UP Law F2021 036 Sy Man v.

Jacinto
Administrative Law Revised Admin Code § 551, 1380 1953 Montemayor
and 1393

SUMMARY

Sy Man had shipment including a number of sewing machines and textiles. The Port Collector of Manila
ordered the seizure of the sewing machines, for Sy Man to pay necessary fines and charges, and the textiles
be released to him. Sy Man demanded that the order be executed and the goods be released to him. The
Commissioner declined, invoking his power to review under August 18, 1947 Memorandum Order, even
those seizure cases that were unappelaed. Sy Man brought a case to the CFI for the execution of Port
Collector’s order. His prayer was granted. Upon appeal to the SC, the same was upheld, saying that the
Commissioner was not endowed with power to review unappealed seizure cases.

FACTS

 In 1951 the Collector of Customs Port of Manila ordered the seizure of a number of sewing machines
of Sy Man included in a particular shipment;
 Also included in the shipments but not covered by seizure order were textiles that were ordered to be
released to Sy Man upon payment of proper customs duty, sales tax and other charges;
 Through his counsel, Sy Man demanded from the Port Collector that the decision be executed and the
items not covered by the seizure order be released to him;
 Port collector informed Sy Man that his request/demand was endorsed for the approval of the
Commissioner;
 Commissioner informed Sy Man that it cannot be released just yet until the case has been reviewed,
pointing to Memorandum Order of August 18, 1947 (August 18 MO) on the power of Commissioner to
review all cases, even those that were not appealed (supervisiory and control power);
 Sy Man argued however that under Revised Admin Code (RAC) Sec 13801, the decision became final
to the importer and to the government, hence his goods should be released upon payment of proper
fines;
 CFI of Manila decided in favor of Sy Man and order the Commissioner to executed the Order, and
consequently, release the items to Sy Man upon payment of the fines;
 They now filed this appeal before the SC;
 It was also established that the said MO was never published in the Official Gazette.

RATIO

W/N the August 18 MO is constitutional

No.

The Court said the rule that even unappealed cases be reviewed by the Commissioner without any definite
period as to the when it would be decided is unsatisfactory, intolerable if not oppressive to importers.

Legally, the Court cited § 551 and reiterated that under the supervisory authority, the bureau chief could
not make any orders inconsistent with the law to carry into full effect the laws relating to matters
within the bureau's jurisdiction. The Court then looked into the RAC to determine whether the MO was
consistent with it. The Court could not find any provision pertaining to supervisory authority of the

1
SEC. 1380. Review by Commissioner. — The person aggrieved by the decision of the collector of customs in any matter presented upon
protest or by his action in any case of seizure may, within fifteen days after notification in writing by the collector of his action or decision,
give written notice to the collector signifying his desire to have the matter reviewed by the Commissioner. Thereupon, the collector of
customs shall forthwith transmit all the papers in the cause to the Commissioner, who shall approve, modify, or reverse the action of his
subordinate and shall take such steps and make such order or orders as may be necessary to give effect to his decision
 Commissioner in unappealed seizure cases, and although there is review power of a bureau chief under §
13932, the Court concluded that such provision did not apply to seizure cases.

The logical inference is that the lawmakers did not deem it necessary or advisable to provide for
this supervisory authority or power of revision by the Commissioner and the Department Head on
unappealed seizure cases; and it is highly possible that up to and until 1947, when the August 18 MO was
issued, it was not the practice of the Bureau of Customs to have unappealed seizure cases sent up by
Collectors to the Commissioner's office for review and revision.

Also, under § 1380, only when the importer signifies that he desires to have his/her case reviewed by the
Commissioner the Collector transmits all the papers and elevates the case for review by the Commissioner.
The section does not say that without the notice of appeal, the Collector is called upon to transmit
the papers of the case to the Commissioner.

W/N the August MO is valid even if not published with the OG

No.

Revised Administrative Code § 551 provides that every chief of bureau shall prescribe forms and make
regulations or general orders not inconsistent with the law to carry into full effect the laws relating to
matters within the bureau's jurisdiction. But to become effective said forms and regulations must be
approved by the Department head and published in the Official Gazette or otherwise publicly
promulgated. Because of this failure of approval by the department head and of publication, the
memorandum order of August 18, 1947 has therefore no legal effect.

FALLO

For the foregoing reasons, the decision appealed from is hereby affirmed. No pronouncement as to costs.

SEPARATE OPINION

J. Reyes
Concurred, without denying the power of Commissioner at his own instance to review, alter or revoke the
decision of a collector of customs in seizure cases under §1152, for the reason that until this case was decided
by the SC, the Commissioner has not taken any action to the seizure case of Sy Man.

2
"SEC. 1393. Supervisory authority of Commissioner and of Department Head in certain cases. — If in any case involving the assessment
of duties the importer shall fail to protest the decision of the collector of customs and the Commissioner shall be of the opinion that the
decision was erroneous and unfavorable to the Government, the latter may order a reliquidation; and if the decision of the Commissioner
in any unprotested case should, in the opinion of the Department Head, be erroneous and unfavorable to the Government, the
Department Head may require the Commissioner to order a reliquidation or he may, if in his opinion the public interest requires, direct
the Commissioner to certify the cause to the Court of First Instance of Manila, in the manner provided in section one thousand three
hundred and eighty-six hereof, there to be reviewed by the court as other customs cases removed thereto. "Except as in the preceding
paragraph provided, the supervisory authority of the Department Head over the Bureau of Customs shall not extend to the administrative
revisal of the decisions of the Commissioner in matters removable into court."