Republic of the Philippines SUPREME COURT Manila EN BANC

G.R. No. 104604 October 6, 1995 NARCISO O. JAO an !ERNAR"O M. EMPE#NA"O, petitioners, vs. COURT O$ APPEA%S& COMMISSIONER O$ CUSTOMS& CO%%ECTOR O$ CUSTOMS, Port o' Man()a& Co). SIN"U%$O R. SE!ASTIAN, "(rector, En'orce*ent an Sec+r(t, Ser-(ce., !+rea+ o' C+.to*.& an Ma/. JAIME MAG%IPON, C0(e', O1erat(on. an Inte))(2ence Sta'', En'orce*ent an Sec+r(t, Ser-(ce., !+rea+ o' C+.to*., respondents. G.R. No. 111334 October 6, 1995 NARCISO O. JAO an !ERNAR"O M. EMPE#NA"O, petitioners, vs. T5E 5ONORA!%E OM!U"SMAN CONRA"O M. 6AS7UE8, an SIN"U%$O SE!ASTIAN, JAIME MAG%IPON& JOSE #UC5ONGCO& RICAR"O CORONA"O& 6ICTOR !ARROS& "ENNIS !ANTIGUE& RO# %ARA& !ENJAMIN SANTOS& RO"O%$O GON"A& A"ONIS REJOSO& "ANIE% PENAS& NICANOR !ONES& A!UN"IO JUMAMO#& ARTEMIO CASTI%%O& AN"RESITO A!A#ON& RU!EN TAGU!A& JAIME JA6IER& 5ER!ERT "O%%ANO, a)) 9(t0 t0e !+rea+ o' C+.to*.& JO6# GUTIERRE8 o' t0e Ma:at( 1o)(ce, an ;JO5N "OES;, respondents.

ROMERO, J.: G.R. No. 10 !0 is a petition for certiorari of the decision 1 of the Court of Appeals, the dispositive portion of "hich states# $%ERE&'RE, the petition is hereb( GRAN)E*. )he orders issued b( the respondent +ud,e dated Nove-ber .0, 1//0, *ece-ber 10, 1//0, 0anuar( 1, 1//1 and all subse2uent orders in the Civil Case No. /03.14. of the Re,ional )rial Court of Ma5ati are 6E) A67*E. %avin, no +urisdiction over the case, the respondent +ud,e is hereb( en+oined fro- proceedin, "ith Civil Case No. /03.14. and further, Case No. /03.14. is hereb( *76M766E*. 6' 'R*ERE*. G.R. No. 111..1 is a petition for certiorari of the resolution of the '-buds-an 3 dis-issin, the case filed before it b( herein petitioner. )he above3doc5eted cases "ere consolidated per resolution of the Court on Au,ust .!, 1//1, as the facts in both cases "ere the sa-e. )hese facts are the follo"in,#

'n Au,ust 10, 1//0, the 'ffice of the *irector, Enforce-ent and 6ecurit( 6ervices 8E669, Bureau of Custo-s, received infor-ation re,ardin, the presence of alle,edl( unta:ed vehicles and parts in the pre-ises o"ned b( a certain Pat %ao located alon, ;uirino Avenue, Parana2ue and %onduras 6t., Ma5ati. After conductin, a surveillance of the t"o places, respondent Ma+or 0ai-e Ma,lipon, Chief of 'perations and 7ntelli,ence of the E66, reco--ended the issuance of "arrants of sei<ure and detention a,ainst the articles stored in the pre-ises. 'n Au,ust 11, 1//0, *istrict Collector of Custo-s )itus =illanueva issued the "arrants of sei<ure and detention. 'n the sa-e date, respondent Ma,lipon coordinated "ith the local police substations to assist thein the e:ecution of the respective "arrants of sei<ure and detention. )hereafter, the tea- searched the t"o pre-ises. 7n Ma5ati, the( "ere barred fro- enterin, the place, but so-e -e-bers of the tea- "ere able to force the-selves inside. )he( "ere able to inspect the pre-ises and noted that so-e articles "ere present "hich "ere not included in the list contained in the "arrant.. %ence, on Au,ust 1>, 1//0, a-ended "arrants of sei<ure and detention "ere issued b( =illanueva. 'n Au,ust .>, 1//0, custo-s personnel started haulin, the articles pursuant to the a-ended "arrants. )his pro-pted petitioners Narciso 0ao and Bernardo E-pe(nado to file a case for 7n+unction and *a-a,es, doc5eted as Civil Case No. /03.14. "ith pra(er for Restrainin, 'rder and Preli-inar( 7n+unction before the Re,ional )rial Court of Ma5ati Branch >! on Au,ust .?, 1//0 a,ainst respondents. 'n the sa-e date, the trial court issued a )e-porar( Restrainin, 'rder. 'n 6epte-ber ?, 1//0, respondents filed a Motion to *is-iss on the ,round that the Re,ional )rial Court has no +urisdiction over the sub+ect -atter of the co-plaint, clai-in, that it "as the Bureau of Custo-s that had e:clusive +urisdiction over it. 'n Nove-ber .0, 1//0, the trial court denied respondents@ -otion to dis-iss. 'n Nove-ber ./, 1//0, petitioners@ application for preli-inar( prohibitor( and -andator( in+unction "as ,ranted conditioned upon the filin, of a one -illion peso bond. )he Court also prohibited respondents fro- sei<in,, detainin,, transportin, and sellin, at public auction petitioners@ vehicles, spare parts, accessories and other properties located at No. .!!1 %onduras 6t., 6an 7sidro, Ma5ati and at No. . 0 ;uirino Avenue, )a-bo, Parana2ue, Metro Manila. Respondents "ere further prohibited fro- disturbin, petitioners@ constitutional and proprietar( ri,hts over their properties located at the aforesaid pre-ises. Aastl(, respondents "ere ordered to return the sei<ed ite-s and to render an accountin, and inventor( thereof. 'n *ece-ber 11, 1//0, respondents filed a -otion for reconsideration based on the follo"in, ,rounds# a9 the lo"er court havin, no +urisdiction over the sub+ect -atter of the co-plaint, it has no recourse but to dis-iss the sa-eB and 8b9 the lo"er court had no le,al authorit( to issue an in+unction therein. 'n 0anuar( 1, 1//1 the -otion for reconsideration "as denied. Respondents then "ent to the Court of Appeals on the ,round that the +ud,e acted "ith ,rave abuse of discretion in den(in, their -otion

to dis-iss and in ,rantin, petitioners@ application for preli-inar( in+unction. )he( ar,ued that the Re,ional )rial Court had no +urisdiction over sei<ure and forfeiture proceedin,s, such +urisdiction bein, e:clusivel( vested in the Bureau of Custo-s. )he Court of Appeals set aside the 2uestioned orders of the trial court and en+oined it fro- further proceedin, "ith Civil Case No. /03.14.. )he appellate court also dis-issed the said civil case. 'n Ma( ., 1//., petitioners filed a petition "ith this Court to revie" the decision of the Court of Appeals doc5eted as G.R. No. 10 !0 . As re,ards G.R. No. 111..1, petitioners filed cri-inal char,es a,ainst respondents, other officers and e-plo(ees of the Bureau of Custo-s and -e-bers of the Ma5ati Police before the 'ffice of the '-buds-an for Robber(, =iolation of *o-icile and =iolation of Republic Act No. 101/, doc5eted as 'MB Case No. 03/03.0.?. Respondent '-buds-an su--ari<ed the case before it as follo"s# )his is an affidavit3co-plaint filed b( the co-plainants a,ainst the respondents, 'fficers and E-plo(ees of the Bureau of Custo-s and -e-bers of the Ma5ati Police alle,edl( for violation of *o-icile and Robber( defined and penali<ed under Articles 1.4, ./1 and ./ of the Revised Penal Code and for violation of R.A. 101/ co--itted as follo"s, to "it# )hat on Au,ust 11, 1//0, after receivin, intelli,ence infor-ation of the presence of s-u,,led ,oods, so-e of the respondents headed b( 0ai-e Ma,lipon posed the-selves as Meralco inspectors and entered co-plainants@ stoc5(ards and residence located at .!!1 %onduras 6treet, Ma5ati, Metro Manila and at . 0 ;uirino Avenue, )a-bo Parana2ue for the purpose of searchin, s-u,,led ,oods found therein "ithout the consent of the o"ner thereofB )hat after the search, respondents on Au,ust 11, 1//0 up to Au,ust .>, 1//0, this ti-e clothed "ith a $arrant of 6ei<ure and *etention, "ith the aid of the Ma5ati Police and several heavil( ar-ed -en entered co-plainants stoc5(ard located at .!!1 %onduras 6t., Ma5ati, Metro Manila, and pulled out therefro- several -achineries and truc5 spare parts "ithout issuin, the correspondin, receipts to the co-plainants to cover all the ite-s ta5en. Respondents clai-ed in their consolidated and verified co--ent that the( are not liable for violation of do-icile because the places entered and searched b( theappear not to be the residences of the co-plainants but onl( their "arehouses. As proof of this alle,ation, the respondents presented the pictures of said "arehouses, "hich are attached to their co--ent as Anne:es C!C, C!3AC to C!3CC and the 6heriff@s return li5e"ise attached to their verified co--ents as Anne: C?C. Accordin, to the respondents, a char,e for violation of do-icile -a( appl( onl( if the place entered into a,ainst the "ill of the o"ner is used e:clusivel( for d"ellin,. 7n the case at bar, the place entered into "as used -ore of a "arehouse than a d"ellin, place. &urther respondents also clai-ed not liable for robber( 8sic9 because the co-plainants appear not to be the o"ners of the properties ta5en. Moreover, the respondents clai-ed that the ta5in, is la"ful because the sa-e proceeded fro- a

"arrant of 6ei<ures and *etentionB there "as no violence or inti-idation of person co--itted and that there "as no intent to ,ain on the part of the respondents, the purpose of the sei<ure of the sub+ect ,oods bein, to collect custo-s duties and ta:es due the ,overn-ent. Aastl(, the respondents disclai-ed liabilit( for a violation of R.A. 101/ because the( den( havin, de-anded fro- the co-plainants the su- of P100,000.00. 7nstead accordin, to the respondents, it "as the co-plainants "ho offered the- P?0,000.00 to dela( the haulin, of the sei<ed ,oods as attested to in the +oint affidavit of CP6G), Ricardo Coronado and *ennis Bante2ui. A preli-inar( investi,ation "as conducted and on Ma( 11, 1//1, another hearin, "as held to ,ive the parties a chance to sub-it further evidence to support their respective clai-s. 'n March 1>, 1//1 respondent '-buds-an issued a Resolution reco--endin, that the case be dis-issed for lac5 of -erit. 'n Ma( 1?, 1//1, petitioners -oved for the reconsideration of said resolution, but the sa-e "as denied on 0ul( 4, 1//1. %ence, the petition in G.R. No. 111..1, "hich "as filed on Au,ust 1!, 1//1. 7n G.R. No. 111..1, petitioners clai- that respondent '-buds-an ,ravel( abused his discretion in dis-issin, the case and in den(in, petitioners@ -otion for reconsideration. )he( alle,e that respondent '-buds-an i,nored evidence incri-inator( to the raidersB that the receipts did not tall( "ith petitioners@ receipts nor "ith the Co--ission on Audit@s inventor(B that the respondents are ,uilt( of robber( and of violatin, petitioners@ constitutional ri,ht a,ainst violation of do-icile. &or these reasons, petitioners pra( that the '-buds-an@s resolution be reversed and that the Court direct the '-buds-an to cause the filin, of cri-inal char,es as -a( be "arranted a,ainst respondents. $e find the petition in G.R. No. 111..1 devoid of -erit. )he Court, reco,ni<in, the investi,ator( and prosecutor( po"ers ,ranted b( the Constitution to the 'ffice of the '-buds-an and for reasons of practicalit(, declared, in an En Banc resolution dated Au,ust 10, 1//1, issued in G.R. Nos. 101 !3 ? 4 that the Court "ill not interfere nor pass upon findin,s of public respondent '-buds-an to avoid its bein, ha-pered b( innu-erable petitions assailin, the dis-issal of investi,ator( proceedin,s conducted b( the 'ffice of the '-buds-an "ith re,ard to co-plaints filed before it, and that it "ill not revie" the e:ercise of discretion on the part of the fiscals or prosecutin, attorne(s each ti-e the( decide to file an infor-ation in court or dis-iss a co-plaint b( a private co-plainant. )he dis-issal b( the '-buds-an of petitioners@ co-plaint, therefore, stands. $e "ill no" discuss G.R. No. 10 !0 . Petitioners contend# 819 that the Court of Appeals erred in not holdin, that the Collector of Custo-s could no lon,er order the sei<ure for the second ti-e of ite-s previousl( sei<ed and released after a-nest( pa(-ents of duties and ta:esB 8.9 that the Bureau of Custo-s has lost +urisdiction to order the sei<ure of the ite-s because the i-portation had ceasedB 819 that the sei<ure of the ite-s

deprived the petitioners of their properties "ithout due process of la"B and 8 9 that there is no need to e:haust ad-inistrative re-edies. $e find no -erit in petitioners@ contentions. )here is no 2uestion that Re,ional )rial Courts are devoid of an( co-petence to pass upon the validit( or re,ularit( of sei<ure and forfeiture proceedin,s conducted b( the Bureau of Custo-s and to en+oin or other"ise interfere "ith these proceedin,s 4 )he Collector of Custo-s sittin, in sei<ure and forfeiture proceedin,s hasexclusive jurisdiction to hear and deter-ine all 2uestions touchin, on the sei<ure and forfeiture of dutiable ,oods. )he Re,ional )rial Courts are precluded fro- assu-in, co,ni<ance over such -atters even throu,h petitions ofcertiorari, prohibition or mandamus. 5 7t is li5e"ise "ell3settled that the provisions of the )ariff and Custo-s Code and that of Republic Act No. 11.>, as a-ended, other"ise 5no"n as CAn Act Creatin, the Court of )a: Appeals,C specif( the proper fora and procedure for the ventilation of an( le,al ob+ections or issues raised concernin, these proceedin,s. )hus, actions of the Collector of Custo-s are appealable to the Co--issioner of Custo-s, "hose decision, in turn, is sub+ect to the e:clusive appellate +urisdiction of the Court of )a: Appeals and fro- there to the Court of Appeals. )he rule that Re,ional )rial Courts have no revie" po"ers over such proceedin,s is anchored upon the polic( of placin, no unnecessar( hindrance on the ,overn-ent@s drive, not onl( to prevent s-u,,lin, and other frauds upon Custo-s, but -ore i-portantl(, to render effective and efficient the collection of i-port and e:port duties due the 6tate, "hich enables the ,overn-ent to carr( out the functions it has been instituted to perfor-. 6 Even if the sei<ure b( the Collector of Custo-s "ere ille,al, "hich has (et to be proven, "e have said that such act does not deprive the Bureau of Custo-s of +urisdiction thereon.
Respondents assert that respondent 0ud,e could entertain the replevin suit as the sei<ure is ille,al, alle,edl( because the "arrant issued is invalid and the sei<in, officer li5e"ise "as devoid of authorit(. )his is to lose si,ht of the distinction bet"een the e:istence of the po"er and the re,ularit( of the proceedin, ta5en under it. )he ,overn-ental a,enc( concerned, the Bureau of Custo-s, is vested "ith e:clusive authorit(. Even if it be assu-ed that in the e:ercise of such e:clusive co-petence a taint of ille,alit( -a( be correctl( i-puted, the -ost that can be said is that under certain circu-stances the ,rave abuse of discretion conferred -a( oust it of such +urisdiction. 7t does not -ean ho"ever that correspondin,l( a court of first instance is vested "ith co-petence "hen clearl( in the li,ht of the decisions the la" has not seen fit to do so. <

)he alle,ations of petitioners re,ardin, the propriet( of the sei<ure should properl( be ventilated before the Collector of Custo-s. $e have had occasion to declare#
)he Collector of Custo-s "hen sittin, in forfeiture proceedin,s constitutes a tribunal e:pressl( vested b( la" "ith +urisdiction to hear and deter-ine the sub+ect -atter of such proceedin,s "ithout an( interference fro- the Court of &irst 7nstance. 8Au(on, %ian v. Court of )a: Appeals, et al., 1/ 6CRA 109. )he Collector of Custo-s of 6ual3*a,upan in 6ei<ure 7dentification No. 1 3&3?. constituted itself as a tribunal to hear and deter-ine a-on, other thin,s, the 2uestion of "hether or not the MD= Auc5( 6tar 7 "as sei<ed "ithin the territorial "aters of the Philippines. 7f the private respondents believe that the sei<ure "as -ade outside the territorial +urisdiction of the Philippines, it should raise the sa-e as a defense before the Collector of Custo-s and if not satisfied, follo" the correct appellate procedures. A separate action before the Court of &irst 7nstance is not the re-ed(.=

$%ERE&'RE, the petitions in G.R. No. 10 !0 and in G.R. No. 111..1 are hereb( *76M766E* for lac5 of -erit. 6' 'R*ERE*. Feliciano, Padilla, Regalado, Davide, Jr., Bellosillo, Puno, Vitug, Kapunan, Mendo a, Francisco and !ermosisima, Jr., JJ., concur. "arvasa, #.J. and Melo, J., are on leave. $ootnote. 1 G.R. No. 10 !0 , Rollo p. .1, )orres, ponente, &rancisco and 6antia,o, JJ. concurrin,. . G.R. No. 111..1, Rollo, p. /1. 1 'ca-po v. '-buds-an, ..> 6CRA ?.> 81//19. Co--issioner of Custo-s v. Ma5asiar, 1?? 6CRA 81/4/9. > General )ravel 6ervice v. *avid, G.R. No. A31/.>/, 6epte-ber .1, 1/!!, 14 6CRA >/B Pacis v. Averia, G.R. No. A3..>.!, Nove-ber ./, 1/!!, 14 6CRA /0?B *e 0o(a v. Aantin, G.R. No. A3. 01?, April .?, 1/!?, 1/ 6CRA 4/1B Ponce Enrile v. =inu(a, G.R. No. A3./0 1, 0anuar( 10, 1/?1, 1? 6CRA 141B Collector of Custo-s v. )orres, G.R. No. A3../??, Ma( 11, 1/?., > 6CRA .?.B Pacis v. Geroni-o, G.R. No. A3 . 0!4, April .1, 1/? , >! 6CRA >41B Co--issioner of Custo-s v. Navarro, G.R. No. A3111 !, Ma( 11, 1/??, ?? 6CRA .! B Republic v. Bocar, G.R. No. A31>.!0, 6epte-ber , 1/?/, /1 6CRA ?4B *e la &uente v. *e =e(ra, G.R. No. A31>14>, 0anuar( 11, 1/41, 1.0 6CRA >1. ! Co--issioner of Custo-s v. Ma5asiar, supra. ? Ponce Enrile v. =enu(a, supra. 4 *e la &uente v. de =e(ra, supra.