Yaokasin v. Commissioner of Customs, GR No. 84111.

December 22, 1989

Petitioner:
 Jimmy O. Yaokasin
Parties Respondents:
 Commissioner of Customs – Salvador M. Mison (Commissioner)
 District Collector of the Port of Tacloban – Vicente D. Yutangco (Collector)
Disputed Applicability of Sec. 12 of Integrated Reorganization Plan (Plan), as implemented by
Matter Customs Memorandum Order No. 20-87 (CMO*) in the case at bar.
(1) Power of automatic review by Commissioner of Customs over
(2) Decisions of Collector of Customs in
(3) Protest and seizure cases
Nature of Petition for Review
Action
Facts May 27, 1988
Antecedent  Ph Coast Guard seized 9,000 bags of refined sugar
 Turned over to Bureau of Customs
 [Note: Allegedly imported/smuggled goods – duties unpaid]

June 3 and 6, 1988

 Petitioner showed local invoice but Collector proceeded with seizure
 But after hearing, Collector’s decisionA is to release items to petitioner

June 10, 1988

 Decision + records forwarded to Commissioner

June 14, 1988

 Collector ordered warehouse to be sealed (despite previous decisionA which is
not modified)

June 19, 1988

 Economic Intelligence Investigation Board (EIIB) filed Motion for
Reconsideration – with evidence that sugars were imported
 Hearing set on July 13, 1988

July 4, 1988
 Commissioner returned case to Collector with motion for reconsideration
 Petitioner secured a writ of replevin1 from Leyte RTC

July 12, 1988

 Collector filed answer questioning jurisdiction of Leyte RTC
 Collector and Commissioner filed motion with CA to annul writ of replevin1/TRO
issuedB

July 15, 1988

 Collector reversed previous decisionA – declared sugar forfeited in favor of the
government for being imported/smuggled; requested Commissioner to order
immediate transfer of goods to customs warehouse
  CA granted motionsB

Current petition for review

Contentions:
 Petitioner
Collector’s decisionA shall be upheld as there is no appeal by aggrieved party
(himself – obviously he will not appeal the decision as it was favorable to him)
within the 15 days allowed under Sec. 2313 of Tariff and Customs Code (Code).

 Respondents
DecisionA is subject to automatic review by commissioner being adverse to the
government under the CMO*.

Issue Should CMO* No. 20-87 allowing automatic review of Commissioner on protest and
seizure cases decided unfavorable of the government be held in force in the case at
bar?
Ruling Yes.
Ratio  The CMO* implements Sec. 12 of the Integrated Reorganization Plan (‘Plan’)
 PD No. 1 declared Plan as part of the law of the land, Sec. 12 was not repealed
thus still in force (existing law)
 Sec. 12, as implemented by the CMO* is applicable to case at bar
o Taxes are the lifeblood of the government
o CMO* enacted to protect government’s interest in collection of taxes
and customs duties
o In seizure and protest cases decided in favor of the taxpayer (thus
against the gov’t), the taxpayer is not expected to appeal the decision
o Without the automatic review, these cases will be left at full discretion
of Collector not ever coming to the knowledge of the Commissioner.
This creates a condition susceptible to tax evasion
o The CMO* remedies above situation and protect gov’t from corrupt and
conniving tax collectors
 Sec. 2313 of the Code and Sec. 12 of the Plan, not in conflict
o Sec. 2313 applies to decisions unfavorable to aggrieved party (thus,
appealed by him)
o Sec. 12 applies to decisions unfavorable to the gov’t
 The case of Sy Man is not applicable
o In Sy Man there is no express grant of power to the Insular Collector
(now Commissioner)
o In case at bar, Commissioner is acting in compliance with an existing
law
 Sec. 12, implemented by the CMO* is in force despite not being published in
Official Gazette
o Plan is part of PD No. 1, published in the Gazette
o CMO* is only an administrative order not required to be published as it
has no general applicability
 Dissenting  It is Sec. 2313 of the Code that should apply
Opinion o The Plan is a general law, i.e., concerned with the reorganization of the
executive branch in a martial law regime
o The Code is a special law – specific on tariffs and customs duties
o The Code prevails over the Plan in application
o Sec. 12 of the Plan is no longer a good law, as even the intention is to
grant the Commissioner automatic review powers, it was never really
carried out
 Sy Man case applicable – same circumstance
o Memo Order is not approved by Dept Head and not published in Official
Gazette, so no legal effect
o Memo inconsistent with law, there is no law allowing Commissioner
power to review and revise unappealed decisions of Collector in seizure
cases
o Decisions of Collector, if not appealed is final, even if agains the gov’t

1
prejudgment process ordering the seizure or attachment of alleged illegally taken or wrongfully withheld property to be held in
the U.S. Marshal's custody or that of another designated official, under order and supervision of the court, until the court
determines otherwise.