Case Summary (G.R. No. L-2997)
Petitioners
– Ricardo G. Papa, Chief of Police of Manila (deputized agent of Customs)
– Juan Ponce Enrile, Commissioner of Customs
– Pedro Pacis, Collector of Customs, Port of Manila
– Martin Alagao, Patrolman, Manila Police Department
Respondents
– Remedios Mago, claimant of the goods
– Hilarion U. Jarencio, Presiding Judge, Branch 23, Court of First Instance of Manila
Key Dates
– November 4, 1966 – Seizure of two trucks and nine bales at Agrifina Circle
– November 9, 1966 – Filing of petition for mandamus and restraining order in CFI No. 67496
– March 7, 1967 – CFI order releasing goods under bond
– February 28, 1968 – Supreme Court decision
Applicable Law
– 1935 Philippine Constitution (governing judicial powers)
– Tariff and Customs Code (Republic Act No. 1937), in particular:
• Section 602 (powers of Bureau of Customs)
• Sections 1202, 1204, 1206 (termination of importation, payment of duties, custody)
• Section 2203(c), 2205, 2207–2211 (search, seizure, deputation, examination of goods)
– Judiciary Act (defining jurisdiction of Courts of First Instance)
Background and Lower-Court Proceedings
Petitioner Alagao, acting on information, surveilled and intercepted trucks leaving the customs zone on November 4, 1966. The goods were seized under orders of Chief Papa. Mago and her co-claimant filed a petition in the CFI on November 9, 1966, alleging illegal seizure without warrant, wrongful examination of bales, want of jurisdiction by customs officials, and lack of cause of action under Section 2531 of the Tariff Code. The CFI issued an ex parte restraining order, held inventories and examinations, then on March 7, 1967 authorized release of the goods upon Mago’s posting of a forty-thousand-peso bond.
Petitioners’ Supreme Court Arguments
Petitioners sought prohibition and certiorari, contending that:
- The CFI lacked subject-matter jurisdiction, as imported goods under seizure and forfeiture proceedings are exclusively within the Bureau of Customs’ jurisdiction and its appellate arm, the Court of Tax Appeals.
- Mago failed to exhaust administrative remedies required by the Tariff Code.
- Government agents’ negligence in assessing duties does not estop the State from collecting lawful revenues or forfeiting contraband goods.
- The bond fixed by the lower court was grossly insufficient to secure duties and potential forfeiture.
Respondents’ Supreme Court Arguments
Respondents asserted that:
- The CFI had jurisdiction because Mago’s petition predated the formal warrant of seizure issued January 12, 1967, and the case involved a purchaser in good faith.
- Duties had been paid and importation terminated, placing the goods beyond customs control.
- The initial seizure by police lacked any valid search or seizure warrant, rendering the proceeding unconstitutional.
- Petitioners were estopped from objecting, having agreed to the bond release before the CFI.
- The bond was adequate under the circumstances.
Jurisdiction of the Bureau of Customs
The Court reaffirmed that imported goods remain under customs jurisdiction until full duties, taxes, and charges are paid or secured and legal withdrawal permits issued. Here, duties owed exceeded the amount secured by informal entry, and physical examination revealed significant underdeclaration. Actual seizure by customs deputies on November 4, 1966 revested exclusive customs jurisdiction notwithstanding the later warrant, precluding CFI authority to entertain mandamus or release orders.
Authority for Search and Seizure by Deputized Police
Under Section 2203(c) of the Tariff Code, the Police Chief, once deputized by the Commissioner of Customs, may lawfully search, seize, and examine vehicles and cargo suspected of smuggling without a judicial warrant, except for dwel
Case Syllabus (G.R. No. L-2997)
Facts
- On November 4, 1966, Lt. Martin Alagao and the Manila Police counter-intelligence unit, under orders of Chief of Police Ricardo G. Papa (deputized by the Commissioner of Customs), intercepted two trucks at Agrifina Circle carrying nine bales of personal effects allegedly misdeclared and undervalued.
- A “Statement and Receipts of Duties Collected on Informal Entry No. 147-5501” in Bienvenido Naguit’s name was presented, claiming payment of duties as per Bureau of Customs records.
- Remedios Mago (claimant of the goods) and Valentin B. Lanopa (owner of the trucks) filed Civil Case No. 67496 in the Court of First Instance (CFI) of Manila, seeking mandamus, restraining order or preliminary injunction, and later damages, on grounds that the seizure was warrantless and contrary to law, and that Mago was a purchaser in good faith.
- The trial court issued an ex parte restraining order on November 10, 1966, enjoining police and customs authorities from opening the bales, and set a hearing for preliminary injunction.
- Petitioners (police and customs officers) answered, denying illegality and raising defenses: lack of CFI jurisdiction, failure to exhaust administrative remedies, continued customs jurisdiction over unpaid duties, and lawful power to seize under the Tariff and Customs Code.
- An inventory was made on December 9, 1966; on December 23, 1966, Mago moved ex parte for release of goods under bond, opposed by petitioners.
- On January 12, 1967, the Collector of Customs issued a warrant of seizure and detention; petitioners estimated duties due at ₱95,772.00; Mago moved again for release under bond.
- On March 7, 1967, the CFI ordered release of goods under bond of ₱40,000; bond posted on March 13, 1967.
- Petitioners filed a motion for reconsideration and then an original action for prohibition and certiorari with preliminary injunction before the Supreme Court, challenging the CFI’s jurisdiction and ord