Case Digest (G.R. No. L-22526)
Facts:
Pedro Pacis, in his Capacity as Acting Collector of Customs, the Flag Officer‑in‑Command and the Base Commander of Cavite Naval Base, Philippine Navy v. Hon. Alberto V. Averia, Judge of the Court of First Instance of Cavite, Proceso P. Silangcruz, Provincial Sheriff at Trece Martires City, and Eusebio Marges, G.R. No. L‑22526, November 29, 1966, the Supreme Court En Banc, Bengzon, J., writing for the Court.On December 26, 1963 a Philippine Navy Coast Guard cutter pursued the fishing boat M/B "Bukang Liwayway" off Ternate, Cavite; the pursued boat allegedly fired on the cutter, wounding two sailors. Boarding the vessel, authorities found a large quantity of untaxed foreign cigarettes; the cigarettes and the boat were confiscated and turned over to the Flag Officer‑in‑Command of the Cavite naval base, and on December 27, 1963 the cigarettes were delivered to the custody of the Bureau of Customs.
On January 13, 1964 Pedro Pacis, acting Collector of Customs of Manila, instituted seizure and forfeiture proceedings under Title VI of the Tariff and Customs Code (R.A. No. 1937) by issuing warrants of seizure and detention for the cigarettes and for M/B "Bukang Liwayway" (Manila Seizure Identification Nos. 8009 and 8009‑A). That same day Eusebio Marges, alleging ownership and prior theft of the vessel, filed Civil Case No. TM‑114 in the Court of First Instance (CFI) at Trece Martires, seeking recovery (replevin) of the boat; Marges posted a P40,000 surety bond.
On January 14, 1964 Judge Alberto V. Averia of the CFI issued a writ of replevin directing the provincial sheriff to take possession of the vessel. The naval base commander refused to surrender custody; the sheriff then sought enforcement and the CFI even ordered the commander arrested for contempt. The naval commander and the Republic (through the Bureau of Customs) moved to dismiss and lift the writ on grounds of lack of jurisdiction, premature civil remedy in view of pending administrative seizure/forfeiture and impending criminal smuggling action, and insufficiency of the surety bond. The CFI denied the motion on February 17, 1964 but required an additional P60,000 surety, which Marges posted.
Despite pending seizure proceedings, the naval commander delivered the vessel to the provincial sheriff on February 20, 1964 without the Collector’s knowledge; the sheriff in turn delivered the boat to Marges on February 25, 1964. Believing the sheriff was about to put the boat beyond reach, petitioners filed a petition for certiorari with preliminary injunction in the Supreme Court on February 29, 1964.
On March 4, 1964 the Supreme Court required answers and granted, without bond, a preliminary prohibitory mandatory injunction enjoining enforcement of the CFI writ and ordering delivery of the vessel to petitioners; the sheriff later informed the Court that he had already delivered the boat to Marges on February 25. On April 22, 1964 the Court issued a writ of preliminary mandatory injunction directing the sheriff to retake custody of the vessel; the sheriff received that writ on April 28, 1964 but did not comply or promptly return the writ.
After the Solicitor General moved on June 3, 1964 to require the sheriff to report compliance (or show cause for noncompliance) the sheriff returned the writ unsatisfied on June 11, stating the vessel was on a fishing expedition and promised to surrender it upon return. The Court set a contempt proceeding and, after several filings and ...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Was the petition for certiorari properly brought to the Supreme Court under Rule 65 to challenge the CFI’s February 17, 1964 order denying the motion to dismiss and lift the writ of replevin?
- Could the owner of M/B "Bukang Liwayway" recover possession of the vessel by way of an action for replevin in the Court of First Instance while administrative seizure and forfeiture proceedings under the Tariff and Customs Code were pending?
- May Provincial Sheriff Proceso P. Silangcruz be adjudged in contempt of the Supreme Court for failure to comply with the writ o...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)