Diosamito v. Balanque
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: On November 12, 1962, a joint team of Philippine Constabulary and local police apprehended two trucks loaded with 666 cases of assorted untaxed "blue seal" cigarettes in Aringay, La Union. The trucks were impounded, and the Provincial Fiscal filed an information against the drivers for violation of the Tariff and Customs Code. Subsequently, the Collector of Customs issued a Customs Warrant of Seizure and Detention and instituted Seizure-Forfeiture Proceedings Identification No. 28/62 pursuant to Section 2530, paragraphs (f) and (k), of the Tariff and Customs Code. Procedural History: On December 7, 1962, the plaintiffs, claiming ownership of one of the trucks, filed a suit in the Court of First Instance (CFI) of Quezon City for recovery of the truck and damages, without impleading the Collector of Customs. The CFI ordered the release of the truck upon a P10,000 bond. The Collector of Customs intervened and moved for dismissal, asserting lack of jurisdiction. The CFI granted the motion and dismissed the case for lack of jurisdiction. The CFI later amended its order to direct the plaintiffs to return the truck to the Collector of Customs. The plaintiffs appealed to the Court of Appeals, which certified the case to the Supreme Court. The Petition: The plaintiffs appealed the order of dismissal, raising the sole issue of whether the CFI had jurisdiction over the subject matter.
Issue(s)
Whether the Court of First Instance has jurisdiction over a suit for the recovery of personal property that is the subject of seizure and forfeiture proceedings in the Bureau of Customs. Whether the CFI erred in dismissing the case for lack of jurisdiction.
Ruling
The Supreme Court affirmed the order of the Court of First Instance dismissing the case for lack of jurisdiction. The Court held that the CFI should yield to the jurisdiction of the Collector of Customs in seizure and forfeiture proceedings.
Ratio Decidendi
On the jurisdiction of the Court of First Instance over property subject to seizure and forfeiture proceedings: The Court reiterated its rulings in Pacis vs. Averia and De Joya, et al. vs. David, et al., stating that the original jurisdiction of the Court of First Instance, when exercised in an action for recovery of personal property that is a subject of a forfeiture proceeding in the Bureau of Customs, tends to encroach upon and render futile the jurisdiction of the Collector of Customs. The Court emphasized that the jurisdiction of the Collector of Customs, provided for in Republic Act 1937 (Tariff and Customs Code), which took effect later than the Judiciary Act of 1948, prevails. Public policy dictates that the Court of First Instance should yield to the jurisdiction of the Collector of Customs in such cases, otherwise, actions for forfeiture could be easily undermined by replevin suits. Furthermore, Section 2303 of the Tariff and Customs Code requires the Collector of Customs to provide written notice and an opportunity to be heard to the owner of the property sought to be forfeited, indicating the legislative intent to confine the determination of all questions affecting the disposal of property in seizure and forfeiture cases within the Bureau of Customs. The judicial recourse for the property owner is not in the Court of First Instance but in the Court of Tax Appeals, after exhausting administrative remedies. On the alleged lack of evidence for seizure: The Court found the argument that the truck could not be subject to seizure in the absence of evidence of illegal importation to be gratuitous and begging the question. Prima facie, the untaxed "blue seal" cigarettes loaded on the truck indicated illegal importation. The proper venue to adduce evidence to the contrary was before the Collector of Customs in the seizure-forfeiture proceeding. The Court noted that the administrative proceeding had been set for hearing twice, with due notice, but no actual hearing had yet been conducted when the CFI case was filed. The law grants the Collector of Customs sufficient latitude in determining whether an article is subject to seizure or forfeiture, and decisions in such matters are appealable to the Commissioner of Customs and then to the Court of Tax Appeals, not to the Court of First Instance.
Main Doctrine
The Court of First Instance lacks jurisdiction over a suit for recovery of personal property that is the subject of seizure and forfeiture proceedings in the Bureau of Customs, as the jurisdiction of the Collector of Customs, as provided for in a later law (Tariff and Customs Code), prevails over the general jurisdiction of the Court of First Instance. The proper recourse for the owner is to exhaust administrative remedies within the Bureau of Customs and then appeal to the Court of Tax Appeals.