Case Digest (G.R. No. L-5612)
Facts:
Sy Man, doing business under the name and style of "United China Import Trading", petitioner and appellee, v. Alfredo Jacinto, Commissioner of Customs, and Melecio Fabros, Collector of Customs for the Port of Manila, respondents and appellants, G.R. No. L-5612, October 31, 1953, the Supreme Court En Banc, Montemayor, J., writing for the Court.
On January 2, 1951 the Collector of Customs for the Port of Manila seized two shipments of textiles and a number of sewing machines consigned to Sy Man. After a hearing, the Collector rendered a written decision on June 4, 1951 ordering delivery of the seized textile articles to the importer upon payment of duties, taxes and other charges and a fine; the sewing machines were declared forfeited to the Government. A copy of the Collector’s decision was received by the petitioner on June 27, 1951.
Counsel for the petitioner wrote to the Collector on July 12 and again on August 21, 1951, requesting execution of the Collector’s June 4 decision on the ground that it had become final because the importer did not appeal to the Commissioner within fifteen days as prescribed by law. The Collector endorsed the July 12 letter to the Commissioner on July 13, 1951, but the Commissioner did not act or reply. The petitioner then filed a petition in the Court of First Instance of Manila for writs of certiorari, prohibition and mandamus to (1) declare void that portion of the Memorandum Order of the Insular Collector dated August 18, 1947 (which required submission of seizure decisions to the Insular Collector and prohibited final disposal pending his action) and (2) order the Collector to deliver the textile shipments pursuant to his June 4, 1951 decision.
The Court of First Instance granted the petition, holding that the Collector’s decision had become final and ordering the Commissioner and the Collector to execute it. The respondents (the Commissioner and the Collector) appealed to the Supreme Court. The appeal involved questions of law concerning the Commissioner’s asserted power to review unappealed seizure decisions, the validity of the 1947 Memorandum Order, and the finality and executability of the Collector’s June 4, 1951 decision. The Court considered s...(Pro-only)
Issues:
- Under the law, may the Commissioner of Customs review and revise a Collector of Customs’ decision in a seizure case that has not been appealed by the importer within fifteen days?
- Is the Memorandum Order of August 18, 1947, issued by the Insular Collector of Customs (claiming authority to require submission and to withhold execution of unappealed seizure decisions) valid and effective?
- Was the Collector’s June 4, 1951 decision final and subject to execution, so that the petitioner was entitle...(Pro-only)
Ruling:
- (Pro-only)
Ratio:
- (Pro-only)
Doctrine:
- (Pro-only)