G.R. No. 208318, June 30, 2021
THE COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS AND THE UNDERSECRETARY OF THE DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE, PETITIONERS, VS. GOLD MARK SEA CARRIERS, INC., AS THE REGISTERED OWNER OF THE BARGE “CHERYL ANN,” RESPONDENT.

FACTS

The case involves the seizure and forfeiture of respondent Gold Mark Sea Carriers, Inc.’s barge “Cheryl Ann” by the Bureau of Customs (BOC) and the Department of Finance (DOF) for allegedly being used in the unlawful importation or transport of contraband or smuggled articles in commercial quantities, under Section 2530(a) of the Tariff and Customs Code of the Philippines (TCCP). The respondent contended it was a common carrier and thus exempt from liability under the proviso in Section 2530(a), which states forfeiture does not apply if the vessel is a “duly authorized common carrier and as such a carrier it is not chartered or leased.” The respondent presented its Certificate of Registry and Certificate of Ownership as proof. The Court of Tax Appeals (CTA) En Banc agreed with the respondent, declaring it a common carrier exempt from Section 2530(a) despite the existence of a Charter Agreement for the barge. The CTA also applied the principle “accessory follows the principal,” reasoning the barge, being towed by a tugboat, had no independent intent to unload in the Philippines.

ISSUE

Whether the respondent’s barge “Cheryl Ann” is exempt from forfeiture under Section 2530(a) of the TCCP as a common carrier that is not chartered or leased, and whether the principle “accessory follows the principal” is applicable to exempt the barge from liability.

RULING

Justice Perlas-Bernabe, in her concurring opinion, voted to GRANT the petition and reinstate the forfeiture. She held that the CTA En Banc erred. First, the express wording of the proviso in Section 2530(a) requires that for the exemption to apply, the carrier must not only be a common carrier but also one that is “not chartered or leased.” Since the respondent’s barge was subject to a Charter Agreement, it did not qualify for the exemption, regardless of its status as a common carrier. The law is clear and leaves no room for construction. Second, the principle “accessory follows the principal” is inapplicable as it pertains to property law disputes concerning ownership by accession, not to liability under customs laws. The TCCP provisions (Sections 2530 and 2531) render each conveyance bearing illegal goods liable. The respondent failed to disprove knowledge or participation in the unlawful importation. Therefore, the forfeiture of the barge under Section 2530(a) of the TCCP should be reinstated.