G.R. No. L-19606, April 24, 1967
BUENAVENTURA TAN, petitioner, vs. THE HONORABLE MACARIO PERALTA, Secretary of National Defense, COLONEL AGUSTIN MARKING, Administrator, General Affairs Administration, DEPARTMENT OF NATIONAL DEFENSE ET AL., respondents.

FACTS

On March 28, 1962, a composite group from the Philippine Constabulary, Manila Police Department, Bureau of Internal Revenue, and Bureau of Customs, armed with a search warrant issued by Judge Ambrosio Geraldez of the Municipal Court of Manila, entered petitioner Buenaventura Tan’s business establishment (B.T. Commercial) at Dasmariñas Street, Manila. They seized considerable quantities of merchandise (watches, jewelry, personal effects) and documents (checks, invoices, etc.). The seized goods were placed in the custody of the Bureau of Customs for possible administrative or criminal charges.
On March 31, 1962, petitioner filed a petition for mandamus and declaratory relief with preliminary injunction, seeking the return of the seized goods and papers, and to restrain further searches. The Court issued a preliminary injunction.
The Field Investigator’s report (April 11, 1962) concluded that no evidence existed to link the seized articles to customs violations or to warrant administrative or criminal charges, and recommended the return of the goods unless the Bureau of Internal Revenue (BIR) had evidence of tax violations. BIR examiners later certified (July 9, 1962) that the purchases were local and covered by invoices.
Upon petitioner’s urgent motion, the Court issued a release order for the goods upon a bond of P50,000 (July 25, 1962). Respondents moved for reconsideration, seeking a bond of P119,878, but this was denied (November 7, 1962).
On November 2, 1966, the Court ordered the parties to show cause why the case should not be dismissed as moot. The Solicitor General, representing respondents, manifested that with the return of the goods, the issues had become moot and academic, but reiterated the motion for an additional bond of P69,878 to complete the alleged tax due of P119,878.

ISSUE

Whether the case should be dismissed as moot and academic, and whether petitioner should be required to post an additional bond for alleged tax dues.

RULING

The Court dismissed the case as moot. The issues became academic after the return of the seized goods to petitioner. No criminal, administrative, or civil complaint had been lodged against petitioner regarding the goods, and there was no showing in the record to support the computation of alleged tax dues amounting to P119,878. Thus, the Court found no ground to increase the bond already filed by petitioner. The dismissal is without prejudice to any further right of action the Government may have against petitioner on the bond filed for the release of the goods. No costs.