Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 41

G.R. No. 160270

April 23, 2010

(Smuggling, Jurisdiction Case)

G.R. No. 160270 April 23, 2010 ( Smuggling, Jurisdiction Case ) SUBIC BAY METROPOLITAN AUTHORITY ,

SUBIC BAY METROPOLITAN AUTHORITY,

Petitioner, - versus -

MERLINO E. RODRIGUEZ and WIRA INTERNATIONAL TRADING

CORP., both represented herein by HILDA M. BACANI, as their authorized representative, Respondents.

FACTS
FACTS
FACTS
FACTS

FACTS

FACTS
FACTS
• September 29, 2001 : arrival of a US$6,000 cargo shipment described as agricultural product at

September 29, 2001 : arrival of a

US$6,000 cargo shipment described

as agricultural

product

at

the

Port of Subic, SBFZ.

• October 23, 2001 Raval Acting COO a III, : Manalas issued Memo addressed to the

October 23, 2001

Raval

Acting COO

a

III,

:

Manalas

issued

Memo

addressed to the Port District Collector stating that the subject shipment was found to contain 2,000 bags Thai Rice.

[1] there was a misshipment of cargo. • October 24, 2001 : Hilda Bacani , wrote

[1] there was a misshipment of cargo.

October

24, 2001

: Hilda Bacani,

wrote

to

[2] request for shipment upgrade.

importer’s

representative

[3] manifest willingness to pay

Billy Bibit (Port District Collector) that;

appropriate duties and taxes.

• October 25, 2001 BOC issued [1] hold the delivery of the shipment, Hold Order No.

October

25, 2001

BOC

issued

[1] hold the delivery of the shipment,

Hold Order No. 14/C1/2001 1025-

and

:

101 directing BOC Subic Port officers

transfer the same to the security

[2]

to;

warehouse.

October

• October 26, 2001 : WIRA (consignee) paid ₱ 259,874.00 worth D/T.

26,

2001

:

WIRA

(consignee) paid ₱259,874.00 worth

D/T.

October

• October 30, 2001 Commissioner, Titus : BOC Villanueva approved the shipment through a directive. upgrade

30,

2001

Commissioner,

Titus

:

BOC

Villanueva

approved

the

shipment

through a directive.

upgrade

November

• November 28, 2001 : WIRA (consignee) paid a further amount of ₱ 206,212.00 D/T.

28,

2001

:

WIRA

(consignee) paid a further amount of

206,212.00 D/T.

• December 4, 2001 : OIC-Cash Division, Fertony Marcelo issued a certification addressed to Augusto Canlas

December 4, 2001 : OIC-Cash Division, Fertony Marcelo issued a certification addressed to Augusto Canlas (Gen. Mngr., Seaport Department) that the shipment’s D/T were already paid and has acquired Gate Pass

(issued on Dec. 3).

May

22,

2002 :
2002
:

Issuance

of

Warrant of Seizure and Detention

against the subject rice shipment.

• June 11, 2002 : respondents filed a complaint for Injunction and Damages with prayer for

June 11, 2002 : respondents filed a complaint for Injunction and Damages

with prayer

for

of

Writ

of

issuance

Preliminary Prohibitory Injunction and/or TRO to the RTC, Olongapo City against SBMA

and Augusto Canlas. [Civil Case No. 261-0-2002]

•June 13, 2002 : RTC City, Branch 72 issued a
•June 13,
2002
:
RTC
City, Branch 72
issued a

Olongapo

TRO thru

Sheriff Leopoldo Rabanes and

Leandro Madarang to the SBMA and

Augusto Canlas.

• June 14, 2002 : Sheriff went to the office of the aggrieved to determine whether

June 14, 2002 : Sheriff went to the

office of the aggrieved to determine

whether or not the TRO was followed

~ refused to honor by the later.

• June 17, 2002 : Importers filed a verified indirect contempt charges against the SBMA and

June 17, 2002

: Importers

filed

a

verified indirect contempt charges

against the SBMA and Canlas for not

honoring the court’s TRO which was

raffled the following day.

• June 24, 2002 : SBMA and Canlas filed a comment and/or opposition to the verified

June 24, 2002 : SBMA and Canlas

filed a comment and/or opposition to

the verified indirect contempt charge

alleging therein their legal basis to

refuse to honor the TRO.

July

12,

conducted

2002 :
2002
:

the

~

petitioners

trial

was

presented

Sheriff

Rabanes

who

testified

on

direct examination.

• July 19, 2002 : SBMA and Canlas filed their answer to the Complaint for Injunction

July 19, 2002

: SBMA and Canlas

filed their answer to the Complaint

for Injunction and Damages with

Counterclaim.

[1] Civil Case No. 261-0-2002 (Complaint • August 1, 2002 : SBMA and for Injunction and

[1] Civil Case No. 261-0-2002 (Complaint

August

1,

2002

:

SBMA

and

for Injunction and Damages); and

Canlas filed a motion asking leave of

[2] Civil Case No. 262-0-2002 (Petition

court to file a consolidated motion

for Indirect Contempt).

to dismiss which sought the dismissal

of the;

:
:

August 20, 2002

2 nd

hearing was

conducted ~ petitioners formally offered

their

evidence

and

rested

while

the

defendants

further

manifested

that

they

were

adopting

their

legal

arguments

marshalled in the motion of dismiss.

• August 29, 2002 : SBMA and Canlas filed a manifestation with formal offer of evidence

August 29, 2002 : SBMA and Canlas filed a manifestation with formal offer of evidence alleging that the BOC has jurisdiction over the case in view of WSD case file against the petitioners and denominated as Seizure Identification No. 200[2]-10.

• November 21, 2002 : RTC issued an Order on the indirect contempt case stating its

November 21, 2002 : RTC issued an

Order on the indirect contempt case stating its decision that the accused were guilty of indirect contempt of court and shall be penalized accordingly.

• November 27, 2002 : RTC issued another Order considering the pending incidents in the injunction

November 27, 2002 : RTC issued another Order considering the pending incidents in the injunction case ~ Titus Sangil (BOC-SP, Chief, Law Division) was given 15 days from the receipt of the order to submit the decision to the Seizure ID Case No. 2002-10.

• Thereafter, the petitioner Petition for Certiorari filed and Prohibition to CA with prayer for TRO

Thereafter,

the

petitioner

Petition for Certiorari

filed

and

Prohibition to CA with prayer for TRO

and Preliminary or Permanent

Injunction seeking to nullify and set

aside the RTO Orders.

•June 20, 2003 : CA rendered a Decision dismissing the petition for lack of merit and
•June
20, 2003
:
CA
rendered
a
Decision dismissing the petition for
lack
of
merit
and
affirming
the

Orders issued by the RTC.

•October 8, 2003 : Petitioners’ Motion for Reconsideration was denied by the CA in its
•October 8, 2003
:
Petitioners’
Motion
for
Reconsideration
was
denied
by
the
CA
in
its

Resolution.

ISSUE
ISSUE
ISSUE
ISSUE

ISSUE

ISSUE
ISSUE
Was the CA erred in affirming the RTC Orders dated 21 November 2002 and 27 November

Was the CA erred in affirming the RTC

Orders dated 21 November 2002

and

27 November 2002 ?

ARGUMENTS
ARGUMENTS
ARGUMENTS
ARGUMENTS

ARGUMENTS

ARGUMENTS
ARGUMENTS
I DEFENDANTS PETITIONER • • The imported 2,000 bags RTC of Olongapo City has of rice
I
DEFENDANTS
PETITIONER
• • The imported 2,000 bags
RTC
of
Olongapo
City
has of
rice no
• Actions
for
injunction and
jurisdiction over the case filed by
were
in
the physical control
and
damages lie within the jurisdiction
possession respondents of (June the 11, BOC 2002) as early as said as
of
RTC as
per Section 9
of
Batas
October 25, 2001, by virtue of the
action
is
within
the
exclusive
Pambansa Blg.
192,
otherwise
BOC-SP original Hold jurisdiction Order of and the BOC BOC WSD as
known as Judiciary Reorganization
(May per Section 22, 2002). 602 of As Republic such, the Act BOC no.
Act
of
1980,
as
amended
by
had 1937, acquired otherwise exclusive know as Tariff original and
Republic Act no. 7691.
jurisdiction
Customs Code of the Philippines, as
over
the
subject
shipment. amended.

I

PETITIONER

22, 2002, BOC-SP District

DEFENDANTS

BOC Commissioner allowed the

Thus,

the Hold Order previously

On

May

Collector issued WSD against the

release of the shipment subject to

issued by the BOC had been

subject shipment upon

proper D/T base on the upgraded

superseded, and made ineffective,

with

all

recommendation of the Customs

Intelligence

System

(April

and

29,

value and compliance

by the succeeding BOC issuances.

Investigation

existing rules and regulation. Furthermore, the shipment already received a certification and have acquired a gate pass after complying to all requirements set by the BOC.

2002).

Thus,

exclusive original jurisdiction over

the shipment was regained by the

BOC.

I

II

DEFENDANTS

PETITIONER

existence of the

The

WSD is

Petitioners

did

not

mention

mention in the Consolidated

Motion

to

the existence of the WSD in its

Dismiss filed on

Answer to the Complaint for Injunction and Damages, filed on July 19, 2002. Thus,

is

found

in

the

August 1, 2002.

suspicion

existence of the WSD.

I

II

III

DEFENDANTS

The case for indirect contempt against Canlas, Abella, Jr., and

Jr.

is

for

allegedly

issued by the

with

the

and

by

PETITIONER

When the TRO was served, there was already an existing WSD issued by the BOC against the shipment. Thus, the exclusive original

jurisdiction

Katalbas,

defying

in

the TRO

over the shipment

RTC

connection

remained with the BOC, and the

complaint for

injunction

RTC had no jurisdiction over cases involving said shipment.

damages

previously

filed

respondents.

II IV DEFENDANTS PETITIONER I - SC agreed with the petitioner that the case is not

I

II

III

IV

DEFENDANTS

PETITIONER

  • I -

SC agreed with the petitioner that the case is not with in the

jurisdiction of the

RTC.

  • II SC agreed that through the WSD, the jurisdiction over the shipment still remained to the BOC.

-

III -

“Petitioner’s apparent neglect to mention the warrant of seizure and detention in

its Answer is insufficient to cast doubt on the existence of

said warrant.” –SC

IV - The SC still agreed with the Petitioner that the exclusive original jurisdiction over the shipment remained with the BOC, and the RTC had no jurisdiction over cases involving said shipment.

RATIONALE
RATIONALE
RATIONALE
RATIONALE
RATIONALE

RATIONALE

RATIONALE
Was the CA erred in affirming the RTC The CA erred in affirming the RTC Orders.

Was the CA erred in affirming the RTC

The CA erred in affirming the RTC

Orders. The issuance of the RTC Order (27

Orders dated November 21 2002

November 2002) was improper due to the fact

and

the RTC had no jurisdiction to issue its Order

27 November 2002 ?

(27 November 2002).

HOLDINGS
HOLDINGS
HOLDINGS
HOLDINGS
HOLDINGS

HOLDINGS

HOLDINGS
WHEREFORE , we GRANT the petition. We REVERSE the Court of Appeals Decision dated June 20,

WHEREFORE, we GRANT the petition. We

REVERSE

the Court of Appeals Decision dated

June 20, 2003 and Resolution dated October 8, 2003

in CA-G.R. SP No. 74989. We declare VOID the Regional Trial Court Orders dated November 21, 2002 and November 27, 2002.

SO ORDERED.

REFERENCE
REFERENCE
REFERENCE
REFERENCE
REFERENCE
REFERENCE

REFERENCE

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/april2010/160270.htm

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/april2010/160270.htm

G.R. No. 160270 April 23, 2010 ( Smuggling, Jurisdiction Case ) SUBIC BAY METROPOLITAN AUTHORITY ,
G.R. No. 160270 April 23, 2010 ( Smuggling, Jurisdiction Case ) SUBIC BAY METROPOLITAN AUTHORITY ,
G.R. No. 160270 April 23, 2010 ( Smuggling, Jurisdiction Case ) SUBIC BAY METROPOLITAN AUTHORITY ,
G.R. No. 160270 April 23, 2010 ( Smuggling, Jurisdiction Case ) SUBIC BAY METROPOLITAN AUTHORITY ,
G.R. No. 160270 April 23, 2010 ( Smuggling, Jurisdiction Case ) SUBIC BAY METROPOLITAN AUTHORITY ,
G.R. No. 160270 April 23, 2010 ( Smuggling, Jurisdiction Case ) SUBIC BAY METROPOLITAN AUTHORITY ,

G.R. No. 160270

April 23, 2010

(Smuggling, Jurisdiction Case)

G.R. No. 160270 April 23, 2010 ( Smuggling, Jurisdiction Case ) SUBIC BAY METROPOLITAN AUTHORITY ,

SUBIC BAY METROPOLITAN AUTHORITY,

Petitioner, - versus -

MERLINO E. RODRIGUEZ and WIRA INTERNATIONAL TRADING

CORP., both represented herein by HILDA M. BACANI, as their authorized representative, Respondents.