Lazaro v. Commissioner of Customs
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Three packages of toothpicks, one package of pomade, and one package of dried fish fins arrived in Manila consigned to Andres E. Lazaro. The shipment was not covered by any import license or release certificate from the Central Bank of the Philippines as required by its Circulars Nos. 44 and 45. Procedural History: The Commissioner of Customs forfeited the shipment under Circulars Nos. 44 and 45 and Section 1363(f) of the Revised Administrative Code. The shipment was released to petitioner under a surety bond, without prejudice to the seizure proceedings. The Collector of Customs declared the bond forfeited and ordered petitioner and the surety corporation to pay jointly and severally the amount of P3,702.00. This was affirmed by the Commissioner of Customs and subsequently by the Court of Tax Appeals. The Petition: Petitioner brought the case for review before the Supreme Court, raising several contentions regarding the forfeiture and jurisdiction.
Issue(s)
Whether the Court of Tax Appeals erred in declaring the forfeiture of the articles in question merely because it violates Central Bank Circular Nos. 44 and 45, considering that said circulars do not provide for the penalty of forfeiture. Whether Central Bank Circulars Nos. 44 and 45 were legally repealed by Central Bank Circular 133, thereby abating the forfeiture case. Whether the Commissioner of Customs lost jurisdiction over the case upon the expiration of Republic Act No. 650. Whether the implied repeal of Central Bank Circular No. 45 by Republic Act No. 1410 abates the forfeiture case. Whether the appraisal of the imported articles made by the Commissioner of Customs was correct.
Ruling
The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the Court of Tax Appeals, upholding the forfeiture of the imported articles and the order for payment under the surety bond.
Ratio Decidendi
On the forfeiture for violation of Central Bank Circulars: The Court held that the forfeiture is proper. While Circulars Nos. 44 and 45 themselves may not explicitly provide for forfeiture, they must be correlated with Section 1363(f) of the Revised Administrative Code. This section authorizes the forfeiture of any merchandise of prohibited importation or of any the importation of which is effected contrary to law. The importations in question, made without the necessary import license or release certificates, fall within the class of merchandise "the importation ... of which is effected ... contrary to law." To rule otherwise would render nugatory the aim of the Central Bank to protect the international reserve during an exchange crisis. The Court reiterated that these circulars, when violated, subject the importation to forfeiture under the Revised Administrative Code. On the repeal of Central Bank Circulars by Circular 133: The Court found this contention without merit. Central Bank Circular No. 133 did not repeal Circulars Nos. 44 and 45 but rather reenacted them by incorporating all existing regulations not inconsistent therewith. Furthermore, even if Circular 133 had impliedly repealed Circulars Nos. 44 and 45, such repeal could not abate the forfeiture case because forfeiture proceedings are civil in nature and not criminal, thus, the repeal cannot be given retroactive effect. On the loss of jurisdiction due to expiration of Republic Act No. 650: The Court ruled that this contention is untenable. It is a settled rule that a court or administrative body that has acquired jurisdiction over a case retains it even after the expiration of the law governing the case. The expiration of Republic Act No. 650 did not divest the Commissioner of Customs of his jurisdiction, which was duly acquired while the law was in force. The main question was the legality of the Collector of Customs' decision, which could not be abated by the mere expiration of the law. On the implied repeal of Circular No. 45 by Republic Act No. 1410: The Court found no provision in Section 6 of Republic Act No. 1410 that could be construed as having repealed Circular No. 45. Even assuming an implied repeal, it could not abate the forfeiture case because Republic Act No. 1410 cannot be given retroactive effect so as to defeat acts undertaken during the life of Circular No. 45, in accordance with Article 4 of the Civil Code. On the correctness of the appraisal: The Court found the appraisal made by the Commissioner of Customs to be correct, having been made in accordance with Section 1377 of the Revised Administrative Code. This appraisal is presumed to be correct unless proven otherwise by the importer, which was not done in this case. The contention was also raised for the first time on appeal.
Main Doctrine
Importations made in violation of Central Bank Circulars requiring import licenses or release certificates are subject to forfeiture under Section 1363(f) of the Revised Administrative Code, as such violations constitute importations effected contrary to law. Repeals of such circulars do not abate forfeiture proceedings as they are civil in nature and do not have retroactive effect.