Title
Jao vs. Court of Appeals
Case
G.R. No. 104604
Decision Date
Oct 6, 1995
Customs seized untaxed goods; petitioners challenged jurisdiction. SC upheld Customs' exclusive authority, dismissed civil and criminal cases, emphasizing administrative remedies and Ombudsman's discretion.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 104604)

Factual Background

On August 10, 1990, the Bureau of Customs' Enforcement and Security Services received a tip-off about untaxed vehicles and parts located at two premises owned by a person named Pat Hao. Following surveillance, Maj. Jaime Maglipon recommended the issuance of warrants for seizure and detention. The District Collector of Customs issued the warrants on August 13, 1990, leading to a search of the premises. The petitioners filed an injunction and damages case against the customs officials after their vehicles and parts were subject to seizure.

Legal Proceedings Initiated

Petitioners filed their case, Civil Case No. 90-2382, before the Regional Trial Court of Makati on August 27, 1990. The trial court granted a Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) against the respondents on the same day. Despite the respondents' motion to dismiss the case on the grounds of lack of jurisdiction, the trial court denied this motion on November 20, 1990. A preliminary injunction was later issued, which prohibited the respondents from seizing and selling the vehicles.

Court of Appeals Decision

Respondents appealed to the Court of Appeals, asserting that the Regional Trial Court lacked jurisdiction over the seizure and forfeiture proceedings, which they claimed are exclusively under the jurisdiction of the Bureau of Customs. On October 6, 1995, the Court of Appeals reversed the trial court's decision and dismissed the civil case, highlighting that Regional Trial Courts cannot interfere in such matters.

G.R. No. 111223 - Ombudsman Proceedings

In G.R. No. 111223, the petitioners filed criminal complaints against the respondents, alleging violations of domicile and robbery among other offenses. The Ombudsman dismissed these complaints for lack of merit, prompting the petitioners to seek reconsideration, which was also denied. The petitioners argued that the Ombudsman failed to acknowledge key evidence against the respondents.

Conclusions on Jurisdiction and Claims

The Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Appeals’ decision in G.R. No. 104604, underscoring that the Collector of Customs has exclusive jurisdiction over seizure and forfeiture. Petitioners’ claims regarding their properties and the legality of the seizure must be addressed within the Bureau of Customs. The Court

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster, building context before diving into full texts. AI-powered analysis, always verify critical details.