Case Digest (G.R. No. 65418)
Case Digest (G.R. No. 65418)
Facts:
Collector of Customs of Manila v. Intermediate Appellate Court, Heirs of Bienvenido Ferrer and Heirs of Eduardo Bravo, G.R. No. 65418, September 25, 1989, Supreme Court Second Division, Regalado, J., writing.In Civil Case No. 42189 before the Manila Court of First Instance, plaintiffs Bienvenido Ferrer and Eduardo Bravo garnished 33 cases of rayon and synthetic textiles consigned to Cotabato Palay & Corn Producers, Inc., then in the custody of the Collector of Customs of Manila. The sheriff transferred the goods on December 19, 1963 to the bonded warehouse of Chavez, Salinas & Co., instructing the warehouseman not to release them without the sheriff’s written authorization. On December 28, 1963 the textiles were nonetheless released upon two delivery permits purportedly signed by the sheriff and routed through a customs broker, Jose Santiago.
An investigation later showed the sheriff’s note on the delivery permits was forged; suspects were charged and no customs employee was implicated. After judgment in plaintiffs’ favor became final, Ferrer and Bravo sought to compel the Collector and the sheriff to pay the invoice value ($17,504.46). The trial court (Judge Villasor) denied relief, holding the Collector not liable under Section 3511 of the Tariff and Customs Code; the Court of Appeals reversed, finding the Collector liable due to negligence of the customs storekeeper. This Court affirmed the Appellate Court in a decision promulgated June 18, 1985, applying the doctrine on misdelivery liability.
Following affirmation, former Collector Jose T. Viduya (named in the writ of execution) and his successors disputed whether the liability was personal or official. The Solicitor General (first Estelito P. Mendoza, later Sedfrey A. Ordoñez) advanced inconsistent positions: Mendoza, in two motions for reconsideration, argued the liability was official (motions denied July 22, 1985 and October 16, 1985); Ordoñez later contended the liability was personal. Entry of judgment was made August 5, 1985. Private respondents then filed an “Urgent Omnibus Petition for Contempt and Clarification/Declaration of Official Liability” seeking a declaration that the Collector’s liability was official and asking that Isauro C. Garcia be cited for contempt for preparing an official opinion allegedly interfering with the Court’s decision. The Office of the Manila District Collector insisted the judgment created an official, not personal, liability; the Customs Commissioner’s indorsement likewise treated the obligation as official.
Issues:
- Was the Collector of Customs’ liability, as declared in the Court’s June 18, 1985 judgment, intended to be personal or official?
- May the money judgment be satisfied out of public funds or otherwise be treated as an obligation of the Office of the Collector rather than a personal obligation of former Collector Jose T. Viduya?
- Should Isauro C. Garcia be cited for contempt for having prepared the official opinion of Customs Commissioner Wigberto E. Tanada that characterized the Collector’s liability as personal?
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)