Facts:
Petitioners were
Hon. Ricardo G. Papa, as Chief of Police of Manila,
Hon. Juan Ponce Enrile, as Commissioner of Customs,
Pedro Pacis, as Collector of Customs of the Port of Manila, and
Martin Alagao, as patrolman of the Manila Police Department; respondents were
Remedios Mago and
Hon. Hilarion U. Jarencio, as Presiding Judge of Branch 23, Court of First Instance of Manila. On November 3–4, 1966, acting on reliable information that a shipment of personal effects allegedly misdeclared and undervalued would leave the customs zone, Lt.
Martin Alagao, under orders of Chief
Ricardo G. Papa who was deputized by the Commissioner of Customs, intercepted two trucks at the Agrifina Circle and seized the load consisting of nine bales and the trucks. A person produced a "Statement and Receipts of Duties Collected on Informal Entry No. 147-5501" in the name of Bienvenido Naguit. Claiming ownership and alleging unlawful seizure,
Remedios Mago and Valentin B. Lanopa filed in the Court of First Instance of Manila Civil Case No. 67496 a petition for mandamus with restraining order or preliminary injunction, and the respondent Judge issued an ex parte restraining order on November 10, 1966, enjoining the opening of the bales and setting a hearing. Despite the restraining order, customs examiners had already opened some bales. An inventory was made by the clerk of court on December 9, 1966 and a "compliance" itemizing the contents was filed December 13.
Remedios Mago moved for release of the goods under bond on December 23, 1966 and reiterated the motion February 2, 1967; petitioners opposed and the Collector of Customs instituted seizure proceedings on January 12, 1967 and manifested estimated duties of P95,772.00 on January 30, 1967. On March 7, 1967 the respondent Judge ordered release of the goods upon the filing of a P40,000.00 bond, which
Remedios Mago filed on March 13, 1967. Petitioners sought reconsideration in the lower court, and then filed this original action for prohibition and certiorari with preliminary injunction in the Supreme Court, contending among other grounds that the Court of First Instance lacked jurisdiction, that administrative remedies were not exhausted, and that the bond was insufficient; respondents answered denying lack of jurisdiction and asserting purchaser-in-good-faith and other defenses.
Issues:
Did the Court of First Instance of Manila have jurisdiction to order the release under bond of the nine bales of imported goods seized by petitioners? Was the seizure and detention of the goods by members of the Manila Police Department lawful in the absence of a search warrant?
Ruling:
Ratio:
Doctrine: