Bache & Co v Ruiz

Facts:

On 24 February 1970, respondent Misael Vera, Commissioner of Internal Revenue, wrote a letter addressed to
respondent Judge Vicencio Ruiz requesting the issuance of a search warrant against petitioners for violation of
the National Internal Revenue Code and authorizing respondent de Leon to make and file the application for the
same.

In the afternoon of the following day, de Leon and his witness, Arturo Logronio, went to the CFI of Rizal and
brought the necessary documents for the application for search warrant. The Clerk of Court took first their
depositions because Judge Ruiz was still conducting a hearing. But after the session, Judge Ruiz was able to
take Logronio’s oath and signed the application. Thus, the issuance of Search Warrant No. 2-M-70.

Three days after, which was on a Saturday, the BIR agents served the search warrant at petitioner’s corporate
office in Ayala, Makati. Petitioners’ lawyers protested the search on the ground that no formal complaint,
transcript or testimony was attached. The agents nevertheless proceeded with the search and yielded 6 boxes of
documents.

On 03 March 1970, petitioners filed a petition with the CFI of Rizal praying that the search warrant be quashed
and be considered null and void. But respondent Judge dismissed the petition. Consequently, the BIR made tax
assessments against petitioners based on the seized documents. Hence, this present petition.

ISSUE: Whether or not petitioners may object against search and seizure?

RULING: YES.

Among others, the issue that a corporation is not entitled to protection against unreasonable search and
seizures is being raised in this case.

The Court ruled that although it is of the opinion that an officer of a corporation which is charged with
a violation of a statute of the state of its creation, nevertheless, they do not wish to be understood as holding a
corporation not entitled to immunity against unreasonable search and seizures. After all, a corporation is an
association of individuals under an assumed name and with a distinct legal entity. In organizing itself as a
collective body, it waives no constitutional immunities appropriate to such body. Its property cannot be taken
without compensation. It can only be proceeded against by due process of law, and is protected under the 4 th
amendment against unlawful discrimination.

In addition, the Court states, citing the case of Stonehill v. Diokno, the imlied recognition on the right
of a corporation to object against unreasonable search and seizures, to wit:

“It is well settled that the legality of a seizure can be contested only by the party whose rights have
been impaired thereby, and that the objection to an unlawful search and seizure is purely personal and
cannot be availed of by third parties. Consequently, petitioners may not validly invoke object to the use
as evidence against them of the documents, papers and things seized from the offices and premises of
the corporation, since such right belongs exclusively to the corporations, the whom the seized effects
belong, and may not be invoked by the corporate officers in proceedings against them in their
individual capacity.”