G.R. No. 183664 - Airlift Asia Customs Brokerage, Inc. vs. Court of Appeals

CAO 3-2006 was issued on March 2, 2006, by the then Commissioner of the Bureau of Customs (BOC), Napoleon L. Morales, with the approval of then Secretary of Finance, Margarito B. Teves.
The order provided the Rules and Regulations Governing the Accreditation of the Customs Brokers Transacting with the BOC. It defined accreditation as the process of registration and/or listing of customs brokers who intend to practice before the BOC.

According to CAO 3-2006, a "Customs Broker" was defined as any bona fide holder of a valid Certificate of Registration/Personal Identification Card issued by the Professional Regulatory Board and the Professional Regulatory Commission, provided that the person was accredited to practice before the Bureau of Customs.
The accreditation under CAO 3-2006 was made mandatory for customs brokers to engage in their professional practice at any port in the Philippines.

The petitioners, Airlift Asia Customs Brokerage, Inc. and Allan G. Benedicto, initiated an action for declaratory relief before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Manila, Branch 8, challenging the validity of CAO 3-2006.
The petitioners argued that CAO 3-2006 was issued without proper authority, contravened Republic Act (RA) No. 9280 (Customs Brokers Act of 2004), and infringed on their right to practice the customs brokerage profession.
The RTC ruled in favor of the petitioners, declaring CAO 3-2006 null and void, primarily on the ground that the BOC Commissioner lacked the authority to impose rules governing the practice of customs brokers—a power that had been transferred to the Professional Regulatory Board for Customs Brokers (PRBCB) under RA 9280.

On appeal, the Court of Appeals (CA) reversed the RTC’s decision by interpreting CAO 3-2006 in a manner that would not cripple the BOC’s efforts to ensure efficient customs administration and the effective collection of taxes and duties.
The CA held that although the accreditation requirement was an added burden, it bore a reasonable relation to the BOC’s aim of ensuring accountability and integrity in customs-related transactions.
The CA thus declared CAO 3-2006 valid and denied the petitioners’ motion for reconsideration.

Following the CA’s ruling, the petitioners assailed the decision through a petition for certiorari, bringing the issue before the Supreme Court for review.

Whether the issuance of CAO 3-2006 by the BOC Commissioner was within his authority, given the transfer of regulatory power over the customs brokerage profession from the BOC to the PRBCB as provided under RA 9280.
Whether the BOC Commissioner’s general rule-making power extends to imposing an accreditation (licensing) requirement on customs brokers.

Whether the accreditation requirement imposed by CAO 3-2006 constitutes an additional licensing requirement that is contrary to Section 19 of RA 9280, which allows customs brokers to practice in any collection district without the need for a separate license from the BOC.
Whether the accreditation requirement, even if claimed to be limited to regulating practice before the BOC, effectively burdens PRC-certified customs brokers by compelling additional compliance.