Powers and Jurisdiction of Customs G.R. No. L-49162 July 2! 19"J#N$C% R$% J#'! re(resented )y *er mot*er and +uardian ad litem! #RL%N% ,.,#LG#-'! petitioner, vs. ./% /'N'R#0L% C'1R. '2 #PP%#L, and P%R$C' 3. J#'! respondents.Appeal by certiorari from the decision* of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. No. 51!"-R, dated#$Au%ust1$!", &hichdismissedpetitioner'sactionforreco%nitionandsupporta%ainstprivaterespondent, andfrom the respondent Court'sresolution, dated 11 (ctober 1$!",denyin% petitioner's motion for reconsideration of said decision.(n #" (ctober 1$)", petitioner *anice +arie *ao, then a minor, represented by her motherand%uardian-ad-litemArlene,al%ado, -ledacasefor reco%nitionandsupport &iththe*uvenile and .omestic Relations Court a%ainst private respondent /erico 0. *ao. 1he latterdenied paternity so the parties a%reed to a blood %roupin% test &hich &as in due courseconducted by the National 2ureau of 3nvesti%ation 4N235 upon order of the trial court. 1heresult of the blood %roupin% test, held #1 *anuary 1$)$, indicated that *anice could not havebeen the possible o6sprin% of /erico 0. *ao and Arlene ,. ,al%ado.11he trialcourt initially found the result of the tests le%ally conclusive but upon plainti6's4herein petitioner's5 second motion for reconsideration, it ordered a trial on the merits, after&hich, *anice &as declared the child of *ao, thus entitlin% her to his monthly support.*ao appealed to the Court of Appeals, 7uestionin% the trial court's failure to appreciate theresult of the blood %roupin% tests. As there &as no sho&in% &hatsoever that there &as anyirre%ularity or mista8e in the conduct of the tests, *ao ar%ued that the result of the testsshould have been conclusive and indisputable evidence of his non-paternity.1he Court of Appeals upheld *ao's contentions and reversed the trial court's decision. 3n itsdecision, the Court of Appeals held9:romtheevidenceof thecontendin%parties, itappearsundisputedthat*A(&asintroduced to AR; Appeals erred in aIrmin% the decision of the respondent -ndin%that the merchandise involved are liable to the penalty of forfeiture 4under ,ection#5@ 4f5 of the 1ari6 and Customs Code5.@. 1he Court of 1a> Appeals erred in not -ndin% that the merchandise involved &hich&ere seiBed and libeled for alle%ed violation of particular provisions of la& can not bele%ally forfeited for violation of any other provision of la&.All three assi%ned errors are untenable.1. /etitionerar%uesthat theCollector of Customsof *olo, &hohas'Durisdictionoverallmatters arisin%fromtheenforcement of tari6andcustoms la&s &ithinhis collectiondistrict', as providedfor in,ection!@of the1ari6andCustomsCode, ise>clusivelyauthoriBed to proceed a%ainst the ci%arettesin 7uestion inasmuch as the smu%%lin% &asalle%edly perpetrated in his collection district. ?ence, petitioner concludes that the seiBureand forfeiture thereof by the Collector of Customs of Cebu is irre%ular and ille%al for lac8 ofDurisdiction.Fe do not a%ree. :irst, because ,ection !@, on &hich petitionerLs conclusion is premised, isle%ally non-e>istent, the same havin% been vetoed by the /resident.1 ,econdly, the 1ari6 andCustoms Code clearly empo&ers the 2ureau of Customs to prevent and suppress smu%%lin%and other frauds upon the Customs O,ec. )# 4b5P over all seas &ithin the Durisdiction of the/hilippines andover all coasts, ports, airports, harbors, bays, riversandinland&atersnavi%able from the sea and, in case of 'hot pursuit', even beyond the maritime Bone 4,ec.)@5. :or the due enforcement of this function, a Collector, amon% others, is authoriBed tosearch and seiBe 4,ec. ##@5, at any place &ithin the Durisdiction of the said 2ureau 4,ec.##C, sec. par.5, any vessel, aircraft, car%o, article, animal or other movable property &henthe same is subDect to forfeiture or liable for any -ne imposed under customs and tari6 la&s4,ec. ##55. 3t is of no moment &here the introduction of the property subDect to forfeituretoo8 place. :or, to our mind, '4i5t is the ri%ht of an oIcer of the customs to seiBe %oods&hich are suspected to have been introduced into the country in violation of the revenuela&s not only in his o&n district, but also in any other district than his o&n'. O1aylor vs. H.,.,CC H.,. 4@ ?o&.5 1$!, 11 ;. ed. 55$P. Any other construction of the 1ari6 and Customs Code,such as the one proposed by petitioner, &ould virtually place the Collector of Customs in astraitDac8etandrender inutilehispolice po&erofsearchandseiBure, therebyfrustratin%e6ectiveenforcement of themeasures providedintheCodetoprevent andsuppresssmu%%lin% and other frauds upon the Customs. 1his &e can not sanction by subscribin% topetitionerLsconclusion. 1heCode, asarevenuela&, istobeconstruedtocarryouttheintention of Con%ress in enactin% it and as &ould most e6ectually accomplish its obDects 415Am. *ur. @C5./etitioner also attac8s the Durisdiction of the Collector of Customs of Cebu on the %round thatthe forfeiture of the ci%arettes is not in accordance &ith ,ection #5@1 of the Code, as thesame &ere, at the time of seiBure, no lon%er in the custody and controlof the 2ureau ofCustoms nor in the hands, or subDect to control, of the importer, ori%inal o&ner, consi%nee,a%ent or person &ith 8no&led%e that the same &ere imported contrary to la&.A%ain, &edisa%ree. 1heforfeitureise6ectedpreciselyinaccordance&ith,ection#5@1afore-cited, &hichplainlyprovides'that forfeitureshall bee6ected&henand&hilethearticle is in the custody or &ithin the Durisdiction of the customs authority ... or in the handsor sub1ect to the control of ... some person -ho shall receive" conceal" buy" sell or transportthe same ... -ith kno-ledge that the article -as imported ... contrary to la-2 34mphasissupplied5. 1here can be no 7uestion that the ci%arettes involved &ere seiBed and forfeited atthe port of Cebu &hich is &ithin the Durisdiction of the 2ureau of Customs and, as &ill besho&nlater, &hiletheci%arettes&eresubDect tothecontrol of petitioner, &hobou%ht,concealed, and transported the same aboard the +Q0 ';e%aspi' &ith 8no&led%e that they&ere imported contrary to la&. 2esides, it is a settled Durisprudence that forfeitureproceedin%sareinthenatureof proceedin%sinrem&hereintheDurisdictiontoproceeda%ainst the res is vested in the court of the district &here the same is found or seiBed 4#5C.*.,. 5!#5. 1herefore, the Collector of Customs of Cebu, &ho has the authority under the1ari6 and Customs Code to institute forfeiture proceedin%s, la&fully assumed Durisdiction toforfeit, infavorof theGovernment, thesmu%%ledci%arettesfoundandseiBed&ithinhiscollection district.#. /etitioner ne>t ar%ues that the ci%arettes in 7uestion are not merchandise of prohibitedimportation inasmuch as she had purchased the same in the open mar8et in *oloA &hich %oestosho&that sheisnot theimporter, ori%inal o&ner, consi%nee, a%ent or person&hoe6ected the importation thereofA and that in the absence of evidence that she bou%ht thesame &ith 8no&led%e that they &ere imported contrary to la& in accordance &ith ,ection#5@1, as the lac8 of internal revenue stamps is not evidence of ille%al importation much lessher 8no&led%e thereof, the said ci%arettes are not subDect to forfeiture under ,ection #5@4f5 of the Code.1his is not the -rst time that this 7uestion has been posed before us. 3n the case ofGigarevs. Commissioner of Customs 4G.R.No. ;-#1@!), Au%ust #$, 1$)), 1!,.C.R.A.115, &edisposed of the same by holdin% that '4s5ince, admittedly, the internal revenue ta> on theci%arettes indispute has not been paid, it is clear that said ci%arettes fall &ithin the cate%oryof 'merchandise of prohibited importation,' the importation of &hich is contrary to la& andmay Dustify its forfeiture, as provided in ,ections 1@)@ 4f5 and 1@)C of the RevisedAdministrative Code,' &hich correspond to ,ections #5@ 4f5 and #5@1, respectively, of the1ari6andCustoms Code. '+oreover, theblueseals aI>edonsaidcommoditiesprovesatisfactorily that they are forei%n products. A%ain, the importation thereof into the/hilippines is attested by the presence of said products &ithin our Durisdiction' 46bid.5 Andconcernin% petitionerLs 8no&led%e of these facts, the follo&in% dis7uisition by the Court of1a> Appeals, len%thily 7uoted in the Gigare case, -nds si%ni-cant application in the case atbar9Fere the ci%arettes in 7uestion ille%ally imported into the /hilippinesS Fe are of theopinion that, the Commissioner of Customs should be sustained in his -ndin% that theci%arettesin7uestion&ereimportedille%ally. 1heabsenceof /hilippineinternalrevenuestripstamps onci%arettes indicates that theyareeither manufacturedclandestinely &ithin the /hilippines or imported ille%ally into the country. 3n the caseat bar, concomitant circumstances militatea%ainst theclandestinemanufacture&ithin the /hilippines of the ci%arettes. 1he aI>ture of blue seals on the pac8s of theci%arettes, the &rappers, the purchase of the ci%arettes in the open mar8et of *olo, aplace &here American and other forei%n made ci%arettes are, of common 8no&led%e,fre7uently smu%%led from 2orneo ...and the failure of petitioner to sho&that theci%arettesin7uestion&erelocallymanufacturedruleout thepossibilitythat theci%arettes in 7uestion &ere manufactured in the /hilippines. Conse7uently, &e areconstrained to conclude that these ci%arettes &ere forei%n 4American5 made. 1hey&ere merchandise of prohibited importation, the importation of &hich &as contrary tola&, andshouldbeforfeitedunder,ection1@)@4f5of theRevisedAdministrativeCode.> > > > > > > > >1he fact that petitioner is merely a buyer of the ci%arettes in the open mar8et of *olodoesnotrendertheci%arrettesimmunefromthepenaltyof forfeiture. 1hisissobecause forfeiture proceedin%s are instituted a%ainst the res 4ci%arettes5 ... and, bye>press provision of ,ection 1@)C of the Revised Administrative Code, the forfeitureshall occur &hile the merchandise is in the hands or subDect to control of some person&ho shall receive, conceal, buy, sell, or transport the same &ith 8no&led%e that themerchandise &as imported contrary to la&. /etitioner cannot but be char%ed &ith the8no&led%e that the ci%arettes in 7uestion &ere imported contrary to la&, for if it &ereother&ise, &hy &ere these ci%arettes concealed on board the vessel ... S Fhy did shedenyo&nershipoversaidci%arettesS:or&hatplausiblereason&assheafraidofdetentionS Fhat impelled her to believe that she &ould be detained by the customsauthoritiesS1oupholdtheclaimof petitioner andfore%otheforfeiture&ouldbe%ivin% a chance to accessories after the fact of smu%%lers of forei%n ci%arettes to plytheir trade&ithimpunity and&ithsanctionof thecourts. Fhat thee>ecutivedepartment couldnot curb, that isrampant smu%%lin%of forei%nci%arettes, thecourts should not tolerate ...@. /etitioner -nally contends that the decision of the Commissioner of Customs libelin% andforfeitin% the ci%arettes involved in the present case for violation of ,ection #5@ 4m-15 ofthe 1ari6 and Customs Code is unconstitutional, in vie& of the fact that she &as alle%edlynot a6orded an opportunity to defend the ci%arettes a%ainst such char%e, said section notbein% one of the ori%inal %rounds cited by the Collector of Customs of Cebu in forfeitin% thesame.1he contention has no merit. Certainly, the appellate po&er of the Commissioner of Customsto revie& seiBure and protest cases is not limited to a revie& of the issues raised on appeal.?emayaIrm, modifyor reversethedecisionof theCollector 4,ection#@1@5 onother7uestions provided that his -ndin%s and conclusions are, as in the case at bar, supported byevidence. 3t is of no conse7uence &hatsoever &hat &ere the ori%inal %rounds of the seiBureand forfeiture if, in point of fact, the %oods are by la& subDect to forfeiture OFood vs. H.,., 1)/et. 4H.,.5 @C#, 1 ;. ed. $"!P. As there is evidence on record sho&in% that the ci%arettes in7uestion &ere imported and introduced into the country &ithout passin% throu%h a customshouse, the same may be forfeited under said ,ection #5@ 4m-15 of the Code,not&ithstandin%thatitisnotoneof theori%inal char%es. As&eheldin *uePo7ayvs.Central 8ank" etal. 41C/hil. "5@5, &hatcountsisnotthedesi%nationof theparticularsection of the la& that has been violated but the description of the violation in the seiBurereport.#F?es and duties on the Cadi3lac car are set forth in the petition thus9 '4a53n securin% the re%istration of said car, Rodolfo CeNadoBa predecessor-in-interest ofrespondentAndres+. 0inuya, used3nformal esandduties is one /ablo CruB, *r., &ho does not appear to be one of the predecessors-in-interest ofrespondent 0inuyaA 4c5 As sho&n by Anne> 2 hereof, &hen the Cadillac car &as seiBed anddetained by A,AC a%ents, its plate license &as No. ?-@!#)C 4)!5 RiBal, and not /late No.@5$54)!5 RiBal, &hich&asitsplatenumber &henit &asalle%edlyre%isteredA 4d5 (n:ebruary 1C, 1$)", a certain*ess (. 1uaBon, General +ana%er of the ;ee ,abre Carchan%e, +anila, e>ecuted an aIdavit ..., to the e6ect that Rodolfo CeNadoBa had left thesaidcarinhispossessionforthepurposeof sellin%thesameandthattheaIant hadobli%atedhimself toL&aivemy4his5ri%htstosell theabove-mentionedcarnotuntil theproper ta>es due to the %overnment has been satisfactorily paidLA 4e5 (n :ebruary 15, 1$)",said*ess1uaBon, &hothenhadpossessionof thesaidCadillaccar, throu%hhisla&yer,1homas ,. CorteB, e>ecuted a promissory note ..., obli%atin% himself to pay thecorrespondin% ta>es and duties.'23t &as moreover sho&n in the petition that the o&ner, Rodolfo CeNadoBa, had sold such carto one :rancisco .ee from &hom respondent 0inuya ac7uired the same.= Hnder claim thathe &as a%%rieved by such seiBure and detention of the car in 7uestion, respondent 0inuya-leda complaint for replevininthe sala of respondent *ud%e.4 After -lin%abondof/),. an e>-parte order &as issued on April 1$, 1$)! by respondent *ud%e directin% aspecial sheri6 to ta8epossessionoftheCadillaccarin7uestion.> (ntheverysamedayrespondent *ud%eli8e&ise%aveduecoursetothecomplaint for replevinandre7uiredpetitioners to -le their ans&er. 61here &as, on the part of petitioners, a motion to dismiss as &ell as to lift the e>-parte order.3n see8in% such dismissal,the attention of respondent *ud%e &as invited to the factthatforfeiture proceedin%s had already been instituted before the Collector of Customs &ho hasthesoleDurisdictiontodetermine7uestions a6ectin%thedispositionof propertyunderseiBure as &ell as the absence of a cause of action." 1here &as an opposition by respondent0inuya -led on +ay !, 1$)" and a denial thereof in an order of respondent *ud%e on the%round that such motion to dismiss 'is &ithout merit.' 1he matter &as thus ta8en to thisCourt.3n our resolution of *une C, 1$)", respondents &ere re7uired to ans&erA at the same time apreliminaryinDunction&as issued. 3ntheans&er -ledon*uly11, 1$)", there&as anadmission that on :ebruary $, 1$)", the Collector of Customs of the /ort of +anila issued a&arrant of seiBure and detention a%ainst the Cadillac car, but there &as a denial that there%istrationcoverin%thecar &asille%allysecuredasrespondent 0inuyareliedon&hatappeared to be a public document valid and re%ular on its face. 1hey base their defense inthe ille%ality of the seiBure as the &arrant on &hich it is based is invalid and the seiBin%oIcer &as devoid of authorityA respondentsL principal contention thus is the assertion thatan ille%al seiBure cannot confer Durisdiction on the Collector of Customs.:rom a study of the records of the case as &ell as the applicable la&, the conclusion reachedby us, as mentioned at the outset, is that the petition should be %ranted.1. 1he prevailin% doctrine is that the e>clusive Durisdiction in seiBure and forfeiture casesvestedintheCollector of Customs precludes acourt of -rst instancefromassumin%co%niBance over such a matter. 1his has been so, as noted, since Pacis v. Averia.

3n an opinion penned by *ustice *. /. 2en%Bon, there &as a statement of the le%alprovisionsthatcall forapplication. 1hus9 '1he1ari6andCustomsCode, in,ection#5@thereof, lists the 8inds of property subDect to forfeiture. At the same time, in /art # of 1itle 03thereof, it provides for theprocedureinseiBureandforfeiturecases andvests intheCollector of Customs the authority to hear and decide said cases. 1he CollectorLs decision isappealabletotheCommissionerof Customs&hosedecisionisinturnappealabletotheCourt of 1a> Appeals. An a%%rieved party may appeal from a Dud%ment of the Court of 1a>Appeals directly to this Court. (n the other hand, ,ection CC4c5 of the *udiciary Act of 1$C"lod%es in the Court of :irst 3nstance ori%inal Durisdiction in all cases in &hich the value of theproperty in controversy amounts to more than ten thousand pesos. 1his ori%inal Durisdictionof the Court of :irst 3nstance, &hen e>ercised in an action for recovery of personal property&hich is a subDect of a forfeiture proceedin% in the 2ureau of Customs, tends to encroachupon, andtorender futile, theDurisdictionof theCollector of Customs inseiBureandforfeiture proceedin%s. 1his is precisely &hat too8 place in this case.l9-ph:$./;t 1he seiBureandforfeitureproceedin%s a%ainst the+Q2L2u8an%;i&ay&ayL beforetheCollector ofCustoms of +anila, &as stiEed by the issuance of a &rit of replevin by the Court of :irst3nstance of Cavite.'91hecrucial 7uestion&hether ,ectionCC4c5 of the*udicial Act should%ive&aytotheprovisionsof the1ari6andCustomsCode&asans&eredintheaIrmative, theopinionclearly statin% that 'the Court of :irst 3nstance should yield to the Durisdiction of the Collectorof Customs. 1he Durisdiction of the Collector of Customs is provided for in Republic Act 1$@!&hich too8 e6ect on *uly 1, 1$5!, much later than the *udiciary Act of 1$C". 3t is a>iomaticthat a later la& prevails over a prior statute. +oreover, on %rounds of public policy, it is morereasonable to conclude that the le%islators intended to divest the Court of :irst 3nstance ofthe prero%ative to replevina property &hich is a subDect of a seiBure andforfeitureproceedin%s for violation of the 1ari6 and Customs Code. (ther&ise, actions for forfeiture ofproperty for violation of Customs la&s could easily be undermined by the simple devise ofreplevin.' 1? 1his e>cerpt from the opinion is li8e&ise relevant9 ':urthermore, ,ection #@@ ofthe 1ari6 and Customs Code re7uires the Collector of Customs to %ive to the o&ner of theproperty sou%ht to be forfeited &ritten notice of the seiBure and to %ive him the opportunityto be heard in his defense. 1his provision clearly indicates the intention of the la& to con-neinthe2ureauof Customs thedeterminationof all 7uestions a6ectin%thedisposal ofpropertyproceededa%ainstinaseiBureandforfeiturecase. 1heDudicial recourseof theproperty o&ner is not in the Court of :irst 3nstance but in the Court of 1a> Appeals, and onlyafter e>haustin% administrative remedies in the 2ureau of Customs.' 111he principle &as reiterated in an opinion of the present Chief #ustice in ?e #oyav. ?avid. 12 1hus9'As re%ardsthemerits of thiscase,it is obvious that the Courtof :irst3nstanceof +anilahadnoDurisdictionover thesubDect-matter of Civil CaseNo. 5)5@@thereof, and that neither had the Court of Appeals Durisdiction over the appeal ta8en fromthedecisionof saidtrial Court. 3ndeed, insaidCaseNo. 5)5@@.avidsou%ht toobtainpossession of the %oods &hich &ere the obDect of seiBure proceedin%s before the Collector ofCustoms. Fe have already held that such action is beyond the Durisdiction of courts of -rstinstance.' 1=Papa v. @ago 14 li8e&ise deserves to be cited. 1he opinion of *ustice Kaldivar for the Courtemphatically asserted the doctrine ane& in the follo&in% lan%ua%e9 '3t is the settled rule,therefore, that the 2ureau of Customs ac7uires e>clusive Durisdiction over imported %oods,for thepurposesof enforcement of thecustomsla&s, fromthemoment the%oodsareactually in its possession or control, even if no &arrant of seiBure or detention had previouslybeen issued by the Collector of Customs in connection &ith seiBure and forfeitureproceedin%s. 3nthepresent case, the2ureauof CustomsactuallyseiBedthe%oods in7uestiononNovemberC, 1$)), andsofromthatdatethe2ureauof Customsac7uiredDurisdiction over the %oods for the purposes of the enforcement of the tari6 and customsla&s, to the e>clusion of the re%ular courts. +uch less than &ould the Court of :irst 3nstanceof +anilahasDurisdictionoverthe%oodsin7uestionaftertheCollectorof Customshadissued the &arrant of seiBure and detention on *anuary 1#, 1$)!. And so, it cannot be said,as respondents contend, that the issuance of said &arrant &as only an attempt to divest therespondent *ud%e of Durisdiction over the subDect matter of the case. 1he court presided byrespondent *ud%e did not ac7uire Durisdiction over the %oods in 7uestion &hen the petitionfor mandamus &as -led before it, and so there &as no need of divestin% it of Durisdiction. Nothavin%ac7uiredDurisdictionoverthe%oods, itfollo&sthattheCourtof :irst3nstanceof+anilahadnoDurisdictiontoissuethe7uestionedorderof+arch!, 1$)!releasin%said%oods.' 1>#. Respondents, ho&ever, not&ithstandin%thecompellin%forceof theabovedoctrines,&ould assert that respondent *ud%e could entertain the replevin suit as the seiBure is ille%al,alle%edly because the &arrant issued is invalid and the seiBin% oIcer li8e&ise &as devoid ofauthority. 1his is to lose si%ht of the distinction, as earlier made mention of, bet&een thee>istence of the po&er and the re%ularity of the proceedin% ta8en under it. 1he%overnmental a%ency concerned, the 2ureau of Customs, is vested &ith e>clusive authority.ercise of such e>clusive competence a taint of ille%alitymay be correctly imputed, the most that can be said is that under certain circumstances the%raveabuseof discretionconferredmayoust it of suchDurisdiction. 3t doesnot meanho&everthat correspondin%lyacourt of -rst instanceisvested&ithcompetence&henclearly in the li%ht of the above decisions the la& has not seen -t to do so. l9-ph:$./;t 1heproceedin% before the Collector of Customs is not -nal. An appeal lies to the Commissionerof Customs and thereafter to the Court of 1a> Appeals. 3t may even reach this Court throu%hthe appropriate petition for revie&. 1he proper ventilation of the le%al issues raised is thusindicated. Certainly a court of -rst instance is not therein included. 3t is devoid of Durisdiction.F?amination,' and the special permit %ranted, hibit es constitutin%a si%ni-cant portion of the public revenue &hich enables the %overnment to carry out thefunctions it has been ordained to perform for the &elfare of its constituents.O#$P?ence, theirprompt and certain availability is an imperative needO@P and they must be collected &ithoutunnecessary hindrance.O@1P Clearly, and perhaps for that reason alone, the submission of the3clusive discretion or &him of the importer. Fe hold, therefore, that under the relevant provisions of the 1CC,O@#P both the 3> >>> >>> b. Fhenthe o&ner, importer, consi%nee or interested party after duenotice! fails to -le an entry &ithinthirty 4@5 days, &hichshall not bee>tendible, from the date of dischar%e of the last pac8a%e from the vessel oraircraft >>>4>> 2. A.+3N3,1RA130>> >>> >>> 2.#3mplied abandonment occurs &hen9 2.#.11heo&ner, importer, consi%nee, interestedparty or his authoriBedbro8erQrepresentative, after duenotice, failsto-leanentry&ithinanon-e>tendible periodof thirty 4@5 days fromthe date of dischar%eof lastpac8a%e from the carryin% vessel or aircraft. >>> >>> >>> -ue notice to t*e consi+neeHim(orterHownerHinterested (arty s*all )e)y means of (ostin+ ofanotice toFle entry att*e0ulletin 0oardseAen 6"7 days (rior to t*e la(se of t*e t*irty 6=?7 day (eriod by the> >>> >>> C. (/>> >>> >>> C.#(n 3mplied Abandonment9 C.#.1Fhen no entry is -led C.#.1.19it*intwenty-four 6247 *oursaftert*e com(letion of t*e )oardin+formalities, the 2oardin% 3nspector mustsubmitthe manifests tothe2ay,erviceor similar oIce so that the > > > > > > > > +R. :>1he settled rule is that courts &ill not anticipate a 7uestionof constitutional la& in advance of the necessity of decidin% it.O5#P 2e that as it may, the intent of Con%ress &as une7uivocal. (ur policy ma8ers &antedto do a&ay &ith len%thy proceedin%s before an importation can be considered abandoned9 > > > > > > >>>+R. /ARA=N(.1han8 you, +r. Chairman.1he proposed amendment to,ection 1"1 on the abandonment, 8inds and e6ects.1his aimed to facilitate,+r. Chairman, the process by &hich this activity is bein% acted upon at themoment.1he intention, +r. Chairman, is for the Customs Administration to beable to ma>imiBe the revenue that can be derived from abandoned %oods, andthe problem that &e are encounterin% at the moment is that &e have to %othrou%h a len%thy process similar to a seiBure proceedin%s to be able to -nallydeclare the car%o, the abandoned car%o forfeited in favor of the %overnmentand therefore, may be disposed of pursuant to la&.And that therefore, t*e(ro(osedamendment (articularlyont*eim(lieda)andonment asframed *ere will do away wit* t*e len+t*y (rocess of sei;ure(roceedin+s and therefore, enable us to dispose of the shipments throu%hpublic auction and other modes of disposal as early as possible. 1?< C?A3R+AN.3n other &ords, Commissioner, t*ereLll )e no needfor a sei;ure in t*e case of a)andonment )ecause under t*e(ro(osed )ill itLs considered to )e +oAernment (ro(erty.O5@P > > > >>> >>> C'NCL1,$'N /etitionerZs failure to -le the re7uired entries &ithin a non-e>tendible period of thirtydays from date of dischar%e of the last pac8a%e from the carryin% vessel constituted impliedabandonment of its oil importations. 1his means that from the precise moment that the non-e>tendible thirty-day period lapsed, the abandoned shipments &ere deemed 4that is, theybecame5 thepropertyof the%overnment.1herefore, &henpetitioner &ithdre&theoilshipments for consumption, it appropriated for itself properties &hich already belon%ed tothe %overnment.Accordin%ly, it became liable for the total dutiable value of the shipmentsof imported crude oil amountin% to /1,#1,#",!"$.#1 reduced by the total amount of dutiespaid amountin% to /@1),C$$,#1. thereby leavin% a balance of /"$@,!"1,!)".#1. 2y the very nature of its functions, the C1A is a hi%hly specialiBed court speci-callycreated for the purpose of revie&in% ta> and customs cases. 3t is dedicated e>clusively tothe study and consideration of revenue-related problems and has necessarily developed ane>pertise on the subDect.1hus, as a %eneral rule, its -ndin%s and conclusions are accorded%reat respect and are %enerally upheld by this Court, unless there is a clear sho&in% of areversible error or an improvident e>ercise of authority.1here is no such sho&in% here. 9/%R%2'R%, thepetitionishereby -%N$%-./etitionerChevron/hilippines, 3nc.is 'R-%R%- to pay the amount of 4c5 Any vessel or aircraft into &hich shall be transferred car%o unladencontrary to la& prior to the arrival of the importin% vessel or aircraft at herport of destination.1he penalty of forfeiture is imposed on any vessel, en%a%ed in smu%%lin% if the conditionsenumerated in ,ection #5@ 4a5 are compresent.1hese conditions are9415 1he vessel is 'used unla&fully in the importation or e>portation of articles into or from'the /hilippinesA4#5 1he articles are imported or e>ported into or from 'any /hilippine port or place, e>cept aport of entryA' or4@5 3f the vessel has a capacity of less than @ tons and is 'used in the importation of articlesinto any /hilippine /ort or place other than a port of the ,ulu ,ea, &here importation in suchvessel may be authoriBed by the Commissioner, &ith the approval of the department head.'1here is no 7uestion that the vessel ,Q, Ar%o &as apprehended &hile unloadin% %oods offorei%nori%inontothebar%eHN-;-1)andthetu%boat (restes, &ithout thenecessarypapers sho&in% that the %oods &ere entered la&fully thou%h a port of entry and that ta>esand duties on said %oods had been paid. 1he claim that the ,Q, Ar%o made an emer%encycall at the /ort of +anila for replacement of cre& members and had to stop at the plosivesAnchora%e Area because it &as carryin% nitric acid, a dan%erous car%o, cannot be upheld,much less %iven credence by this Court. 1he facts found by the Court of 1a> Appeals are inconsonance &ith the -ndin%s of the Collector of Customs, and the Commissioner of Customs.Absent a sho&in% of any irre%ularity, or arbitrariness, the -ndin%s of fact of Guasi-1udicial andadministrativebodiesareentitledto%reat &ei%ht9, andareconclusiveandbindin% on this Court. 4:eeder 3nternational ;ine, /te., ;td. v. Court of Appeals, 1$! ,CRA "C#O1$$1PA *aculina v. National /olice Commission, #,CRAC"$ O1$$1P5. +oreover, theCollector of Customs in ,.3. No. 1$-C, +anila, ordered on *uly #", 1$)) the forfeiture ofthe subDect car%o after -ndin% that they &ere, in truth and in fact, smu%%led articles 4Rollo,p. !5. Respondent Ceaba did not appeal from said order and the same has become -nal.3n its decision, the Court of 1a> Appeals held that &hile the ,Q, Ar%o &as cau%ht unloadin%smu%%led %oods in +anila 2ay, the said vessel and the %oods cannot be forfeited in favor ofthe %overnment because the /ort of +anila is a port of entry 4R.A. 1$@!, ,ec. !15.1he Commissioner of Customs ar%ues that the phrase 'e>cept a port of entry' should mean'e>cept a port of destination,' and inasmuch as there is no sho&in% that the /ort of +anila&as the port of destination of the ,Q, Ar%o, its forfeiture &as in order.Fe disa%ree.,ection #5@4a5 in unmista8able terms provides that a vessel en%a%ed in smu%%lin% 'in aport of entry' cannot be forfeited. 1his is the clear and plain meanin% of the la&. 3t is not&ithin the province of the Court to in7uire into the &isdom of the la&, for indeed, &e arebound by the &ords of the statute. Neither can &e put &ords in the mouths of the la&ma8er.A verba legis non est recedendum.3t must be noted that the Revised Administrative Code of 1$1! from &hich the 1ari6 andCustomsCodeisbased, containedin,ection1@)@4a5 thereof almost e>actlythesameprovision in ,ection #5@4a5 of the 1ari6 and Customs Code, includin% the phrase 'e>cept aport of entry.' 3f the la&ma8ers intendedthe term'port of entry' to mean 'port ofdestination,' they could have e>pressed facilely such intention &hen they adopted the 1ari6and Customs Code in 1$5!. 3nstead on amendin% the la&, Con%ress reenacted verbatim theprovision of ,ection 1@)@4a5 of the Revised Administrative Code of 1$1!. Con%ress, in thevery same Article #5@ of the 1ari6 and Customs Code, used the term 'port of destination' insubsections4c5 and4d5 thereof. 1hisisaclearindicationthatCon%ressisa&areof thedistinction bet&een the t&o &ordin%s.3t &as only in 1$!#, after this case &as instituted, &hen the 7uestioned e>ception 4'e>cept aport of entry'5 in ,ection #5@4a5 of the 1ari6 and Customs Code &as deleted by /... No. !C.Nevertheless, althou%h the vessel cannot be forfeited, it is subDect to a -ne of not more than/1,. for failure to supply the re7uisite manifest for the unloaded car%o under ,ection#5#1 of Code, &hich reads as follo&s9,ec. #5#1. :ailure to ,upply Re7uisite +anifests. G 3f any vesselor aircraftenters or departs from a port of entry &ithout submittin% the proper manifestto the customs authorities, or shall enter or depart conveyin% unmanifestedcar%o other than as stated in the ne>t precedin% section hereof, such vessel oraircraft shall be -ned in a sum not e>ceedin% ten thousand pesos.>>> >>> >>>1hebar%e-li%hter HN-;-1)andthetu%boat (restes, ontheother hand, aresubDect toforfeiture under para%raph 4c5 of ,ection #5@ of the 1ari6 and Customs Code. 1he bar%e-li%hter and tu%boat fall under the term 'vessel' &hich includes every sort of boat, craft orother arti-cial contrivance used, or capable of bein% used, as a means of transportation on&ater 4R.A. No. 1$@!, ,ection @51C5. ,aid section #5@ 4c5 prescribes the forfeiture ofL anyvessel or aircraft into &hich shall be transferred car%o unladen contrary to la& before thearrival of thevessel or aircraft at her port of destination+anila&as not theport ofdestination, much less a port of call of the ,Q, Ar%o, the importin% vessel. 1he ,Q, Ar%o left?on%8on% and &as bound for *esselton, North 2orneo, .Da8arta and ,urabaDa, 3ndonesiaA andyet it stopped at the /ort of +anila to unload the smu%%led %oods onto the HN-;-1) and the(restes.:orfeitureproceedin%sareproceedin%s inrem 4Commissionerof Customsv. Courtof 1a>Appeals, 1@" ,CRA 5"1 O1$"5P citing 0ierneBa v. Commissioner of Customs, #C ,CRA @$CO1$)"P5 and are directed a%ainst the res. 3t is no defense that the o&ner of the vessel sou%htto be forfeited had no actual 8no&led%e that his property &as used ille%ally. 1he absence orlac8of actual 8no&led%eof suchuseisadefensepersonal totheo&nerhimself &hichcannot inany&ayabsolvethevessel fromtheliabilityof forfeitureCommissioner ofCustoms v. Court of Appeals,supraA H.,. v. ,teamship 'Rubi.', @# /hil. ##", #@$ O1$15P5.F?