Airlift Asia Customs Brokerage v. Court of Appeals
NEW DOCTRINEFacts
The Antecedents: Customs Administrative Order No. 3-2006 (CAO 3-2006) was issued by the Commissioner of the Bureau of Customs (BOC) with the approval of the Secretary of Finance. This order mandated that customs brokers must obtain accreditation from the BOC to practice their profession. The petitioners, Airlift Asia Customs Brokerage, Inc. and Allan G. Benedicto, challenged the validity of this order, arguing that it was issued without proper authority, contradicted Republic Act No. 9280 (the Customs Brokers Act of 2004), and infringed upon their right to practice their profession. Procedural History: The petitioners initially filed an action for declaratory relief before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Manila, Branch 8. The RTC ruled in favor of the petitioners, nullifying CAO 3-2006. The RTC found that the authority to regulate the customs brokerage profession had been transferred from the BOC Commissioner to the Professional Regulatory Board for Customs Brokers (PRBCB) under RA 9280, and that the accreditation requirement imposed by CAO 3-2006 was an impermissible licensing requirement. The Bureau of Customs and the Secretary of Finance appealed this decision to the Court of Appeals (CA). The CA reversed the RTC's decision, upholding the validity of CAO 3-2006 and finding that the accreditation requirement was reasonably connected to the BOC's mandate to ensure efficient customs administration and revenue collection. The Petition: The petitioners have filed a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court with the Supreme Court, assailing the decision and resolution of the Court of Appeals. They argue that the CA erred in reversing the RTC's ruling and in upholding the validity of CAO 3-2006. The core of their argument is that RA 9280, by repealing relevant provisions of the Tariff and Customs Code and creating the PRBCB, divested the BOC Commissioner of the authority to regulate the practice of customs brokerage. Furthermore, they contend that the accreditation requirement imposed by CAO 3-2006 constitutes an additional licensing requirement prohibited by Section 19 of RA 9280, which allows accredited customs brokers to practice without needing further licenses from the BOC.
Issue(s)
Whether Customs Administrative Order No. 3-2006 (CAO 3-2006), which requires customs brokers to be accredited by the Bureau of Customs (BOC) to practice before the BOC, is valid; and whether the BOC Commissioner has the authority to issue rules and regulations governing the practice of the customs brokerage profession, specifically through an accreditation requirement. Whether the accreditation requirement imposed by CAO 3-2006 constitutes a prohibited licensing requirement under Republic Act No. 9280.
Ruling
The petition is granted. The assailed Decision dated February 28, 2008, and Resolution dated May 27, 2008, of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No. 88291 are reversed and set aside. The Decision dated September 6, 2006, of the Regional Trial Court of Manila, Branch 8, in Civil Case No. 06-115029, is reinstated.
Ratio Decidendi
On the validity of CAO 3-2006 and the authority of the BOC Commissioner: The Court ruled that Republic Act No. 9280 (RA 9280) expressly repealed Sections 3401 to 3409 of the Tariff and Customs Code of the Philippines (TCCP) and transferred the supervision and regulation of the customs brokerage profession from the Board of Examiners to the Professional Regulatory Board for Customs Brokers (PRBCB). RA 9280 created the PRBCB under the supervision and administrative control of the Professional Regulation Commission (PRC), and significantly excluded the BOC Commissioner as a member of the PRBCB. This exclusion evinced a legislative intent to remove any power the BOC Commissioner previously exercised over customs brokers and to transfer the supervision, control, and regulation of the profession to the PRBCB. The powers granted to the PRBCB under Section 7 of RA 9280, such as supervising and regulating the licensure, registration, and practice of customs brokers, further support this transfer of authority. While the BOC Commissioner has a mandate to enforce tariff laws and prevent smuggling, these powers do not necessarily include the authority to regulate and supervise the customs broker profession through the issuance of an administrative order like CAO 3-2006. The general rule-making power of the BOC Commissioner under Section 608 of the TCCP gives way to the specific grant of power to promulgate rules on the practice of customs brokers, which, after the enactment of RA 9280, was transferred to the PRBCB under Section 37 of the same Act. On whether CAO 3-2006 constitutes a prohibited licensing requirement: The Court held that CAO 3-2006 amounts to a licensing requirement that restricts the practice of the customs broker profession, which is prohibited by RA 9280. Section 19 of RA 9280 clearly states that a customs broker who has been issued a certificate of registration by the PRBCB shall be allowed to practice the profession in any collection district without the need of securing another license from the BOC. The accreditation required by CAO 3-2006, which is a prerequisite for practicing before the BOC, functions as a license. A license is defined as "permission to do a particular thing, to exercise a certain privilege or to carry on a particular business or to pursue a certain occupation." Since a customs broker cannot practice their profession before the BOC without complying with CAO 3-2006, the accreditation requirement takes the form of a licensing requirement proscribed by law. This imposes an additional burden on PRC-certified customs brokers and curtails their right to practice their profession, contrary to the intent of RA 9280, which grants a Certificate of Registration that entitles a successful examinee to practice the profession with all its attendant benefits and privileges.
Main Doctrine
The Bureau of Customs (BOC) Commissioner cannot require accreditation for customs brokers to practice before the BOC, as this power is vested in the Professional Regulatory Board for Customs Brokers (PRBCB) under Republic Act No. 9280, and such accreditation would constitute a prohibited licensing requirement.