BVR & ASSOCIATES
  • HOME
  • OUR SERVICES
  • About
  • Articles
  • LAW
  • CPA REVIEW

a collections of case digests and laws that can help aspiring law students to become a lawyer


Papa vs. Mago, 22 SCRA 857 (1968)

12/9/2020

0 Comments

 
Papa vs. Mago, 22 SCRA 857 (1968) 

 
FACTS:
-          Martin Alagao, the petitioner herein and the head of the counter-intelligence unit of the Manila Police Department, acting upon a reliable information regarding a certain shipment of personal effects, allegedly misdeclared and undervalued, would be released the following day from the customs zone of the port of Manila and loaded on two trucks.
-          Accordingly, he conducted surveillance at gate no. 1 of the customs zone upon orders of the petitioner Ricardo Papa, Chief of Police of Manila and a duly deputized agent of the Bureau of Customs. When the trucks left gate No. 1 at about 4:30 in the afternoon of November 4, 1966, elements of the counter-intelligence unit went after the trucks and intercepted them at the Agrifina Circle, Ermita, Manila.
-          The load of the two trucks consisting of nine bales of goods, and the two trucks, were seized on instructions of the Chief of Police. Upon investigation, a person claimed ownership of the goods and showed to the policemen a "Statement and Receipts of Duties Collected in Informal Entry No. 147-5501", issued by the Bureau of Customs in the name of a certain Bienvenido Naguit.
-          However, Remedios Mago, the herein respondent, filed with the CIF petition "for mandamus with restraining order or preliminary injunction claiming that she was the owner of the goods seized and hired the trucks owned by Valentin Lanopa.
-          Particularly, she contended that

o   she purchased them from the Sta. Monica Grocery in San Fernando, Pampanga;
o   she hired the trucks owned by Valentin Lanopa to transport, the goods from said place to her residence at 1657 Laon Laan St., Sampaloc, Manila;
o   the goods were seized by members of the Manila Police Department without search warrant issued by a competent court;
o   Manila Chief of Police Ricardo Papa denied the request of counsel for Remedios Mago that the bales be not opened and the goods contained therein be not examined;
o    then Customs Commissioner Jacinto Gavino had illegally assigned appraisers to examine goods because the goods were no longer under the control and supervision of the Commissioner of Customs;
o   the goods, even assuming them to have been misdeclared and, undervalued, were not subject to seizure under Section 2531 of the Tariff and Customs Code because Remedios Mago had bought them from another person without knowledge that they were imported illegally.

-         Respondent Judge Hilarion Jarencio issued an order ex parte restraining the petitioners from opening the nine bales in question, and at the same time set the hearing of the petition for preliminary injunction on November 16, 1966
-       However, when the restraining order was received by herein petitioners, some bales had already been opened by the examiners of the Bureau of Customs in the presence of officials of the Manila Police Department, an assistant city fiscal and a representative of herein respondent Remedios Mago
 
ISSUE:
Whether or not the Customs bureau has the jurisdiction to seize the goods and institute forfeiture proceedings against them
 
RULING:
Yes. The Bureau of Customs has the duties, powers and jurisdiction, among others,
(1) to assess and collect all lawful revenues from imported articles, and all other dues, fees, charges, fines and penalties, accruing under the tariff and customs laws;
(2) to prevent and suppress smuggling and other frauds upon the customs; and
(3) to enforce tariff and customs laws.  The goods in question were imported from Hongkong, as shown in the "Statement and Receipts of Duties Collected on Informal Entry".  As long as the importation has not been terminated the imported goods remain under the jurisdiction of the Bureau of customs. Importation is deemed terminated only upon the payment of the duties, taxes and other charges upon the articles, or secured to be paid, at the port of entry and the legal permit for withdrawal shall have been granted.  The payment of the duties, taxes, fees and other charges must be in full.

Even if it be granted, arguendo, that after the goods in question had been brought out of the customs area the Bureau of Customs had lost jurisdiction over the same, nevertheless, when said goods were intercepted at the Agrifina Circle on November 4, 1966 by members of the Manila Police Department, acting under directions and orders of their Chief, Ricardo C. Papa, who had been formally deputized by the Commissioner of Customs, 9 the Bureau of Customs had regained jurisdiction and custody of the goods. Section 1206 of the Tariff and Customs Code imposes upon the Collector of Customs the duty to hold possession of all imported articles upon which duties, taxes, and other charges have not been paid or secured to be paid, and to dispose of the same according to law. The goods in question, therefore, were under the custody and at the disposal of the Bureau of Customs at the time the petition for mandamus, docketed as Civil Case No. 67496, was filed in the Court of First Instance of Manila on November 9, 1966. The Court of First Instance of Manila, therefore, could not exercise jurisdiction over said goods even if the warrant of seizure and detention of the goods for the purposes of the seizure and forfeiture proceedings had not yet been issued by the Collector of Customs.

It is the settled rule, therefore, that the Bureau of Customs acquires exclusive jurisdiction over imported goods, for the purposes of enforcement of the customs laws, from the moment the goods are actually in its possession or control, even if no warrant of seizure or detention had previously been issued by the Collector of Customs in connection with seizure and forfeiture proceedings. In the present case, the Bureau of Customs actually seized the goods in question on November 4, 1966, and so from that date the Bureau of Customs acquired jurisdiction over the goods for the purposes of the enforcement of the tariff and customs laws, to the exclusion of the regular courts. Much less then would the Court of First Instance of Manila have jurisdiction over the goods in question after the Collector of Customs had issued the warrant of seizure and detention on January 12, 1967. 10 And so, it cannot be said, as respondents contend, that the issuance of said warrant was only an attempt to divest the respondent Judge of jurisdiction over the subject matter of the case.
​The court presided by respondent Judge did not acquire jurisdiction over the goods in question when the petition for mandamus was filed before it, and so there was no need of divesting it of jurisdiction. Not having acquired jurisdiction over the goods, it follows that the Court of First Instance of Manila had no jurisdiction to issue the questioned order of March 7, 1967 releasing said goods



​
​
0 Comments



Leave a Reply.

    Archives

    January 2021
    December 2020
    November 2020
    October 2020
    September 2020
    August 2020
    July 2020
    June 2020
    April 2020
    March 2020
    October 2019
    September 2019
    August 2019
    March 2018

    Categories

    All
    Agrarian Law
    Articles-of-incorporation
    By-laws
    Constitutional Law
    Criminal Law
    Law
    Persons And Family Relations

    RSS Feed

Copyright Notice
Copyright © – 2020, All Rights Reserved.

Disclaimer
This  project primarily designed to assist students of law  and accounting in their studies. It is merely a tool. The use of our Services does not guarantee success in obtaining a law/accounting degree nor in passing the Bar/Board Exams. We makes no warranties or representations of any kind, whether expressed or implied for the Services provided.
The cases, laws, and other publications found in this site are of public domain, collected from public sources such as the Supreme Court online library. The content however have been heavily modified, formatted, and optimized for better user experience, and are no longer perfect copies of their original. We gives no warranty for the accuracy or the completeness of the materials. We also reserves the right to further improve, add, modify, or remove content with or without prior announcements.
This site also contains materials published by the students, professors, lawyers, and other users of the our Services. These materials are owned by such users and of their sole responsibility. While we may review user-published content, please do not assume that content you are accessing has been reviewed or curated. You may report abusive content through the listed contact details.
We does not guarantee against any loss or damage caused by third persons, delays, interruptions, unavailability, or by the termination of its Services.
We reserves the right to amend the terms and policies for its Services.

Terms of Service
By using our Services, you are agreeing to these terms. Please read them carefully.
Access our Services only through the interface and instructions provided. Do not misuse the Services, or use them in such ways that may interfere their availability, or in ways that may cause discredit to you, your school, or your profession.
These terms do not give you ownership of any intellectual property rights to the content you access on our Services. Do not use content from our Services other than for personal purposes unless you obtain permission from its owner or are otherwise permitted by law. Do not remove, obscure, or alter any legal notices and attributions displayed in or along with our Services.
We may send you service announcements, administrative messages, and other information. You may opt out of some of those communications.
Our Services are designed to be accessible on mobile devices. Do not use such Services in a way that distracts you and prevents you from obeying traffic or safety laws.
We may suspend or stop providing our Services to you if you do not comply with these terms and policies or if we are investigating suspected misconduct.

Privacy
Some services require you to login or register with minimal personal information this site.
Collected Information
Collected information includes user name, email address, Facebook ID and photo. The user may also optionally provide school, year level, BAR year, profession, office, address, and other information which may assist in improving our Services.
Uses of the Information
The collected information will only be used in connection with the use or for the improvement of our Services.
Users Created Content
Content created by users are published and shared for public use. Published content is always attributed to the author through his user account. A user may remain anonymous by changing his "display name" under his profile.
Data Analytics
We conducts data analytics for the improvement of the usability and design of our Services and the user experience. These may include but not limited to tracking time spent on the site, services availed, number of contents created or shared.

Content
Our Services allow you to create casebooks, digests, outlines, notes, and other content. You retain ownership of intellectual property rights that you hold in that content.
When you create content through our Services, you give us (and those we work with) a worldwide license to use, host, store, reproduce, modify, create derivative works, communicate, publish, publicly perform, publicly display and distribute such content. This license continues even if you stop using our Services (for example: your list of cases, digests, and outlines in your casebooks).
Make sure you have the necessary rights to grant us this license for any content that you submit to our Services.
We reserves the right to review your published content and may remove materials that are offensive, abusive, of no value, or not in line with the purpose of our Services. The amount of content or materials that you publish may be limited by us.
We also used cookies in our website.

Contact Us
  • HOME
  • OUR SERVICES
  • About
  • Articles
  • LAW
  • CPA REVIEW