Title
Supreme Court
Asian Terminals, Inc. vs. Bautista-Ricafort
Case
G.R. No. 166901
Decision Date
Oct 27, 2006
Importers sought replevin for seized right-hand drive vehicles; RTC lacked jurisdiction, voiding orders. Bureau of Customs retained exclusive authority; ATI's intervention dismissed as ancillary.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 166901)

Applicable Law

This case primarily concerns Republic Act No. 8506, which prohibits the importation and registration of vehicles with right-hand steering wheels in the Philippines. The Tariff and Customs Code (TCC) also plays a critical role, establishing the Bureau of Customs' exclusive jurisdiction over seizure and forfeiture matters related to imported goods.

Factual Background

In April and May 1998, several licensed importers imported 72 secondhand right-hand drive buses from Japan. Upon arrival, the vehicles were seized by the District Collector of Customs, leading to their storage at the customs-bonded warehouse of Asian Terminals, Inc. Following the issuance of Warrants of Distraint, a public auction was scheduled for September 10, 1998. An opinion from the Secretary of Justice clarified that vehicles exported before the prohibition date were exempt unless they were loaded or imported after February 22, 1998.

Initial Legal Proceedings

On November 11, 1998, the importers filed a complaint for replevin and damages against state officials, arguing that their seizure was unwarranted due to the opinion that the vehicles were not illegal if accompanied by conversion kits. The Regional Trial Court (RTC) granted a writ of replevin, but when efforts to take possession were obstructed by customs authorities, the RTC issued orders for enforcement, ultimately allowing the plaintiffs to take custody of the vehicles after relevant customs dues were paid.

Third-Party Claims and Jurisdictional Issues

Subsequently, Asian Terminals Inc. (ATI) filed a Third-Party Claim for storage fees related to the vehicles, contending a lien due to unpaid storage and arrastre charges. The RTC faced challenges, including motions from the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) asserting that jurisdiction over these matters was exclusively with the Bureau of Customs and the Court of Tax Appeals.

Court Orders and Dismissal

On April 27, 1999, the RTC dismissed the complaint, citing lack of jurisdiction over the proceedings surrounding seizure and detention of the vehicles, as dictated by TCC provisions. ATI's motion to intervene was also dismissed on the basis that it was dependent on the principal case, which had been dismissed.

Appellate Review and Rulings

Upon appeal, the Court of Appeals (CA) corroborated the RTC’s ruling, stating that jurisdiction was correctly held by the Bureau of Customs regarding seized goods, thereby affirming the dismissal of ATI's intervention and confirming that the RTC had acted outside its designated authority.

Final Judicial Examination

The Supreme Court examin

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur is a legal research platform serving the Philippines with case digests and jurisprudence resources. AI digests are study aids only—use responsibly.