Capulong v. Acting Commissioner of Customs
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Petitioner Bienvenido Capulong imported thirteen packages of salted fish and hams from Hong Kong on October 15, 1954. This importation was made without the requisite import license or release certificate from the Central Bank of the Philippines, which was mandated by Central Bank Circulars Nos. 44 and 45. Consequently, the Commissioner of Customs initiated forfeiture proceedings against the merchandise. Procedural History: The Commissioner of Customs, acting under the authority of the aforementioned circulars and Section 1363(f) of the Revised Administrative Code, declared the imported merchandise forfeited. The shipment had been released to the petitioner under a surety bond. Subsequently, the Commissioner ordered the confiscation of this bond and directed petitioner and the surety company to pay the bond amount. Petitioner sought review of this decision before the Court of Tax Appeals, which affirmed the Commissioner's judgment. Petitioner then appealed this decision to the Supreme Court. The Petition: Petitioner argues that the Court of Tax Appeals erred in upholding the forfeiture, contending that Central Bank Circulars Nos. 44 and 45 do not prescribe forfeiture as a penalty for their violation. Petitioner also asserts that Central Bank Circular No. 133, which superseded the earlier circulars, rendered the forfeiture proceedings invalid, and that the Commissioner of Customs lost jurisdiction upon the expiration of Republic Act No. 650. The Supreme Court, however, ruled that importations effected contrary to law, as defined by the circulars and Section 1363(f) of the Revised Administrative Code, are subject to forfeiture, and that the repeal of a law or the expiration of an act does not abate forfeiture proceedings already initiated.
Issue(s)
Whether the importation effected contrary to Central Bank Circulars Nos. 44 and 45 is subject to forfeiture under Section 1363(f) of the Revised Administrative Code. Whether Central Bank Circular 133 repealed Central Bank Circulars Nos. 44 and 45, thereby abating the forfeiture proceedings. Whether the Commissioner of Customs retained jurisdiction over the case despite the expiration of Republic Act No. 650.
Ruling
The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the Court of Tax Appeals, upholding the forfeiture of the merchandise and the confiscation of the surety bond. Costs were against the petitioner.
Ratio Decidendi
On the forfeiture of importation contrary to Central Bank Circulars: The Court held that importations effected contrary to law are subject to forfeiture under Section 1363(f) of the Revised Administrative Code. While Central Bank Circulars Nos. 44 and 45 themselves might not explicitly provide for forfeiture, they should be correlated with Section 1363 of the Revised Administrative Code, which authorizes forfeiture of merchandise the importation of which is effected contrary to law. The Court reiterated that these Circulars, having been published and issued within the Monetary Board's powers, form part of the customs law. Therefore, their violation falls within the purview of Section 1363(f) of the Revised Administrative Code, rendering the importation subject to seizure and forfeiture. The Court emphasized that to rule otherwise would render nugatory the aim of the law to protect the international reserve during an exchange crisis. On the repeal of Central Bank Circulars Nos. 44 and 45 by Circular 133: The Court found this contention without merit. Central Bank Circular 133 did not repeal Circulars Nos. 44 and 45 but rather reenacted them by incorporating existing regulations not inconsistent therewith. Both sets of circulars share a common purpose: requiring a release certificate for importations to monitor and manage the country's imports and address the financial crisis. Even if Circular 133 had impliedly repealed the earlier circulars, this repeal would not abate the forfeiture case because forfeiture proceedings are civil in nature and thus, the repeal cannot be given retroactive effect. On the Commissioner's retained jurisdiction: The Court held that the Commissioner of Customs retained jurisdiction over the case despite the expiration of Republic Act No. 650. 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 his duly acquired jurisdiction 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. The expiration of the law could not retroactively legalize an illegal importation or nullify a seizure and forfeiture order rendered while the law was in effect.
Main Doctrine
Importations effected contrary to law, even if not strictly prohibited, are subject to forfeiture under Section 1363(f) of the Revised Administrative Code, as Central Bank Circulars issued pursuant to law form part of customs law.