G.R. No. L-5612 - Sy Man vs. Jacinto

Case Summary (G.R. No. L-5612)

Factual Background

The Collector of Customs for the Port of Manila seized two shipments of textile and several sewing machines on January 2, 1951, and after hearing rendered a decision on June 4, 1951, ordering delivery of the textiles upon payment of duties, taxes, other charges and a fine, while declaring the sewing machines forfeited. The petitioner received a copy of that decision on June 27, 1951, and did not appeal to the Commissioner within fifteen days. The petitioner’s counsel requested execution of the Collector’s decision by letters dated July 12 and August 21, 1951, but the Commissioner did not act on the endorsed case.

Procedural History

The petitioner sought a writ of certiorari, prohibition and mandamus in the Court of First Instance of Manila to declare invalid that portion of the memorandum order of August 18, 1947, and to compel the Collector to deliver the seized textiles pursuant to the June 4, 1951 decision. The trial court granted the petition, holding the Collector’s decision final and ordering its execution. The Commissioner and Collector appealed to the Supreme Court, raising only questions of law.

Respondents' Position

The Respondents asserted that the Commissioner, as head of the Bureau of Customs and the chief administrative officer under Section 550 and Section 1152 of the Revised Administrative Code, had supervisory control over Collectors and therefore could review and revise Collector decisions in seizure cases even when those decisions were not appealed by the importer. The Respondents relied on the Commissioner’s Memorandum Order of August 18, 1947, which required submission of seizure records and withheld final disposition pending the Insular Collector’s action, and contended that unappealed Collector decisions remained subject to administrative revision.

Petitioner's Position

The Petitioner contended that under Section 1380, Revised Administrative Code, an aggrieved party had fifteen days to give written notice to the Collector to have the matter reviewed by the Commissioner, and that failure to appeal rendered the Collector’s decision final. The Petitioner argued that, having not appealed within the prescribed period, the Collector’s June 4, 1951 decision had become final and executory and that the Commissioner and Collector were bound to carry it into effect.

Issue Presented

The dispositive legal question was whether under the existing statutory scheme the Commissioner of Customs possessed authority to review, revise or modify decisions of Collectors in seizure cases that were not appealed by the importer within the fifteen-day period prescribed by Section 1380, Revised Administrative Code, and whether the Memorandum Order of August 18, 1947 lawfully authorized such administrative revision.

Ruling of the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the Court of First Instance. The Court held that under the then-applicable law the Collector’s decision in a seizure case that was not timely protested and appealed became final not only as to the importer but as to the Government as well. Consequently, neither the Commissioner nor the Department Head had statutory power to review, revise or modify an unappealed decision of a Collector in a seizure case. The Court also held that the Memorandum Order of August 18, 1947 was void and of no effect because it had not been approved by the Department Head nor published as required by Section 551, Revised Administrative Code, and because it was inconsistent with the law.

Legal Basis and Reasoning

The Court analyzed the customs statutory scheme governing protests, seizures, and appeals. It noted the procedure by which imported goods are assessed and the remedies available to importers, including payment and protest under Sections 1370–1379 and the specific right to appeal Collector actions within fifteen days under Section 1380. The Court observed that where the importer did not invoke the appeal remedy, the decision became final as to him. The Court compared seizure cases with cases of assessment of duties where Section 1393 expressly grants the Commissioner and the Department Head a limited supervisory authority to order reliquidation in unprotested assessment cases. Finding no parallel provision for seizure cases, the Court inferred that the Legislature did not intend to confer an analogous power upon the Commissioner in seizure matters. The Court further invoked Section 1388 and Section 1389 to show that an owner or agent could terminate proceedings before the Collector by payment or redemption, and still retain the right to protest thereafter; this scheme, the Court reasoned, placed the initiative to elevate seizure cases to the Commissioner squarely with the party aggrieved. The Court also emphasized the procedural requirement in Section 1378 that the Collector notify the Commissioner and the Auditor General of seizures, which would enable the Commissioner to interpose in exceptional or important cases before the Collector rendered a decision. Finally, the Court concluded that because the Memorandum Order of August 18, 1947 had not received departmental approval nor publication as required by Section 551, and because it purported to authorize revision inconsistent with the statutory framework, it was devoid of legal effect.

Disposition

The Court affirmed the trial court’s order directing the Commissioner and the Collector to execute the Collector’s June 4, 1951 decision. The Court declined to pronounce on costs.

Concurring Opinion

Justice Reyes concurred in the result but wrote separatel

Case Syllabus (G.R. No. L-5612)

Parties and Posture

Sy Man, doing business under the name and style of "United China Import Trading" was the petitioner and appellee below seeking writs of certiorari, prohibition and mandamus.
Alfredo Jacinto, Commissioner of Customs, and Melecio Fabros, Collector of Customs for the Port of Manila were the respondents and appellants who appealed from the decision of the Court of First Instance of Manila.
The Court of First Instance granted the petition and ordered execution of the Collector's decision dated June 4, 1951, and the appeal brought the matter before this Court as a question of law.
The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the Court of First Instance and entered judgment accordingly.

Key Facts

The Collector of Customs for the Port of Manila seized two shipments of textiles and several sewing machines consigned to the petitioner on January 2, 1951.
The Collector rendered a decision on June 4, 1951, ordering delivery of the textiles upon payment of duties, taxes and a fine of One hundred fifty-five pesos (P155), and declaring the sewing machines forfeited to the Government.
The petitioner received a copy of the Collector's decision on June 27, 1951, and did not appeal the decision to the Commissioner within the prescribed period.
The petitioner's counsel wrote to the Collector on July 12 and August 21, 1951, requesting execution of the Collector's decision, and the Collector endorsed the inquiries to the Commissioner on July 13, 1951.
The Commissioner did not act on the matter up to the latter part of 1953 and the goods remained withheld pending his action.
The petitioner challenged the Commissioner's practice of reviewing unappealed seizure decisions and sought an order compelling delivery of the seized textiles pursuant to the Collector's unappealed decision.

Statutory Framework

Section 1380, Revised Administrative Code provides that the person aggrieved by the Collector's decision may, within fifteen days after written notification, give notice for review by the Commissioner who shall approve, modify or reverse the Collector's action.
Section 1393, Revised Administrative Code grants supervisory authority to the Commissioner and Department Head in certain cases involving assessment of duties, including ordering reliquidation in unprotested assessment cases.
Section 551, Revised Administrative Code requires that forms, regulations or general orders prescribed by a bureau chief must be approved by the Department head and published in the Official Gazette to become effective.
Section 1378, Revised Administrative Code requires the Collector to notify the Commissioner and the Auditor General immediately of seizures.
Section 1388 and Section 1389, Revised Administrative Code permit settlement of seizure cases by payment of fines or redemption, and permit the payor to lodge a protest within a prescribed period to test validity and seek repayment.
Sections 1363 and 1365, Revised Administrative Code govern forfeiture and fines in customs seizures and were referenced in the Collector's disposition.

Contentions

The appellants contended that the Commissioner, as head of the Bureau of Customs under Section 550 and Section 1152, Revised Administrative Code, possessed supervisory control to review and revise Collector decisions in seizure cases even when not appealed by the im