Case Digest (G.R. No. L-35027)
Case Digest (G.R. No. L-35027)
Facts:
Respondent Juanito P. Tinsay sought enforcement in the Court of First Instance of Rizal, presided over by respondent judge, of a general power of attorney allegedly executed in his favor by the religious corporation “Los Hijos del Dios Vivo y Omnipotente” (Los Hijos). On the theory that he was authorized to take delivery of certain goods, Tinsay petitioned for and was granted a writ of attachment covering 2,523 cases of assorted foodstuffs then in the custody of the Bureau of Customs. The petitioners, who represented the interests of the Bureau of Customs, challenged the authority of the trial court to issue the writ and came to the Supreme Court via certiorari with preliminary injunction.The uncontroverted background showed that on July 2, 1970, the shipment valued at US $34,211.40 arrived at the Port of Manila on board the S. S. Tokuku Meru, consigned as a donation to Los Hijos. Los Hijos applied to the Department of Finance for a certificate of tax exemption under Republic Act 1916, but the application was denied because the shipment was in commercial quantity. Los Hijos then filed civil case 81126 in the Court of First Instance of Manila to compel release of the goods upon a claim of tax exemption. Later, however, Los Hijos offered to pay the duties, taxes, and other charges, and with the concurrence of the Secretary of Finance, the trial court on December 7, 1971 ordered the release of the goods upon payment of the corresponding charges.
Meanwhile, on January 14, 1972, Tinsay filed civil case 85926 in the Court of First Instance of Manila against Los Hijos and the Collector of Customs and Commissioner of Customs, seeking delivery of the goods based on his alleged purchase in August 1970; the trial court dismissed it for want of jurisdiction after a motion by the customs officials. On February 27, 1972, Tinsay filed a second action in the Court of First Instance of Rizal, docketed as civil case 15818, against Los Hijos and all members of its board of trustees. The complaint sought a declaration of the validity of the general power of attorney authorizing Tinsay, and it alleged that the power of attorney had been arbitrarily revoked by Los Hijos, which would allegedly work injustice if the goods were released to Los Hijos.
On the same day the complaint was received, the respondent judge issued an order enjoining the Secretary of Finance, Commissioner of Customs, and Collector of Customs from releasing the goods to Los Hijos. After petitioners moved to lift the restraining order on grounds of lack of jurisdiction over the subject matter and persons and on the asserted lack of territorial authority, the respondent judge issued another restraining order on March 14, 1972 after Tinsay amended his complaint to include those public officials. On March 18, 1972, the public officials moved to dismiss, opposed issuance of a preliminary injunction, and sought lifting of the restraining order. The judge dismissed the complaint insofar as it affected the petitioners, but granted Tinsay’s ex parte petition for a writ of attachment upon filing of a bond in the amount of P100,000. The order of attachment was served on customs officials on April 5, 1972, and on May 3, 1972 petitioners instituted the present special civil action of certiorari with preliminary injunction. On May 11, 1972, the Supreme Court issued a preliminary injunction enjoining respondents from enforcing the writ of attachment and enjoining petitioners from disposing of the goods. On September 21, 1972, petitioners informed the Court that the trial judge had lifted the writ on July 5, 1972 after Los Hijos filed a counterbond of P100,000, citing the perishable character of the goods. Tinsay opposed mootness, insisting that the trial court lacked authority to act pending resolution of the jurisdictional question and that the bond was inadequate.
The Supreme Court, without losing sight of the post-issuance lifting, permanently enjoined enforcement of the attachment writ, held it void as against customs officials, and lifted the restraint against disposition of the goods, while costs were assessed against Tinsay.
Issues:
Whether the Court of First Instance had jurisdiction to issue a writ of attachment that would interfere with imported goods under the exclusive customs custody and lien of the Bureau of Customs before payment or securing of the duties, taxes, and charges.Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)