Case Digest (G.R. No. L-32542)
Facts:
Commissioner of Customs and the Collector of Customs for the Port of Manila v. Hon. Federico C. Alikpala, G.R. No. L-32542, November 26, 1970, the Supreme Court En Banc, Makalintal, J., writing for the Court. Petitioners are the Commissioner of Customs and the Collector of Customs for the Port of Manila; private respondents are importers Gonzalo Sy (Gonzalo Sy Trading) and Tomas Y. de Leon; respondent judge is Hon. Federico C. Alikpala, Judge of the Court of First Instance (CFI) of Manila, Branch XXII.Private respondents had shipments of fresh fruits seized by the Collector of Customs pursuant to warrants issued in June–July 1970. The seizures were grounded on Central Bank circulars (Nos. 294 and 295) and Section 2530‑F of the Tariff and Customs Code. The importers alleged they had filed surety bonds for release under Section 2301 of the Code and that they had not been afforded an opportunity to be heard before the Collector advertised the goods for auction. The importers first sought relief from the Court of Tax Appeals (CTA) by petition for review with a prayer for preliminary injunction; the CTA dismissed the petition by resolution dated August 12, 1970, for lack of jurisdiction because no appealable decision had been rendered by the Collector or Commissioner of Customs (citing Section 7, Republic Act No. 1125).
Anticipating imminent auction sales, the importers filed a petition for injunction in the Court of First Instance. On August 26, 1970 the CFI issued an order enjoining the Commissioner and Collector from proceeding with the scheduled auction, directed release of the imported goods to the importers upon filing of a P500 bond (subject to court approval), and gave the Collector 24 hours to object to the sufficiency of the surety bonds already filed. The Collector and Commissioner petitioned the Supreme Court for certiorari and prohibition with preliminary injunction, attacking (1) lack of jurisdiction of the CFI, (2) alleged grave abuse in granting injunction absent a cause of action, and (3) alleged impropriety in treating surety bonds (aggregate P513,865.46) as sufficient though the bonding company’s capacity was much smaller.
On September 23, 1970 the Supreme Court gave due course to the petition an...(Pro-only)
Issues:
- Does the Court of First Instance have jurisdiction to entertain the petition for injunction and to issue the preliminary injunction enjoining seizure/sale and directing release of the imported fruits under bond?
- Did the respondent Court gravely abuse its discretion amounting to lack of jurisdiction in granting the preliminary injunction despite alleged absence of a cause of action?
- Did the respondent Court gravely abuse its discretion in accepting and relying on surety bonds aggregate of P513,865.46 although the bonding company’s maximum writing...(Pro-only)
Ruling:
- (Pro-only)
Ratio:
- (Pro-only)
Doctrine:
- (Pro-only)