Title
Bureau of Customs vs. Devanadera
Case
G.R. No. 193253
Decision Date
Sep 8, 2015
BOC accused OILINK and UNIOIL of illegal petroleum withdrawals, alleging customs violations. DOJ dismissed for lack of probable cause; CA upheld dismissal on procedural grounds. SC reversed CA, affirmed DOJ, but remanded for CTA review of potential customs violations.
A

Case Digest (G.R. No. 193253)

Facts:

  • Parties and Roles
    • Petitioner: Bureau of Customs (BOC).
    • Public respondents: Acting Secretary of Justice Agnes VST Devanadera; DOJ State Prosecutors Jovencito R. Zuño, Pedrito L. Rances, Arman A. De Andres.
    • Private respondents: UNIOIL Petroleum Philippines, Inc. and its officers/directors; OILINK International, Inc. and its officers/directors; licensed customs broker Victor D. Piamonte.
  • Post-Entry Audit of OILINK
    • Jan. 30, 2007: Commissioner of Customs issues Audit Notification Letter to OILINK for three-year import transaction audit.
    • OILINK submits some documents, then refuses further production citing employee resignations and parallel BIR investigation.
    • July 2007: BOC files administrative case under Customs Administrative Order No. 4-2004; Dec. 14, 2007 Decision finds OILINK in violation and imposes P2.764 billion fine under Section 2504, TCCP.
  • Hold Orders and Withdrawal by UNIOIL
    • April 23, 2008: Hold Order issued against all OILINK shipments (Section 1508, TCCP) for nonpayment of fine.
    • May 6–9, 2008: BOC grants UNIOIL permission to withdraw only base oils from OILINK terminal subject to duties paid, inventory, and customs supervision.
    • May 12–15, 2008: UNIOIL withdraws not only base oils but also diesel and mogas gasoline valued at ₱181,988,627 without filing import entries.
  • Criminal Complaint and DOJ Dismissal
    • Dec. 15, 2008: BOC files criminal complaint-affidavit against all respondents for violations of Sections 3601 & 3602 with Sections 2503 & 2530, TCCP.
    • May 29, 2009: DOJ State Prosecutor recommends dismissal for lack of probable cause; approved by Chief State Prosecutor and Secretary of Justice on Dec. 28, 2009.
  • Court of Appeals Proceedings
    • Mar. 11, 2010: BOC files petition for certiorari under Rule 45 with CA.
    • Mar. 26 & Aug. 4, 2010: CA dismisses petition outright for lack of personal service, verification, and certification against forum shopping, and for unpaid docket fees; denies reconsideration.
    • Sept. 8, 2015: BOC elevates petition to the Supreme Court under Rule 45.

Issues:

  • Jurisdiction
    • Whether the CA had proper certiorari jurisdiction over the DOJ resolution.
    • Whether original jurisdiction for certiorari on customs/tariff preliminary investigations lies with the CTA instead of the CA.
  • Procedural Compliance
    • Whether the CA erred in dismissing the petition solely for lack of verification and certification against forum shopping.
  • Substantive Merits
    • Whether there was probable cause to indict respondents for unlawful importation (Sec. 3601) and fraudulent practices (Sec. 3602) in relation to Sections 2503 and 2530, TCCP.

Ruling:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Ratio:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Doctrine:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster, building context before diving into full texts. AI-powered analysis, always verify critical details.