section"205"of"the"TCC."Consequently,"they"were"deemed"abandoned"under"Sections"1801"and"
1802"of"the"TCC."It"also"ruled"that"the"notice"required"under"Customs"Memorandum"Order"was"not"necessary"
in"view"of"petitioner's"actual"knowledge"of"the"arrival"of"the"shipments."It"likewise"agreed"with"the"CTA"
Division's"finding"that"petitioner"committed"fraud"when"it"failed"to"file"the"IEIRD"within"the"30Dday"period"with"
the"intent"to""evade"the"higher"rate.""Petitioner"was"ordered"to"pay"respondent"the"total"dutiable"value"of"the"
oil"shipments"amounting"to"P893,781,768.21."
%
ISSUES:"

1. Whether"or"not"entry"under"Section"1301"in"relation"to"Section"1801"of"the"TCC"refers"to"the"IED"or"
the"IEIRD;"

2. Whether"or"not""entry""under"Section"1301"in"relation"to"whether"fraud"was"perpetrated"by"petitioner"
and"
 3. Whether"or"not"the"importations"can"be"considered"abandoned"under"Section"1801."

RULING:%
"
1. The"position"of"petitioner,"that"the"import"entry"to"be"filed"within"the"30Dday"period"refers"to"the"IED"
and"not"the"IEIRD,"has"no"legal"basis."Under"the"relevant"provisions"of"the"TCC,"both"the"IED"and"IEIRD"
should"be"filed"within"30"days"from"the"date"of"discharge"of"the"last"package"from"the"vessel"or"aircraft."
The"IED"serves"as"basis"for"the"payment"of"advance"duties"on"importations"whereas"the"IEIRD"
evidences"the"final"payment"of"duties"and"taxes."The"operative"act"that"constitutes""entry""of"the"
imported"articles"at"the"port"of"entry"is"the"filing"and"acceptance"of"the""specified"entry"form""together"
with"the"other"documents"required"by"law"and"regulations."The""specified"entry"form""refers"to"the"
IEIRD.""The"word""entry""refers"to"the"regular"consumption"entry"(the"IEIRD)"and"not"the"provisional"
entry"(the"IED)."
""
2. Evidence"showed"that"petitioner"bided"its"time"to"file"the"IEIRD"so"as"to"avail"of"a"lower"rate"of"duty."A"
clear"indication"of"petitioner's"deliberate"intention"to"defraud"the"government"was"its"nonDdisclosure"
of"discrepancies"on"the"duties"declared"in"the"IEDs"(10%)"and"IEIRDs"(3%)"covering"the"shipments."
"
Due"to"the"presence"of"fraud,"the"prescriptive"period"of"the"finality"of"liquidation"under"Section"1603"
was"inapplicable."
"
3. Petitioner's"failure"to"file"the"required"entries"within"a"nonDextendible"period"of"thirty"days"from"date"
of"discharge"of"the"last"package"from"the"carrying"vessel"constituted"implied"abandonment"of"its"oil"
importations."This"means"that"from"the"precise"moment"that"the"nonDextendible"thirtyDday"period"
lapsed,"the"abandoned"shipments"were"deemed"the"property"of"the"government."
"
Therefore,"when"petitioner"withdrew"the"oil"shipments"for"consumption,"it"appropriated"for"itself"
properties"which"already"belonged"to"the"government."Accordingly,"it"became"liable"for"the"total"
dutiable"value"of"the"shipments"of"imported"crude"oil"amounting"to"P1,210,280,789.21"reduced"by"the"
total"amount"of"duties"paid"amounting"to"P316,499,021.00"thereby"leaving"a"balance"of"
P893,781,768.21.""
"
Due"notice"was"not"necessary"in"this"case."The"purpose"of"posting"an""urgent"notice"to"file"entry""is"
only"to"notify"the"importer"of"the""arrival"of"its"shipment""and"the"details"of"said"shipment."Since"it"
already"had"knowledge"of"such,"notice"was"superfluous."Notice"to"petitioner"was"unnecessary"because"
it"was"fully"aware"that"its"shipments"had"in"fact"arrived."The"oil"shipments"were"discharged"from"the"
carriers"docked"in"its"private"pier"or"wharf,"into"its"shore"tanks."From"then"on,"petitioner"had"actual"
physical"possession"of"its"oil"importations."It"was"thus"incumbent"upon"it"to"know"its"obligation"to"file"
the"IEIRD"within"the"30Dday"period"prescribed"by"law."As"a"matter"of"fact,"importers"such"as"petitioner"
can,"under"existing"rules"and"regulations,"file"in"advance"an"import"entry"even"before"the"arrival"of"the"
shipment"to"expedite"the"release"of"the"same."However,"it"deliberately"chose"not"to"comply"with"its"
obligation"under"Section"1301."
"
Petition"DENIED.%Petitioner"Chevron"Philippines,"Inc."is%ORDERED%to"pay%P893,781,768.21"plus"six"
percent"(6%)"legal"interest"per'annum"accruing"from"the"date"of"promulgation"of"this"decision"until"its"
finality."Upon"finality"of"this"decision,"the"sum"so"awarded"shall"bear"interest"at"the"rate"of"twelve"
percent"(12%)"per'annum"until"its"full"satisfaction."
"
"
 REPUBLIC%VS%UNIMEX%MICROeELECTRONICS%
March"9,"2007"
"
FACTS:"
" The"Bureau"of"Customs"(BOC)"seized"and"forfeited"the"shipment"owned"by"UNIMEX"MicroDElectronics.""
When" the" latter" filed" a" petition" for" review" in" the" Court" of" Tax" Appeals" (CTA)," the" forfeiture" decree" was"
reversed"and"the"court"ordered"the"release"of"the"goods.""However,"respondents"counsel"failed"to"secure"a"
writ"of"execution"to"enforce"the"CTA"decision.""When"respondent"asked"for"release"of"its"shipment,"BOC"could"
no"longer"find"subject"shipment"in"its"warehouses.""The"CTA"ordered"the"BOC"to"pay"UNIMEX"the"commercial"
value" of" the" goods" with" interest." " The" Republic" of" the" Philippines," represented" by" the" BOC" Commissioner,"
assailed" the" decision" of" the" CTA" in" the" SC." " One" of" its" grounds" was" that" the" government" funds" cannot" be"
charged" with" respondents" claim" without" a" corresponding" appropriation" and" cannot" be" decreed" by" mere"
judicial"order."
"
ISSUE:"
" Can"the"government"be"held"for"actual"damages?"
"
HELD:"
" Although" the" satisfaction" of" respondents" demand" will" ultimately" fall" on" the" government," and" that"
under"the"political"doctrine"of"state"immunity,"it"cannot"be"held"liable"for"governmental"acts"(jus"imperil),"
the" court" still" holds" that" petitioner" cannot" escape" its" liability." " The" circumstances" of" the" case" warrant" its"
exclusion" from" the" purview" of" the" state" immunity" doctrine." " The" court" cannot" turn" a" blind" " eye" to" BOCs"
ineptitude"and"gross"negligence"in"the"safekeeping"of"respondents"goods.""The"situation"does"not"allow"us"to"
reject" respondents" claim" on" the" mere" invocation" of" the" doctrine" of" state" immunity." " The" doctrine" must" be"
fairly"observed"and"the"State"should"not"avail"itself"of"this"prerogative"to"take"undue"advantage"of"parties"that"
may"have"legitimate"claims"against"it."
" The" SC," as" the" staunch" guardian" of" the" peoples" rights" and" welfare," cannot" sanction" an" injustice" so"
patent" in" its" face," and" allow" itself" to" be" an" instrument" in" the" perpetration" thereof." " Courts" have" recognized"
with" almost" pedantic" adherence" that" what" is" inconvenient" and" contrary" to" reason" is" not" allowed" in" law.""
Justice"and"equity"now"demand""that"the"States"cloak"of"invincibility"against"suit"and"liability"be"shredded."
" Assailed"decision"of"the"CTA"is"AFFIRMED"with"MODIFICATION."
Also,"in"the"case"of"Republic"of"the"Philippines"represented"by"the"Bureau"of"Customs"vs"UNIMEX"MicroD
Electronics"GmBH,"which"involved"the"seizure"and"detention"of"a"shipment"of"computer"game"items"which"
disappeared"while"in"the"custody"of"the"Bureau"of"Customs,"the"Court"upheld"the"decision"of"the"Court"of"
Appeals"holding"that"the"petitioners"liability"may"be"paid"in"Philippine"currency,"computed"at"the"exchange"
rate"prevailing"at"the"time"of"actual"payment."
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
FELICISIMO"RIETA"vs."PEOPLE"OF"THE"PHILIPPINES"

G.R."No."147817"August"12,"2004"

"

Facts:"After"a"car"chase,"Col."Lacson"and"his"men"searched"a"vehicle"and"found"several"firearms."The"persons"in"
the"car"belonged"to"the"2nd"COSAC"Detachment."They"were"found"not"to"be"equipped"with"mission"orders."
During"that"same"incident,"when"the"cargo"truck"which"was"accompanied"by"the"car"during"the"car"chase"was"
searched,"305"cases"of"blue"seal"or"untaxed"cigarettes"were"found"inside."

Rieta,"one"of"the"passengers"of"the"seized"cargo"truck,"denied"any"knowledge"of"the"alleged"smuggling"of"the"
blueDseal"cigarettes."He"alleged"that"the"cargo"truck"was"not"opened"in"their"presence,"nor"were"the"contents"
thereof"shown"to"them"upon"their"apprehension."These"allegations"were"corroborated"by"one"of"his"
companions"during"the"incident."

RTC"and"CA"found"Rieta"guilty"of"smuggling."

Issue:"Were"the"evidence"obtained"against"the"accused"inadmissible"in"evidence"because"petitioner"and"his"coD
accused"were"arrested"without"a"warrant"but"by"virtue"of"an"arrest"and"seizure"order"(ASSO)"which"was"
subsequently"declared"illegal"and"invalid"by"this"Honorable"Supreme"Court?"

Held:"The"Chicot"doctrine"cited"in"Taada"advocates"that,"prior"to"the"nullification"of"a"statute,"there"is"an"
imperative"necessity"of"taking"into"account"its"actual"existence"as"an"operative"fact"negating"the"acceptance"of"
"a"principle"of"absolute"retroactive"invalidity.""Whatever"was"done"while"the"legislative"or"the"executive"act"
was"in"operation"should"be"duly"recognized"and"presumed"to"be"valid"in"all"respects."The"ASSO"that"was"issued"
in"1979"under"General"Order"No."60"DD"long"before"our"Decision"in"Taada"and"the"arrest"of"petitioner"DD"is"an"
operative"fact"that"can"no"longer"be"disturbed"or"simply"ignored."

The"search"and"seizure"of"goods,"suspected"to"have"been"introduced"into"the"country"in"violation"of"customs"
laws,"is"one"of"the"seven"doctrinally"accepted"exceptions"to"the"constitutional"provision."Such"provision"
mandates"that"no"search"or"seizure"shall"be"made"except"by"virtue"of"a"warrant"issued"by"a"judge"who"has"
personally"determined"the"existence"of"probable"cause.""

Under"the"Tariff"and"Customs"Code,"a"search,"seizure"and"arrest"may"be"made"even"without"a"warrant"for"
purposes"of"enforcing"customs"and"tariff"laws."Without"mention"of"the"need"to"priorly"obtain"a"judicial"
warrant,"the"Code"specifically"allows"police"authorities"to"enter,"pass"through"or"search"any"land,"enclosure,"
warehouse,"store"or"building"that"is"not"a"dwelling"house;"and"also"to"inspect,"search"and"examine"any"vessel"
or"aircraft"and"any"trunk,"package,"box"or"envelope"or"any"person"on"board;"or"to"stop"and"search"and"
examine"any"vehicle,"beast"or"person"suspected"of"holding"or"conveying"any"dutiable"or"prohibited"article"
introduced"into"the"Philippines"contrary"to"law.""

WHEREFORE,"the"Petition"is"DENIED,"and"the"assailed"Decision"AFFIRMED."

"

"
"
"
EL" GRECO" SHIP" MANNING" AND" MANAGEMENT" CORPORATION," vs." COMMISSIONER" OF" CUSTOMS." [G.R." No."
177188.""December"4,"2008.]"
Facts:" The" vessel" M/V" Criston" docked" at" the" Port" of" Tabaco," Albay," carrying" a" shipment" of" 35,000" bags" of"
imported"rice,"consigned"to"Antonio"Chua,"Jr."(Chua)"and"Carlos"Carillo"(Carillo),"payable"upon"its"delivery"to"
Albay."Glucer"Shipping"Company,"Inc."(Glucer"Shipping)"is"the"operator"of"M/V"Criston."Upon"the"directive"of"
then"Commissioner"Titus"Villanueva"of"the"Bureau"of"Customs"(BOC),"a"Warrant"of"Seizure"and"Detention"was"
issued" by" the" Legaspi" District" Collectorfor" the" 35,000" bags" of" imported" rice" shipped" by" M/V" Criston," on" the"
ground" that" it" left" the" Port" of" Manila" without" the" necessary" clearance" from" the" Philippine" Coast" Guard."
Asubsequent"Warrant"of"Seizure"and"Detention,"was"issued"particularly"for"the"said"vessel."The"BOC"District"
Collector"of"the"Port"of"Legaspi"thereafter"commenced"proceedings"for"the"forfeiture"of"M/V"Criston"and"its."
Chua" and" Carillo" filed" before" the" Regional" Trial" Court" (RTC)" of" Tabaco," Albay," a" Petition" for" Prohibition" with"
Prayer" for" the" Issuance" of" Preliminary" Injunction" and" Temporary" Restraining" Order" (TRO)" assailing" the"
authority"of"the"Legaspi"District"Collectors"to"issue"the"Warrants"of"Seizure"and"Detention"and"praying"for"a"
permanent"injunction"against"the"implementation"of"the"said"Warrants."In"the"meantime,"while"M/V"Criston"
was"berthing"at"the"Port"of"Tabaco"under"the"custody"of"the"BOC,"the"Province"of"Albay"was"hit"by"typhoon"
"Manang"." In" order" to" avert" any" damage" which" could" be" caused" by" the" typhoon," the" vessel" was" allowed" to"
proceed"to"another"anchorage"area"to"temporarily"seek"shelter."After"typhoon""Manang""had"passed"through"
Albay" province," M/V" Criston," however," failed" to" return" to" the" Port" of" Tabaco" and" was" nowhere" to" be"
found.Manila" District" Collector" issued" an" Order" quashing" the" Warrant" of" Seizure" and" Detention" it" issued"
against" M/V" Neptune" Breeze" in" Seizure" Identification" No." 2001D208" for" lack" of" probable" cause." The" BOC"
Commissioner,"CTA"Second"Division"and"CTA"en"banc"all"ruled"that"M/V"Neptune"Breeze"is"one"and"the"same"
as"M/V"Criston"which"had"been"detained"at"the"Port"of"Tabaco,"Albay,"for"carrying"smuggled"imported"rice"and"
had"fled"the"custody"of"the"customs"authorities"to"evade"its"liabilities"and"ardered"its"forfeiture.""
'
Issues/'Held:''
W/N"M/V"Neptune"Breeze"is"one"and"the"same"as"M/V"CristonD"YES"
W/N"the"order"of"forfeiture"of"the"M/V"Neptune"Breeze"is"validD"YES"
'
Ratio:"The"crime"laboratory"report"of"the"PNP"shows"that"the"serial"numbers"of"the"engines"and"generators"of"
the"two"vessels"are"identical."
There" is" no" question" that" M/V" Neptune" Breeze," then" known" as" M/V" Criston," was" carrying" 35,000" bags" of"
imported"rice"without"the"necessary"papers"showing"that"they"were"entered"lawfully"through"a"Philippine"port"
after" the" payment" of" appropriate" taxes" and" duties" thereon." This" gives" rise" to" the" presumption" that" such"
importation"was"illegal."Consequently,"the"rice"subject"of"the"importation,"as"well"as"the"vessel"M/V"Neptune"
Breeze"used"in"importation"are"subject"to"forfeiture."The"burden"is"on"El"Greco,"as"the"owner"of"M/V"Neptune"
Breeze,"to"show"that"its"conveyance"of"the"rice"was"actually"legal."
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
PILIPINAS"SHELL"PETROLEUM"CORPORATION,"vs."REPUBLIC"OF"THE"PHILIPPINES,"represented"by"the"BUREAU"
OF"CUSTOMS."[G.R."No."161953.""March"6,"2008.]"
Facts:" The" present" controversy" sprang" from" the" cancellation" of" tax" debit" memos" (TDMs)" and" the"
corresponding"tax"credit"certificates"(TCCs)"assigned"to"petitioner"Pilipinas"Shell"Petroleum"Corporation"(Shell)"
by"various"entities."Some"of"these"TCCs"were"subsequently"accepted"as"payment"by"the"Bureau"of"Customs"
(BOC)" for" petitioner's" taxes" and" import" duties" in" 1997" and" 1998." Secretary" Edgardo" B." Espiritu" of" the"
Department" of" Finance" (DOF)" informed" petitioner" that" its" TDMs" and" TCCs" were" fraudulently" issued" and"
transferred." Petitioner" assailed" the" action" of" the" DOF." Thus," petitioner" filed" a" formal" protest." However," the"
BOC"did"not"act"on"this"protest."Consequently,"petitioner"filed"a"petition"for"review"questioning"the"legality"of"
the" cancellation" of" the" TCCs" in" the" Court" of" Tax" Appeals" Meanwhile," respondent" filed" a" complaint" for"
collection"16"in"the"Regional"Trial"Court"(RTC)"of"Manila."Petitioner"essentially"contends"that"the"RTC"had"no"
jurisdiction" over" the" collection" case" inasmuch" as" the" CTA" had" not" yet" decided" the" petition" for" review." 34"
Therefore,"the"RTC"should"have"dismissed"the"collection"case"and"transferred"it"to"the"CTA"where"it"should"be"
treated"as"a"counterclaim"(in"the"petition"for"review)."
Issue/Held:"W/N"it"is"proper"for"the"BOC"to"file"the"collection"case"in"the"RTC"D"YES"
Ratio:" Import" duties" constitute" a" personal" debt" of" the" importer" that" must" be" paid" in" full." The" importer's"
liability" therefore" constitutes" a" lien" on" the" article" which" the" government" may" choose" to" enforce" while" the"
imported"articles"are"either"in"its"custody"or"under"its"control."
When" respondent" released" petitioner's" goods," its" (respondent's)" lien" over" the" imported" goods" was"
extinguished."Consequently"could"only"enforce"the"payment"of"petitioner's"import"duties"in"full"by"filing"a"case"
for"collection"against"petitioner"
"
In"1997"and"1998"Pilipinas"Shell"paid"duties"and"taxes"due"on"its"importations"with"the"TCCs"it"acquired"from"
various"sources"with"the"approval"of"the"BOI,"One"Stop"Shop"and"DOF."Subsequently,"these"were"cancelled"
allegedly"because"they"were"acquired"fraudulently"and"the"BOC"demanded"payment"of"the"duties"and"taxes"
paid"with"these"TCCs."Shell"protested""on"Dec"23,"1999"but"BOC"did"not"act,"hence"the"appeal"to"CTA."While"
pending,"on"Apr"3,"2002"BOC"filed"a"collection"case"with"RTC"with"respect"to"a"TCC"on"the"ground"that"it"was"
spurious"and"thus"was"invalidated."Shell"moved"to"dismiss"questioning"the"jurisdiction"of"the"RTC"and"stating"
that"only"when"the"assessment"has"become"final"and"executory"could"the"BOC"file"a"collection"case"but"was"
denied."CA"denied"appeal"saying"the"demand"for"payment"was"not"an"assessment"that"could"be"protested."
thus"RTC"and"not"CTA"has"jurisdiction."Ruling:"Assessments"inform"taxpayers"of"their"tax"liabilities."Under"the"
TCCP,"the"assessment"is"in"the"form"of"a"liquidation"made"on"the"face"of"the"import"entry"return"and"approved"
by"the"Collector"of"Customs."Liquidation"is"the"final%computation%and%ascertainment%by%the%Collector%of%
Customs%of%the%duties%due%on%imported%merchandise"based"on"official"reports"as"to"the"quantity,"character"
and"value"thereof,"and"the"Collector"of"Customs'"own"finding"as"to"the"applicable"rate"of"duty."A"liquidation"is"
considered"to"have"been"made"when"the"entry"is"officially"stamped"liquidated."An"assessment"or"liquidation"
by"the"BoC"attains"finality"and"conclusiveness"one"year"from"the"date"of"the"final"payment"of"duties"except"
when:"(a)""""there"was"fraud;"(b)"""""there"is"a"pending"protest"or"(c)""""""the"liquidation"of"import"entry"was"
merely"tentative."None"of"the"foregoing"exceptions"is"present"in"this"case."These"duties"and"taxes"are"the"
personal"liability"of"the"importer"and"they"constitute"a"lien"to"the"articles"while"in"customs"custody."RTC"has"
jurisdiction"under"old"CTA"Law."Note:"Now"CTA"has"exclusive"original""jurisdiction"in"collection"cases"for"P1"
Million"or"more"claims.;%
%
%
%
"